34 player rosters-one opinion

@DaddyBaller

You are preaching to the choir.

You don't have to give me specifics. You don't have to tell me how it works. Trust me. What you do have to understand is that there really are a lot of coaches out there that have their own way of going about putting a team together. And they might look you and your son straight in the eye and not be truthful.

I never mentioned fall is for tryouts for spring. I suggested finding methods to find out about the program.

I suggested that parents and players do their homework. 

If you need help in knowing how let me know.

@DaddyBaller posted:

@TPM I will try to make this simple for you.

The secret is the lack of transparency in college baseball recruiting.

You still would need to "do your research" , but there would be some basic guardrails to protect players from a bait and switch.

What would be the downside to that @TPM ?

There is no downside to setting a standard and sticking to it. I think that a lot of coaches are lazy or just think that they are safe with their position. I have seen a lot of really good coaches get fired because they had a few tough seasons. The donors get pissed off. Threaten not to give money.

Sometimes it takes a while to get your team on the same page, especially when they are young.  It's a very hard job and there are a lot of coaches out there that deffinetly do the right thing. This is why I say do your homework.

The NCAA needed to set a standard  and rules this summer. But they didn't. But that didn't stop the coaches who do the right thing from doing the right thing! What it did was just make the sketchy ones more sketchy.

IMO the extra eligibility due to covid really messed things up for freshman.

@nycdad posted:

@CollegebaseballInsights are you advocating for nothing to change with fall rosters and leave them as they are now? What number in the fall do you think is reasonable?

I get that coaches want as much time as they can to evaluate, but I think with advances in technology coaches should be able to be better evaluators than they were years ago. When my son was going through this, the good recruiters wanted to see full inning videos of my son pitching, not just the strike outs, etc. They could also go to GC or the equivalent and see scores.

I think there's a difference between incorrectly evaluating a player, cutting him in the fall and stock piling players knowing you can just work out in the fall (And yes I get that the later can sometimes be part of "doing your homework"...sometimes)

@nycdad if you read some of my previous post in this thread, fall rosters should be 39 to 42. 

Again, technology doesn't doesn't mean cr*p if you can't perform under certain scenarios.

Fall baseball is used to determine who is good enough to play in the spring.

@TPM posted:

There is no downside to setting a standard and sticking to it. I think that a lot of coaches are lazy or just think that they are safe with their position.

The NCAA needed to set a standard  and rules this summer. But they didn't. But that didn't stop the coaches who do the right thing from doing the right thing! What it did was just make the sketchy ones more sketchy.

Glad to see we do share some common ground @TPM 😁

That has been my point all along. I am looking for the NCAA to set some basic roster rules that would help the student athletes make informed decisions. I know I'm a dreamer.

If this settlement goes through as has been discussed the fall of 2025 is going to be flooded with more players looking for a home than any year prior. So that's what makes the "do your research" comment very frustrating to a 2025 parent.

It's hard to research an unprecedented event. And coaches can't honestly manage their existing rosters and their incoming recruiting classes when the rules have yet to be determined. We are all flying blind right now.

My gripes have been with the NCAA from the start.

@TPM posted:

Bringing in huge numbers of walk ons isn't new.

if you don’t get an athletic scholarship are you considered a walk on?  On average, how many kids on scholarship get cut in the fall?

@TPM posted:

Sometimes it takes a while to get your team on the same page, especially when they are young.  It's a very hard job and there are a lot of coaches out there that deffinetly do the right thing. This is why I say do your homework.

this is another thing I have been thinking about.  How hard is it for a coach to create a winning culture if the roster changes a ton every year?  I’d think he want the same (say 5) starters for at least two but more like 3 years.  (Obviously with some exceptions). What is the culture like on a team that has a lot of turnover year over year, with kids transferring in and out?

If teams were stable, I’d think most incoming freshman would have no issue learning and developing and getting a few token innings with the hope/expectation of playing sophomore or junior year.

@Dadof3 posted:

If teams were stable, I’d think most incoming freshman would have no issue learning and developing and getting a few token innings with the hope/expectation of playing sophomore or junior year.

