Why so surprised?
I believe that I mentioned that the roster would be at 34 next fall.
This is only an issue for programs with big rosters that bring in much more than needed.
Coaches are going to have to learn how to do a better job at recruiting and parents and players will have do a better job than transfering year after year.
JMO
@TPM posted:Why so surprised?
I believe that I mentioned that the roster would be at 34 next fall.
Because no one knew the date of the 34 player roster for the fall. We have all been speculating, including you. Maybe you mentioned it another thread, but in this thread you said:
"So here is my understanding. The roster max for this fall and spring is supposed to be 40 max. I explained in an earlier post why it wasn't 34 and may not end up 34 at all. I did receive my info from a few good sources. One thing that I have learned. It's a grueling season for everyone."
I did mention. Maybe in private. But D1coaches knew this was coming. Then they changed it to 40.
Don't worry, it'll change.
@nycdad posted:That's horrible. Would be better to enter the fall at 34, or even make it early November to give coaches enough time to eval and players to find a home at a JUCO, etc. Hopefully coaches don't actually wait until 12/1.
@nycdad
34 limit at beginning of the fall is not workable, especially for a just hired HC.
between 39 and 42 is a fair number for fall season.
Finding a home at a JUCO is not a given, and student athletes must keep all options open, including sitting out.
If some coaches really cared about recruits having to find a home after Dec 1, they wouldn't bring in so many. I really think that is really the ncaa objective as well as limiting activity in the portal. JMO
Wasn't this going to be settled after the House Settlement, did that happen?
TPM
why do they bring in too many? Maybe the lack of confidence in their evaluators? The 6 tool test is still valid.
Bob
@Consultant posted:TPM
why do they bring in too many? Maybe the lack of confidence in their evaluators? The 6 tool test is still valid.
Bob
They bring in too many because they just don't know how to manage their roster. It's a mathematical, numbers skill of constant add and take away.
If head coaches have lack of confidence in their evaluators, they need to make drastic changes in personnel.
Not every college roster is filled with 6 tool guys. In fact most don't.
@TPM posted:They bring in too many because they just don't know how to manage their roster. It's a mathematical, numbers skill of constant add and take away.
If head coaches have lack of confidence in their evaluators, they need to make drastic changes in personnel.
Not every college roster is filled with 6 tool guys. In fact most don't.
@TPM I would tend to agree with your comment.
eg. here is the player attrition of the SEC from 2022 thru fall 2024, note,
Florida consistently retains 36 - 37 players, whereas other schools have steadily increased their roster sizes over the years.
Note, this might be a eye strain:
2022 season
2023 season
2024 Fall
Here is the free version
@Consultant posted:TPM
why do they bring in too many? Maybe the lack of confidence in their evaluators? The 6 tool test is still valid.
Bob
@Consultant as you are aware, over the last few years, the annual coaching carousel accounts for more than 35 changes per year. Understanding the impact to a program, how many players should a new coach be able to bring in for his inaugural season
Below is the change over for South Carolina for the 2025 season
SEC as well as ACC have pretty much stay on course with recruiting and success in baseball. I heard the B10 and B12 go way overboard?
I think the numbers could actually be worse in mid D1 programs.
@TPM posted:SEC as well as ACC have pretty much stay on course with recruiting and success in baseball. I heard the B10 and B12 go way overboard?
I think the numbers could actually be worse in mid D1 programs.
BigTen and Big-12 are similar to SEC and ACC
I am new to this, no kids in college, but are you really telling me that bringing in an additional 6-8 kids (about 20% more) is going to make or break a team? Going back to what TPM said - wouldn't that be on the recruiters then? I find it hard to believe, that if the coaches/recruiters/whomever, actually went and did a thorough job evaluating kids, that they couldn't field the same level of team with a total of 34 kids. In addition, those 7 extra kids, they are likely numbers 34-42 anyway, so do they really have a shot?
