Probably a tad off topic, but I have heard so many times about players having to sit on the bench for two years before getting in the starting lineup.
While I know this happens at times, what happens more often is the player sitting on the bench his first two years also ends up sitting on the bench his last two years. Or he no longer plays at that school. Or he no longer plays at all.
Never understood guaranteed playing situations. Starting lineup as a freshman or becoming a starter after a couple years? While neither one should ever be guaranteed it might be important in successfully recruiting a talented player by making him feel like he will be playing immediately. But guaranteeing or even suggesting that someone will be playing when they are a junior is crazy. There will be all the seniors and juniors that were ahead of him as freshman and sophomores. More importantly there will be two more full recruiting classes. And how much can you improve while sitting on the bench for two years? Not many coaches looking for full recruiting classes of kids that won't contribute until their junior year. Sure, it happens but most juniors didn't sit on the bench their first two years. There is a better chance that the junior that doesn't play his first two years will not be a big contributor ever.
I do know people can come up with examples that show differently. I just think it is best to go somewhere where you are likely to be playing ASAP, rather than waiting a couple years to play. That is just from the baseball part of the equation. Obviously there are other important reasons for going to college.