That’s exactly how it was when I played. The travel ball business model is largely responsible for the lack of patience among freshman players and their parents. (Reference my previous post).  And the advent of the transfer portal now makes it possible to act on a lack of patience. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes a kid needs to transfer. But the number of times a kid really needs to transfer would drop considerably if the current “rules of engagement” were more balanced. I think that’s what almost everyone is saying. And that’s what most people hope comes out of the House Settlement Agreement.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Again, technology doesn't doesn't mean cr*p if you can't perform under certain scenarios.

What exactly is needed to make a decision? What will college baseball look like if there is a a max of 34 roster spots in the spring? I think college coaches are smart and would adapt. Just like they adapt to every other change.

How about more team camps, as well as individual camps over the summer? With the new rules coaches can't afford to develop kids for a year, etc and it seems like these will become more valuable.

Is the only way to field a D1 roster is by bringing in so many kids that you cut ~19% every fall?

@adbono posted:

That’s exactly how it was when I played. The travel ball business model is largely responsible for the lack of patience among freshman players and their parents. (Reference my previous post).  And the advent of the transfer portal now makes it possible to act on a lack of patience. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes a kid needs to transfer. But the number of times a kid really needs to transfer would drop considerably if the current “rules of engagement” were more balanced. I think that’s what almost everyone is saying. And that’s what most people hope comes out of the House Settlement Agreement.

@adbono

I don't see that happening.

We are living through "Who Moved My Cheese" era.

there are a lot more mice "Sniff" and "Scurry" than little people "Haw" and "Hem"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYCLxqkfvY

Note, the numbers are not with the Haws and Hems of the world.

Note,  the showcase model along with technology (e.g. social media) have accelerated this migration.

Note, previous model was more indentured servitude.

If you read Justice Kavanaugh summation is the Alston vs NCAA case, it moved towards open markets.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...-opinion/7771281002/

Note, if you look at the bills put forth by difference groups in Congress, you will understand who is for the student athlete vs big business protections.

@Dadof3 posted:

if you don’t get an athletic scholarship are you considered a walk on?  On average, how many kids on scholarship get cut in the fall?

Yes, that's the definition of a walk on.  Back before the pandemic, there was often discussion on this site of terms like "preferred walk-on", I don't know if that is still thrown around. The idea (which had no legal basis) was that they weren't getting athletic money, but were "guaranteed" a spot on the spring roster.

it can be the case that a player has a really good academic or state-run scholarship and doesn't need athletic money.  Technically, they are also walk-ons.  Therefore, they are more at risk for being cut.

If a player has athletic money from the university (not from an NIL collective), he has signed a National Letter of Intent (NLI) which says that he is guaranteed to have that money for XX years, unless certain criteria are met (crime, academic ineligibility, etc.).

A school can't break those NLI contracts.  But, a coach can tell a scholarship player, "You won't get any playing time if you stay," hoping that the player leaves on his own.  Is that being "cut"?  If the player refuses to leave, then the coach can't give that scholarship money to anyone else.  But the kid's baseball career is probably over.

@nycdad posted:

What exactly is needed to make a decision? What will college baseball look like if there is a a max of 34 roster spots in the spring? I think college coaches are smart and would adapt. Just like they adapt to every other change.

How about more team camps, as well as individual camps over the summer? With the new rules coaches can't afford to develop kids for a year, etc and it seems like these will become more valuable.

Is the only way to field a D1 roster is by bringing in so many kids that you cut ~19% every fall?

@nycdad Again, don't conflate spring season with the fall season. 

Spring number of 34 is fine.  Fall should be 39 to 42.

if you look at rosters before covid ~175 programs had 35 or more players

https://collegebaseballinsight...nover-insights-free/

As for camps (team or individual), what is the purpose?  My take, which can be consider controversial, is there any true value or are these camps to generate $$$ for the coaches and next years travel budget?

Note, for all the $$$ families are paying for the travel program (between 7k and 10k), one would think they are receiving all the services required to prepare student athlete for the college experience.

Especially if you are performing baseball activities 10 months out of year.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

@nycdad Again, don't conflate spring season with the fall season.

Spring number of 34 is fine.  Fall should be 39 to 42.

if you look at rosters before covid ~175 programs had 35 or more players

https://collegebaseballinsight...nover-insights-free/

As for camps (team or individual), what is the purpose?  My take, which can be consider controversial, is there any true value or are these camps to generate $$$ for the coaches and next years travel budget?