Wouldn't that be on the school, if they want a coaching change, to find a coach that could work with what he has, at least the first year?
Isn't college (and college athletics) to be about the kids and preparing them for the future? not about the coaches? How does cutting 6 - 8 kids help? I completely understand if a kid enrolls into the college on his own and wants to try out for the team, I am all for that. But to recruit a kid to try out for the team? I disagree with that.
You really don't need more than 34. I am not sure how they decided on that #, other than 34 players, 34 scholarships? I do know that it is what it is for now, but hear coaches do want more, but again, does that go back to scholarships and NLI money available. I also think that 34 forces coaches to recruit, not just go to the portal to grab guys.
I am not a fan in bringing in players in fall to try out for the team.
My point has always been that it's important to have coaches on staff who understand how to recruit, for their roster and for their conference. In many programs, you need to generate revenue, and that usually includes selling out your weekend series.
Remember above all else, college sports is a business.
@Dadof3 posted:I am new to this, no kids in college, but are you really telling me that bringing in an additional 6-8 kids (about 20% more) is going to make or break a team? Going back to what TPM said - wouldn't that be on the recruiters then? I find it hard to believe, that if the coaches/recruiters/whomever, actually went and did a thorough job evaluating kids, that they couldn't field the same level of team with a total of 34 kids. In addition, those 7 extra kids, they are likely numbers 34-42 anyway, so do they really have a shot?
Wouldn't that be on the school, if they want a coaching change, to find a coach that could work with what he has, at least the first year?
Isn't college (and college athletics) to be about the kids and preparing them for the future? not about the coaches? How does cutting 6 - 8 kids help? I completely understand if a kid enrolls into the college on his own and wants to try out for the team, I am all for that. But to recruit a kid to try out for the team? I disagree with that.
I personally don't think the 6-8 kids will make or break the team. Recruiting in baseball is tough because for a 7-9 inning game position players may not have an opportunity to field a single ball and may only have 3 at bats. Pitchers may not pitch that particular game. Showcases/workouts increase player activity for evaluation, but it loses the game time situation aspect. Let's face it, there are plenty of what I call showcase warriors (those that can throw up some rather impressive measurable numbers, yet those numbers don't necessarily translate to the field). Baseball knowledge, grit, personality, etc are non-measurable factors that impact a players performance. Recruits are limited by budget/time constraints when recruiting.
I don't blame coaches. They're hired to put together a team that will represent the school in a positive way and that includes winning. With those budget/time constraits to recruit, the best way to increase the odds of putting together a solid team is by having more players to choose from when forming that finalized roster. Collegiate coaching jobs are competitive. Some are earning some serious money, so to keep those jobs they need to win. It's the responsibility of the NCAA to protect the student athlete and I think this is their attempt at doing so, but in reality it's obvious they are operating like a for-profit business. It's no longer about protecting the student athlete. So it falls on each player and their support network (parents, friends, trusted baseball network) to make careful decisions.
@Dadof3 posted:I am new to this, no kids in college, but are you really telling me that bringing in an additional 6-8 kids (about 20% more) is going to make or break a team? Going back to what TPM said - wouldn't that be on the recruiters then? I find it hard to believe, that if the coaches/recruiters/whomever, actually went and did a thorough job evaluating kids, that they couldn't field the same level of team with a total of 34 kids. In addition, those 7 extra kids, they are likely numbers 34-42 anyway, so do they really have a shot?
Wouldn't that be on the school, if they want a coaching change, to find a coach that could work with what he has, at least the first year?
Isn't college (and college athletics) to be about the kids and preparing them for the future? not about the coaches? How does cutting 6 - 8 kids help? I completely understand if a kid enrolls into the college on his own and wants to try out for the team, I am all for that. But to recruit a kid to try out for the team? I disagree with that.
@Dadof3 Unfortunately, that is not reality. As for preparing them for the future, the future for many is to get a education, degree and a job, thus the meaning of Student-Athlete.
