adbono posted:infielddad posted:Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.
As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what, one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.
This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level. Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond. They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18. Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA. Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role. Academics plays a big role also.
For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.) With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.
He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player. I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body. Our kids are not unicorns.
I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.
I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.
I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns." Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1. A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject. BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice. Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.
Your exact words from 2 days ago:
"Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters. D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players "
That was followed by this one:
"Since you named some schools I will do the same. Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure. Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD. They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play. So we are back to the point of finding the right fit. Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."
I think your posts speak for themselves. Perhaps you meant something different than you posted.. but there is nothing revisionist in my post.
Sorry, I'm not buying anything you are selling.