Note, for all the $$$ families are paying for the travel program (between 7k and 10k), one would think they are receiving all the services required to prepare student athlete for the college experience.

Especially if you are performing baseball activities 10 months out of year.

Not conflating anything, you are talking around my question.

Are you ok with cutting up to 19% of the kids you bring on campus in the fall? If your answer is yes, That's fine. We disagree.

As far as team and individual camps. Absolutely money makers. But in my opinion these could also be a step solving the issue (I think it's an issue, clearly not everyone does) of cutting kids in the fall.

A coach that gives a player athletic money and takes it away doesn't know how to run his business. College baseball is a business.   It's a numbers business as well . STAY AWAY from the programs that bring in more than necessary. That screams..."coach didn't do his homework." The successful programs, big or small are way ahead of the game and know what type of player will help them win.

That's the bottom line. How the coach recruits is an indication of success or failure of his program.

I don't know why you all keep going over the same thing. There is a formula for success, whether it be  a larger or smaller program.

This discussion is very interesting to me.  Seems to me that a very small percentage of D1 players will be satisfied and happy with their experience due to unhappiness with playing time, transferring up/down, getting cut after the fall, conflicts with coaches, etc...  What do you think?  Maybe 10-15% are truly happy?

Having had 2 boys go through travel baseball and college recruiting, I've learned a lot through this board, helpful members, and the years of experience.  I still have one more boy to go.  Almost unfortunately, he wants to play college baseball like his brothers.  I have already decided that he will not go the route of playing high cost travel ball unless he is such a stud that it is free or significantly discounted.  The days of paying $7k+/year are over for me.  Nor do I want him to be a pitcher. It is nuts for us to accept that 25% or more of high level pitchers will have UCL or shoulder injuries in their careers.  Youth and high school baseball is a way to learn life lessons on resiliency, teamwork, working towards goals, staying out of trouble, HAVING FUN.  For our family, any college baseball should be to play at the best combination of academics and competition that you can realistically hang.  This particular discussion really should hammer that home.

@Dadbelly2023 posted:

This discussion is very interesting to me.  Seems to me that a very small percentage of D1 players will be satisfied and happy with their experience due to unhappiness with playing time, transferring up/down, getting cut after the fall, conflicts with coaches, etc...  What do you think?  Maybe 10-15% are truly happy?

Having had 2 boys go through travel baseball and college recruiting, I've learned a lot through this board, helpful members, and the years of experience.  I still have one more boy to go.  Almost unfortunately, he wants to play college baseball like his brothers.  I have already decided that he will not go the route of playing high cost travel ball unless he is such a stud that it is free or significantly discounted.  The days of paying $7k+/year are over for me.  Nor do I want him to be a pitcher. It is nuts for us to accept that 25% or more of high level pitchers will have UCL or shoulder injuries in their careers.  Youth and high school baseball is a way to learn life lessons on resiliency, teamwork, working towards goals, staying out of trouble, HAVING FUN.  For our family, any college baseball should be to play at the best combination of academics and competition that you can realistically hang.  This particular discussion really should hammer that home.

@Dadbelly2023 depending on where you live, American Legion  making a modest comeback,  I believe PA had 100 new team for the 2024 season.  But like everything, there is no clear path.

As for injuries, agree, saw it first hand in Jan 2015, son had SLAP Tear due to bad training at his college.  Prior to college, was never injured because he was doing advanced workout at that time with a personal trainer that was baseball specific.

@DaddyBaller posted:

Glad to see we do share some common ground @TPM 😁

That has been my point all along. I am looking for the NCAA to set some basic roster rules that would help the student athletes make informed decisions. I know I'm a dreamer.

If this settlement goes through as has been discussed the fall of 2025 is going to be flooded with more players looking for a home than any year prior. So that's what makes the "do your research" comment very frustrating to a 2025 parent.

It's hard to research an unprecedented event. And coaches can't honestly manage their existing rosters and their incoming recruiting classes when the rules have yet to be determined. We are all flying blind right now.

My gripes have been with the NCAA from the start.

Roster rules were consistent before COVID. There were 35 players on a D1 roster. Conferences decided how many traveled. As college baseball gets past COVID eligibility they’re looking to normalize roster rules again.