The challenge is perception is Student-ATHLETE, with the emphasis on Athlete.
Note, this has to do with how young adults and families have flipped the participation model since 2010.
Note, it is understood from a student-athlete and family perspective the time and $$$ invested to believe that the signing to college should have certain guarantees.
Note, that does not mean the player can actually play at the highest level.
A new coach should be able to bring in additional players that fit his style. Note, those HS players that were recruited and signed by previous coach are part of the mix, but they might not meet said coaches overall objective and maybe they are just not a fit.
Note, it is a business.
@Dadof3 posted:I am new to this, no kids in college, but are you really telling me that bringing in an additional 6-8 kids (about 20% more) is going to make or break a team? Going back to what TPM said - wouldn't that be on the recruiters then? I find it hard to believe, that if the coaches/recruiters/whomever, actually went and did a thorough job evaluating kids, that they couldn't field the same level of team with a total of 34 kids. In addition, those 7 extra kids, they are likely numbers 34-42 anyway, so do they really have a shot?
Wouldn't that be on the school, if they want a coaching change, to find a coach that could work with what he has, at least the first year?
Isn't college (and college athletics) to be about the kids and preparing them for the future? not about the coaches? How does cutting 6 - 8 kids help? I completely understand if a kid enrolls into the college on his own and wants to try out for the team, I am all for that. But to recruit a kid to try out for the team? I disagree with that.
College sports are not for the benefit of the students. College athletes are just pawns in the game. The colleges generate revenue (even if it’s at a loss) or generate exposure with sports. Coaches will use whatever means they’re allowed to prevent being fired from their high paying jobs. If you want to believe there’s any morality in college sports go play D3 ball.
There are a lot of good points made in this thread. There are also some comments that miss the mark. Regarding those I offer a different perspective. In no particular order…. The NCAA has never existed to protect student/athletes. The NCAA’s singular purpose is to look out for it’s member institutions. They don’t care about the welfare of the players - they just acr like they do on occasion. On another topic, players have been recruited to try out for college teams for decades. Fall baseball is an extended tryout for all players that are not on athletic scholarships. It’s standard practice and it has been done that way for over 50 years. All players not on scholarship are keenly aware of this possibility. Also, players that are on scholarship know that it can be taken away from them for any number of reasons - some valid and some not so much. The advantage lies with the school and it always has. It seems like some people are looking for assurances that don’t exist and never have. RJM is correct that D3 is the closest thing to pure in the ranks of college baseball - and D3 isn’t totally allergic to politics, influence peddling, etc. But at least D3 hasn’t been ruined by being about money. At least not yet
Practice time limits. That is something I believe is for the protection of the student, but that's my opinion. Yes, I know that's not always followed....from personal experience.
To follow and further emphasize the position of adbono about the NCAA, House himself, and 2 other plaintiffs have written directly to Judge Wilken about the proposed settlement. They emphasize the current proposal by the NCAA attempts to foreclose and limit NIL opportunities of future student/athletes who are not part of the class lawsuit and probably not even in college at this point. They raise what seems like a very valid position: how can the NCAA restrict and control those who aren’t part of the settlement especially when there has been no collective bargaining by the NCAA with the future student athletes whose future they are attempting to control?
For many, the House position illustrates clearly how the NCAA cares about only itself while cloaking its communications as advancing the interests of student/athletes.
Assuming the settlement gets approved in April, everyone should expect more litigation into the future by future student athletes. Assuming the Judge might agree with the House position, will the NCAA agree to settle on only the retro NIL aspects?
For anyone thinking April and approval will bring certainty, as the NCAA envisions, holding one’s breath could be ill advised.
https://www.baseballamerica.co...roster-rule-changes/
Posted article (no fee required), to let everyone know that there is a lot of concern amongst ALL coaches.
I like this part: “You can have a bad fall but I’m going to keep you around and keep working with you.’ That’s not the case everywhere and we need to figure out a way to smooth it out some.”
@TPM posted:https://www.baseballamerica.co...roster-rule-changes/
Posted article (no fee required), to let everyone know that there is a lot of concern amongst ALL coaches.
Very good article
IMO, paraphrased for this thread – Go to the level where you know you’ll play, and if you choose to stretch for a brass ring school, have a backup plan in place.
They need to get this figured out so there’s less student collateral damage. There’s an average talent threshold for every level, and the goal of a parent should be as an objective advisor. An advisor in the sense that you give or get them unbiased feedback but ultimately let them have the power of the choices (They need to own the choice and the results).
The best feeling in the world for a baseball parent is watching your kid play and realizing he can hang – regardless of the level. I think the overall goal is to help objectively facilitate them finding that place, it's just harder and more complicated now...
“The NCAA currently prohibits baseball players from changing schools mid-year. Post-fall casualties of roster limits would thus be faced with sitting out for a season, finding a spot on a junior college roster or dropping down to the Division II, III or NAIA levels.”
This seems astonishing. How could the NCAA justify this for baseball when transferring mid-year is rampant in football? Assuming this is correct, it seems unlikely it would be a valid NCAA limitation if challenged in Court.
EDIT The transfer portal open for D1 baseball is after the championship season. Football has 2 portals open, after championship season and in October.
So they would have to implement a new rules as the article suggests.
My guess is 34 is not going to happen.
The roster limit of 34 in baseball as well as roster limits for all sports was filed with the Court as part of the House settlement agreement. The only wiggle room might be the Fall/Spring uncertainty. I would think the NCAA would not want Judge Wilken reading the BA article?
The fact football has more portal openings, to me at least, raises the issue of why not baseball especially when top coaches are pointing to the inequity of the current system when House is superimposed.
Will be interesting going forward as the cat is out of the bag.
The coaches that continously brought in more recruits than needed have hurt everyone that tried to do it the right way.
JMO
@TPM posted:Will be interesting going forward as the cat is out of the bag.
The coaches that continously brought in more recruits than needed have hurt everyone that tried to do it the right way.
JMO
While you may be right about that I think that you do not realize how many have been doing it the wrong way vs the few that have historically done it right. Clemson and Florida fall in the category of the few that have tried to do it right - but the vast majority of competitive D1 programs have been over-recruiting for decades. It’s not a regional or a conference issue. It has been a widespread issue in D1 baseball. That’s the reason that The Court has come down on them so hard.
There are many coaches around the country that stay within the boundaries.
And a lot of it IS regional and within specific conferences and you know that.
Why are you always making an assumption about me that I have no clue?
@TPM posted:Will be interesting going forward as the cat is out of the bag.
The coaches that continously brought in more recruits than needed have hurt everyone that tried to do it the right way.
JMO
You hit the nail on the head!
@infielddad posted:The roster limit of 34 in baseball as well as roster limits for all sports was filed with the Court as part of the House settlement agreement.
Correct. Basically, the only way the 34 limit doesn’t happen is if the House settlement doesn’t receive final approval in April.
There is a chance of that, though. There are a lot of athlete objections to the settlement that have been filed. Some of the objections to roster limits, specifically, are driven by athletes in sports like cross-country and track and field that had effectively unlimited roster sizes before and now have much smaller proposed roster limits.
The reason roster limits are part of the settlement is that House alleged that scholarship limits were anti-competitive and prevented athletes from receiving scholarships that schools would have otherwise offered if not for the scholarship limits. So, getting rid of scholarship limits pretty much has to be part of the settlement. The roster limits are a way to have a scholarship limit without calling it a scholarship limit.
@auberon posted:The reason roster limits are part of the settlement is that House alleged that scholarship limits were anti-competitive and prevented athletes from receiving scholarships that schools would have otherwise offered if not for the scholarship limits. So, getting rid of scholarship limits pretty much has to be part of the settlement. The roster limits are a way to have a scholarship limit without calling it a scholarship limit.