@RJM posted:

Roster rules were consistent before COVID. There were 35 players on a D1 roster. Conferences decided how many traveled. As college baseball gets past COVID eligibility they’re looking to normalize roster rules again.

This is correct. I did mention they screwed things up, one of which giving an extra year of eligibility for covid. It should have been based on how many they already received.

Another thing, there is a whole new generation of players who are having trouble navigating around rules that never existed before covid.

@Dadof3 posted:

If teams were stable, I’d think most incoming freshman would have no issue learning and developing and getting a few token innings with the hope/expectation of playing sophomore or junior year.

It’s on the player to have his eyes open, not lie to himself and figure out how his soph year should go. When my son played transferring involved sitting out a year or going 4-2-4. That was when colleges lived under the delusion academics mattered. With teams traveling 3000 miles for conference games now it’s obvious education doesn’t matter and major college sports are nothing but a revenue generating business.

The only thing that matters to most coaches about education is the player eligible to play. The NCAA didn’t want players transferring every year. Players weren’t progressing towards degrees. Now it’s all about money. Education is secondary.

Now with the portal and open transferring a player attending three colleges in successive years isn't uncommon.

Most D1 athletes enter college ball with hopes ranging from believing they’re a pro prospect to a glimmer of hope they’re a pro prospect. If these players really aren’t pro prospects and aren’t interested in getting an education are they just delaying adulthood by constant transferring playing baseball until their eligibility expires?

My son arrived injured freshman year and sat out. He set a goal of playing four years and leaving with a BA and MBA after five years if he didn’t sign after three years. He got his BA in three years. He figured if he was drafted high enough he would leave after three years with a degree. When he was projected in a round that doesn’t exist anymore he decided to stay and get his MBA with two more years of playing ability.

A new coach came in. He cared so much about education he chewed my son out for not signing. The program lost out on a player on the drafted list. That’s how much my son mattered to the coach.

My son played two more years, got his MBA, did an internship with a Big 4 one summer and left college with a six figure job. When my son asked to be hooked up with a summer team in an inferior league so he could intern in NYC the coach ripped into him for not being focused on baseball.

There’s BS to deal with if a player is serious about their education and baseball. But my son said given the choice he would do it all over again. I felt the same way when I played.

My daughter said the same thing about D1 college softball. She had to deal with sexual recruiting on the team. She was straight. Who do you go to about sexual harassment when your coach is also a lesbian?

@RJM posted:

It’s on the player to have his eyes open, not lie to himself and figure out how his soph year should go. When my son played transferring involved sitting out a year or going 4-2-4. That was when colleges lived under the delusion academics mattered. With teams traveling 3000 miles for conference games now it’s obvious education doesn’t matter and major college sports are nothing but a revenue generating business.

The only thing that matters to most coaches about education is the player eligible to play. The NCAA didn’t want players transferring every year. Players weren’t progressing towards degrees. Now it’s all about money. Education is secondary.

Now with the portal and open transferring a player attending three colleges in successive years isn't uncommon.

Most D1 athletes enter college ball with hopes ranging from believing they’re a pro prospect to a glimmer of hope they’re a pro prospect. If these players really aren’t pro prospects and aren’t interested in getting an education are they just delaying adulthood by constant transferring playing baseball until their eligibility expires?

My son arrived injured freshman year and sat out. He set a goal of playing four years and leaving with a BA and MBA after five years if he didn’t sign after three years. He got his BA in three years. He figured if he was drafted high enough he would leave after three years with a degree. When he was projected in a round that doesn’t exist anymore he decided to stay and get his MBA with two more years of playing ability.

A new coach came in. He cared so much about education he chewed my son out for not signing. The program lost out on a player on the drafted list. That’s how much my son mattered to the coach.

My son played two more years, got his MBA, did an internship with a Big 4 one summer and left college with a six figure job. When my son asked to be hooked up with a summer team in an inferior league so he could intern in NYC the coach ripped into him for not being focused on baseball.

There’s BS to deal with if a player is serious about their education and baseball. But my son said given the choice he would do it all over again. I felt the same way when I played.

My daughter said the same thing about D1 college softball. She had to deal with sexual recruiting on the team. She was straight. Who do you go to about sexual harassment when your coach is also a lesbian?

@rjm great perspective.

@TPM posted:

This is correct. I did mention they screwed things up, one of which giving an extra year of eligibility for covid. It should have been based on how many they already received.

Another thing, there is a whole new generation of players who are having trouble navigating around rules that never existed before covid.

@RJM  @TPM

Actually no. Rules might have stated 35.

School websites and EADA reporting shows  different.

We've been collecting data since 2014, and can go as far back as 2010

https://collegebaseballinsight...nover-insights-free/

As for providing a extra year of eligibility (4 yr schools) and 2 yrs for JUCO,

How can you say they used up a year with they didn't play or played minimal games?

There would have been class action lawsuit to get the eligibility.

@Dadbelly2023 posted:

This discussion is very interesting to me.  Seems to me that a very small percentage of D1 players will be satisfied and happy with their experience due to unhappiness with playing time, transferring up/down, getting cut after the fall, conflicts with coaches, etc...  What do you think?  Maybe 10-15% are truly happy?

Having had 2 boys go through travel baseball and college recruiting, I've learned a lot through this board, helpful members, and the years of experience.  I still have one more boy to go.  Almost unfortunately, he wants to play college baseball like his brothers.  I have already decided that he will not go the route of playing high cost travel ball unless he is such a stud that it is free or significantly discounted.  The days of paying $7k+/year are over for me.  Nor do I want him to be a pitcher. It is nuts for us to accept that 25% or more of high level pitchers will have UCL or shoulder injuries in their careers.  Youth and high school baseball is a way to learn life lessons on resiliency, teamwork, working towards goals, staying out of trouble, HAVING FUN.  For our family, any college baseball should be to play at the best combination of academics and competition that you can realistically hang.  This particular discussion really should hammer that home.

Everyone not making the spring roster will be unhappy. Of the 34 who make the spring roster outside the 18-20 who get on the field enough to be considered contributors those other14-16 are going to be upset and transfer.

Unless a player is top ten rounds draftable out of high school he’s rolling the dice going to a top fifty program. Especially now with the transfer portal. All 34 on the roster go in believing they belong on the field. It’s baseball musical chairs.

Even before the portal my son returned in the fall soph year to find a JuCo All American at his position. He had won a starting position mid season freshman year. He hit over .300. The coach told him he would start somewhere. He alternated between two positions until one of two freshman recruits stepped up.

@RJM posted:

Unless a player is top ten rounds draftable out of high school he’s rolling the dice going to a top fifty program. Especially now with the transfer portal. All 34 on the roster go in believing they belong on the field. It’s baseball musical chairs.

I was talking to my son's old club's recruiting coordinator about my son's situation last night.  He said to me, "For 2026s and beyond we are advising every player to go to a Juco or D2 then transfer unless they are getting drafted.  Then it wont matter."

@TPM posted:

A coach that gives a player athletic money and takes it away doesn't know how to run his business. College baseball is a business.   It's a numbers business as well . STAY AWAY from the programs that bring in more than necessary. That screams..."coach didn't do his homework." The successful programs, big or small are way ahead of the game and know what type of player will help them win.

That's the bottom line. How the coach recruits is an indication of success or failure of his program.

I don't know why you all keep going over the same thing. There is a formula for success, whether it be  a larger or smaller program.

Good summation - really helped me understand this conversation a little better.

So, in your opinion, find schools that the fall roster matches/close to the spring roster?

@Dadof3 posted:

Good summation - really helped me understand this conversation a little better.

So, in your opinion, find schools that the fall roster matches/close to the spring roster?

The problem has been (historically) that there are very few schools where the fall roster numbers are in line with the spring roster numbers. The current negotiations are partly about solving that part of the problem

@Master P posted:

I was talking to my son's old club's recruiting coordinator about my son's situation last night.  He said to me, "For 2026s and beyond we are advising every player to go to a Juco or D2 then transfer unless they are getting drafted.  Then it wont matter."

My son was told by pro scouts he was a potential pro prospect. He participated in two showcases where sign off by pro scouts were required. He had the thrill of playing for a ranked program. If he was in high school today I would push him towards an HA mid major like William & Mary.

@Master P posted:

I was talking to my son's old club's recruiting coordinator about my son's situation last night.  He said to me, "For 2026s and beyond we are advising every player to go to a Juco or D2 then transfer unless they are getting drafted.  Then it wont matter."