Thank you very much for explaining why the roster limits were decreased.
@RJM posted:College sports are not for the benefit of the students. College athletes are just pawns in the game. The colleges generate revenue (even if it’s at a loss) or generate exposure with sports. Coaches will use whatever means they’re allowed to prevent being fired from their high paying jobs. If you want to believe there’s any morality in college sports go play D3 ball.
This should be a pinned post for everyone on the site to read. Maybe add it as an acknowledgement for anyone that signs up. D3 can be just as bad though. So many schools give roster mandates to fill up the school. Buddy of mine's kid had 75 kids on their Soccer team show up for the Fall.
@adbono posted:While you may be right about that I think that you do not realize how many have been doing it the wrong way vs the few that have historically done it right. Clemson and Florida fall in the category of the few that have tried to do it right - but the vast majority of competitive D1 programs have been over-recruiting for decades. It’s not a regional or a conference issue. It has been a widespread issue in D1 baseball. That’s the reason that The Court has come down on them so hard.
Here is the head count of Clemson upon arrival of Erik Bakich
2024 Fall
2024 Spring
2023 Season
If anyone noticed, I made a post this morning but then read an article so here is a redo.
Jack Pyburn is the player, Florida Football was the team. Pyburn, now, in his last year of eligibility, made demands to stay. Included in those demands was 45k in NIL payments EVERY month as well as playing time requirements. Napier declined his demands and the player just signed with LSU. He denies the demands. But it's out there, just Google his name.
So with all that goes on in football, try to convince 100's of baseball coaches that 34 max D1 baseball players per team is fair. Try to tell that to the hundreds of HS players that want to play D1 baseball.
Note, for those that continually are moaning and groaning about D1 college baseball coaches, the 34 roster max was NOT a punishment.
See auberon's post.
CBI, I have no clue why Clemson was mentioned in adbono's post. Son played there starting in 2004 then drafted in 2007.
Jack Leggett was HC.
@TPM posted:If anyone noticed, I made a post this morning but then read an article so here is a redo.
Jack Pyburn is the player, Florida Football was the team. Pyburn, now, in his last year of eligibility, made demands to stay. Included in those demands was 45k in NIL payments EVERY month as well as playing time requirements. Napier declined his demands and the player just signed with LSU. He denies the demands. But it's out there, just Google his name.
So with all that goes on in football, try to convince 100's of baseball coaches that 34 max D1 baseball players per team is fair. Try to tell that to the hundreds of HS players that want to play D1 baseball.
Note, for those that continually are moaning and groaning about D1 college baseball coaches, the 34 roster max was NOT a punishment.
See auberon's post.
CBI, I have no clue why Clemson was mentioned in adbono's post. Son played there starting in 2004 then drafted in 2007.
Jack Leggett was HC.
@TPM understood. not a big deal about clemson.
This might be a eye charter of the ACC
https://x.com/samcehrlich/status/1869514577647731163
The hits keep coming....
Well this is just ridiculous. Either college sports is for college students, or it's not.
I hope the next thing that happens is that some non-athletes file lawsuits against their schools, saying "why should I pay these fees when I never go to athletic events?" Because fees are high, and in many cases go to support the athletic programs.
If these players are not even pretending to be students, I don't see why the other students should pay to support these professional teams.
I think you are right. College sports are going to become the minor leagues for all sports. There won’t be any opportunities for the average Joe. I think pro sports/money spent on sports has peaked or close to peaking. I think with how costly all things have become, the fact that there is no loyalty whatsoever, you will see people start to take their money elsewhere. This is just my opinion, a feeling I have.
how about this, you get four years of playing in college, all levels. You are welcome to play more, but you aren’t allowed nil or athletic money.
D3 baby. For the love of the game.