Easier said than done.  From a JUCO perspective, It depends on how successful  a school has in placing players at 4 years schools.  Also, JUCO might hold back in the fall in lieu of fall drop downs

The roster limit was always 35. Bringing it back to 34 really should not be an issue. I get it, they upped the roster limits and now there need to be cuts.

To get upset about that is shortsighted. What people should be yelling at the clouds about is the fact that the NCAA (and society) made a bunch of reactionary decisions in 2020. Everybody gets to play, everybody gets to stay. There are now 5x All Americans in a league where you only have 4 years of eligibility. Make that make sense.

In a very short period of time we saw an extra year of eligibility added, the MLB draft get shortened by 88%, roster expansion, penalty free transfers, blanket waivers, NIL deals, now roster reduction, and 100% scholarships for those who can afford it.

This whole situation was caused by those who preached doomsday in 2020 and pushed for what was wanted and not what made sense. It is now the wild west. The people got what they wanted and they don't like it. The parallels to the world beyond sports are eerily similar.

@PABaseball posted:

The roster limit was always 35. Bringing it back to 34 really should not be an issue. I get it, they upped the roster limits and now there need to be cuts.

To get upset about that is shortsighted. What people should be yelling at the clouds about is the fact that the NCAA (and society) made a bunch of reactionary decisions in 2020. Everybody gets to play, everybody gets to stay. There are now 5x All Americans in a league where you only have 4 years of eligibility. Make that make sense.

In a very short period of time we saw an extra year of eligibility added, the MLB draft get shortened by 88%, roster expansion, penalty free transfers, blanket waivers, NIL deals, now roster reduction, and 100% scholarships for those who can afford it.

This whole situation was caused by those who preached doomsday in 2020 and pushed for what was wanted and not what made sense. It is now the wild west. The people got what they wanted and they don't like it. The parallels to the world beyond sports are eerily similar.

Sure, but the issue with over recruiting in the fall existed prior to Covid. There have been numerous changes since then. Some related to Covid and more recent ones related to the House settlement and new roster, scholarship, and NIL guidelines. With the world changing, is it possible to have a system where kids aren't getting screwed in the fall? Even the families that "do their homework"?

Very interesting thread.  Thanks for the read so far.

After rec and pay to play travel/showcase ball, playing opportunities are purely based on the coaches perceptions of current or future benefits to the specific team or organization. Where benefits means opportunity to win now or in the near future, and the athlete is a cultural fit (meaning the coach likes or is indifferent to the athlete).

@JucoDad posted:

IMO, there are only 2 reasons to play college ball: 1) to enhance the college experience. 2) attempting to become a professional baseball player. If option 2 is not realistic, then the focus should be on getting an education and going somewhere the athlete will see the field (somewhere their skillset is well above the fall cut line).

This is another reason I like juco, it’s a calibration method and the athlete will understand the level of commitment required to be successful. Less surprises at the next step…

The majority of this website summarized in 3 sentences.  Well done, although I could add a #3 (at least from both of my son's perspective).

3) Girls dig baseball players.

@nycdad posted:

What exactly is needed to make a decision? What will college baseball look like if there is a a max of 34 roster spots in the spring? I think college coaches are smart and would adapt. Just like they adapt to every other change.

How about more team camps, as well as individual camps over the summer? With the new rules coaches can't afford to develop kids for a year, etc and it seems like these will become more valuable.

Is the only way to field a D1 roster is by bringing in so many kids that you cut ~19% every fall?

@nycdad being cut from any team is part of the process. 

The biggest thing that most student-athletes and families get twisted is they think they deserve a black or white answer.   And the last 4 yrs investing time and money is deserving of getting a ticket to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory.

Many are looking at Return on Investment

Simple math for travel baseball - 13u - 17u spend ~30k to 40k

Now you hope to get $$$ to attend school and play baseball,  whatever additional money the family has to provide is additional cost.

Hence, many believe but will not say it, they believe they all done what is necessary to secure a spot on the college roster.

Note, the coach with limited and time has seen and maybe test driven the player.   He has driven it off the lot and has taken it home, once home he needs to run the player through his bootcamp to determine if he drive it long term.

Problem is people think college should work the same way as youth sports, travel and HS.

Thus they want assurances for making decisions due to the financial commitments, unfortunately life doesn't work that way.

Have to say I don't agree.  The model is the college process generally.

To be admitted to a college as a student, you apply and are accepted, you pay tuition, and attend classes.  They don't give you more tests after you get there, and turn some people away.   If you do the work, you will get a degree.

That's the model I think people assume for college baseball.  You get recruited, are accepted with some kind of offer, work hard, and have a roster spot.

The assumption is that if you have been offered a spot on the team, the coach has already kicked the tires, just like the admissions office has.  Obviously the coach will be evaluating you for playing time, but why would anyone assume that the coach is going to be doing more evaluation with an eye to rejecting you?  Unless he has told you that is what he does.

@TPM posted:

Don't understand your question. What do you assume is "well"? Did you know that until recently assistant a 4th assistant coach may have gotten some camp money but no benefits?

There is only a small % of coaches who really make the big bucks, mainly because they bring home the hardware and years of service. If you don't win, you go home and don't come back.

Yes, coaches bring in players and let them keep their uni as a thank you. If you understood how fall practice works, you may understand. That is why coaches don't want 34 max. That's why coaches have gone wild this fall.

It comes down to this for the recruit...DO YOUR HOMEWORK and don't be afraid to ask questions!

It was tongue and cheek.

By the way, I technically don't believe colleges should be able to recruit for sports or offer scholarships. But that's me.  I could care less about college sports on tv or national recognition.  I certainly don't believe you should go to college to simply play a sport let alone pick the school you go to for it.  (and before it's said: It shouldn't be a situation where a sport scholarship is how someone has to pay for school)

Seems to me at this point, it really isn't that hard to get recruited somewhere between D1-D3, plus JUCO and NIAA, what's hard is actually playing.  And that just feeds the entire industry from travel ball to PG to recruiting professionals as the goal and support seems to end at simply getting recruited.  here's the bill, thank you very much.

Two of the top D3 programs here have nearly 50 kids on the roster, one employs a JV team and the other can't even fit all the dressed kids in the dugout.  Maybe they should be praised for not cutting them, maybe not.

Too many are recruited and too few play. And the entire industry is built around a fantasy for most.  Do your homework shouldn't be the rallying cry for excusing the industry(not that I believe you meant it in that way).  But it still needs to be said to counter-act it, but I also don't think you can really blame too many kids/parents that are duped by the empty promises.  I do think them foolish if that's the only reason they chose a school.

@anotherparent posted:

Have to say I don't agree.  The model is the college process generally.

To be admitted to a college as a student, you apply and are accepted, you pay tuition, and attend classes.  They don't give you more tests after you get there, and turn some people away.   If you do the work, you will get a degree.

That's the model I think people assume for college baseball.  You get recruited, are accepted with some kind of offer, work hard, and have a roster spot.

The assumption is that if you have been offered a spot on the team, the coach has already kicked the tires, just like the admissions office has.  Obviously the coach will be evaluating you for playing time, but why would anyone assume that the coach is going to be doing more evaluation with an eye to rejecting you?  Unless he has told you that is what he does.

  Recruited players have been cut at D1 programs for well over 50 years - and D1 players have always been aware of that possibility. So we are not dealing with a new issue. However, the issue has gotten worse over time as over recruiting became more widespread. More players being recruited (as insurance policies, fund raisers, and tuition payers and not as baseball players) is the real problem and IMO that’s what has to stop on the part of the schools.
  From the perspective of the players & parents, an expectation that (since you were recruited) a player had a roster spot for 4 years, regardless of how he performs, when he arrives on campus is totally unrealistic outside of D3. Evaluating talent is not easy and mistakes are made every day. Part of the reason that over recruiting is so common is because of this. Extra players helps to cover up mistakes. But circumstances change and players change. Some get better and some don’t. Some buy in to the program and some don’t. So there will almost always be reasons that a player will need to be let go. And sometimes those are players on scholarship. It’s just become too commonplace and has impacted enough people that there is now a spotlight on the issue. We all are hoping that the House Settlement agreement will contain a workable solution. But for sure, too many players and parents assume things to their benefit and that needs to stop too.
  If real progress is to be made it’s going to take changes on both sides of the equation.

@anotherparent posted:

Have to say I don't agree.  The model is the college process generally.

To be admitted to a college as a student, you apply and are accepted, you pay tuition, and attend classes.  They don't give you more tests after you get there, and turn some people away.   If you do the work, you will get a degree.

That's the model I think people assume for college baseball.  You get recruited, are accepted with some kind of offer, work hard, and have a roster spot.

The assumption is that if you have been offered a spot on the team, the coach has already kicked the tires, just like the admissions office has.  Obviously the coach will be evaluating you for playing time, but why would anyone assume that the coach is going to be doing more evaluation with an eye to rejecting you?  Unless he has told you that is what he does.

This sums it up so well.

This was my wake up call that I would have never known about until I found this site.

I am strictly talking about that freshman year. The idea that you can be offered a spot on the team ,even be offered an athletic scholarship, but still be told you will never see the field and if you want to play baseball that you need to leave ASAP after maybe 2 months of observation?

That is the "secret" I know that the vast majority of baseball parents are completely oblivious to.

As @anotherparent so eloquently stated, it doesn't work that way for the non-sports students and to my knowledge I don't know if it happens in any other sport? That's why I asked about lacrosse and soccer as the roster composition is similar to baseball.

And the "dirty" part of the secret is that even if we accept the fact that as of today a coach can bring in an unlimited players for a defined number of roster spots they never present it to the high school athlete and family as a an offer to *try out* for the team. Because they know full well that very few would accept the risk of enrolling in a college with absolutely no guarantee of at least 1 full year to prove themselves.

Why would any 1st time parent or player even think to "do the research" about getting cut fall freshman year if they didn't know that was a possibility? Meanwhile the people who have complete knowledge and control over the situation purposely choose to withhold that information for their own benefit.

Now you can say "welcome to the real world" , but there are tons of laws and regulations for deceptive business practices in this country. And it would not take a genius to come up with simple rules so the freshman athlete knows exactly what they are signing up for.

@nycdad posted:

Sure, but the issue with over recruiting in the fall existed prior to Covid. There have been numerous changes since then. Some related to Covid and more recent ones related to the House settlement and new roster, scholarship, and NIL guidelines. With the world changing, is it possible to have a system where kids aren't getting screwed in the fall? Even the families that "do their homework"?

The issue was a bigger concern at the HS level. Prior to all the rule changes, there were (max) 27 scholarship players for a 35 man roster. If you were a walk on, there were always risks associated. Scholarship players weren't getting bumped out because of over recruiting, they were getting cut for non performance. And whether we think that is right or not, the issue was not that there were too many walk ons clogging up rosters. It usually had to do with being able to make more room for next years recruiting class.

The bigger issue to me is schools over recruiting at the HS level, and kids having their offers yanked right before NLI time. Commitments not honored by the school.

@nycdad posted:

With the world changing, is it possible to have a system where kids aren't getting screwed in the fall? Even the families that "do their homework"?

To answer this part.

The process is far too informal. There should be formal offers and accountability for the programs. I'm of the opinion each school should have to make a documented formal offer in writing, and there should be a hard cap on how many offers each school can make and a cap on the size each recruiting class. Once a formal offer is made schools cannot renege. Let's say you could only make 50 offers and you can only bring in 12 recruits/class - wouldn't we think coaching staffs would be more inclined to do their homework, develop relationships, watch these kids for 2-3 years before making a decision? Up until recently even football had a hard cap of 25 recruits/class. 

One of the many issues is there is no accountability or discipline for the schools. In order to prevent over recruiting, oversight from a governing body would be necessary.

Sure you still get your 3rd parties making back door deals and what not but there is no confusion. You either have a formal offer or you do not. Eliminates any confusion when it comes to an offer being there. Verbals are garbage and leaves the players/families solely reliant on the integrity of the staff. It needs to be taken out of the equation completely.

Essentially a capped NLI with a much larger signing window

It’s sad when kids graduate from college and won’t be playing anymore. But it’s also nice to not have to tilt at windmills. Due to age separation I had eight consecutive years of college softball and baseball. It wasn’t all lerfect. But I only encouraged my kids to work through the occasional issues.

If I were to tilt at windmills I believe only as many players as the team can roster should be brought in each year. Only 18-20 are contributors. 34 players should be enough for any one year. It allows for a team to bring in up to 14-16 new recruits each year.

My kids were never affected by the numbers. They had quality, one school experiences. But it’s still a belief of mine.