Skip to main content

39 replies

A change in rules a change in attitude

TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
I have been thinking about this and wanted to bring it up.

As you all know I am very much a believer in the college baseball experience. It worked out well for our son, it didn't always go the way he wanted it, but he enjoyed college, did well in the classroom and on the field, worked with great caring coaches who didn't abuse his arm (very important to us) grew more mature to handle life away from home for the first time and did get bigger and stronger. Although no degree as yet, we are glad he only has 30 credits left(two semesters) under his belt (and paid for). I am not sure how motivated he would be in the off season to go to class.
I also admit that as the college season approaches, a bit of sadness fills me that we will no longer be a part as being a college player's parent. Just fans now.

It appears to me that the working group that does not like the baseball draft is sending a message, make your choice before you set foot on campus, you are a student first, if you want to play baseball someday for a living, go the pro route.

What do you do when they shorten the roster, yet still allow a coach to have 40+ on the fall roster? Why didn't they make the rule to include 35 max in fall, 35 max in spring? Looking at a D1 roster with 40+ in the fall and a huge recruiting class coming in next year, is scary, IMO.

I am not sure, haven't decided yet, if faced with the above scenerio mine would give up the pro opportunity if drafted out of HS.

I know some will say, in any situation you have to work hard for your position, I agree. But in all fairness, let my player compete in the situation that the new rules state (35 only on the roster) not just spring but fall as well. Seems like some coaches still will do as they please and I would definetly stay far away from that situation, no matter how good the program was. Yes, he HAS to keep my player for one year, but come his sophmore season, I want to know he has somewhat solidified his roster opportunity ( I am not saying playing time) for another year, two, three.


Any thoughts.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
That has always been my fear of the new rules. No limit to fall roster and the transfer sit rule.
There are some great ball players that have been cut and they could find another D1 if there was some with roster spots. This year they will either sit or move to another catagory of college.
The new guys are at the mercy of the coaches and have to think long and hard before taking the jump to a D1 program that may have 40+ on the fall roster. The ramifications for some could be devastating. educationally as well as athletically. It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next few years.
If you son is a draft pick I don't think he will have as much to worry about but if he is not it could go eitherway. We would have still gone forward as we did and if he was cut we would have brought him home for a year and then tried again.
B Bee>1,000+ posts
good observation regarding the message sent for the college/pro choice ... I do think large fall rosters will be rarer beyond fall 2009 tho

also I'll take the opportunity to give a pat on the back to 2 of son's college team-mates who just graduated in December


LHP drafted June '07, BS Business Management, Academic All-ACC & ACC Honor Roll - squeezed in his fall semester around pro ball and came back to finish up (school began Aug 13)

C, BS Business Mangement, a starter in many programs, RS-Jr stuck out a tough baseball PT situation for his GT degree & is as fine a kid as you'll ever meet

Last edited by Bee>
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
It is easy to say that thats life . A BB player gets cut and that is life but why subject the to unreasonable retrictions just to prop up APRs. A BB player can be devastated by being cut and it can disrupt his academics as well. He has started the clock ticking and could end up wasting a year or 2 with the rules. This could stay with these guys for the rest of their lives.
I have heard from many parents of kids who have been cut and it is a devastating event. They are heart broken and panicing to find a new college.
I hope over recruiting does dissappear which would minimize the situation.
With these new rules it is mandatory to get BB money as a bit of security for atleast 1 year.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
There are no certainties in life much less college baseball

If the player has the talent and works his butt off, as he should, there are usually no disappointments regardless of the roster size


Also the "I" should apply to the player not the parent


There are no certainties in anything in life, that is why decisions have to be carefully weighed, and with rules changing so might decisions.

What's wrong with using "I" as a parent? Yes, firm beleiver that the final decision comes to the player, but when going through the process for many families "we" is often included (advice) and "we" pay the bill.

I have seen many many extremely talent players who have worked their butt off, that is not always a criteria for becoming a starter when you have 34 other talented players working their butts off too.
Last edited by TPM
BOFBOF10,000+ posts
I guess players/families will have to be cognizant of the rules when making decisions on where to play.

Frankly the talk about pro this - and pro that - is for such a small % of the kids it is almost not worth "talking" about. 99.9% of the kids are NOT going to play pro ball. Of the very few who do most will be relegated to laboring in the minors for years with little chance of making the 40 man roster.

It is a great gift to be able to make your HS team. A greater gift to make the Varsity squad. A very few special kids will have the ability to play in college. Don't waste your time worrying about whether your son is going to make the pros; the statistics say he is NOT. If he is one of the chosen it will be very very obvious.

I copied a recent post by TR that I think hits the spot on this subject. (Spelling and grammar fix at not charge Smile)

"I see all the posts from parents on this site, great stuff, but I wonder are they getting too concerned about miniscule things--- There are not many 5 tool players and those are headed to the draft---if your son is solid HS player he should be worried about can he play at the college level--if he has three tools and solid grades he can do that with no problem and with the every day work in college those 3 tools may become 4 tools and perhaps he gets drafted out of college---sit back and relax --let you son do his thing and let it all come together--- your son cannot be what he isn’t--he is what he is --a solid student/athlete---"

My son's priorities will continue to be god, family, school, and then baseball. I intend to "sit back and relax". (at the same time look ahead and plan - with the help of this site’s contributors SHOULD he be on "the special kids")
O Orlando1,000+ posts
I haven't kept up nearly as well as you with the new rules, so I may be off base here.

I believe the Official Story has always been that they're students first (no matter how cute that idea is with, say, football players Wink), so that's not really a change.

As for the 40 man Fall rosters, I wouldn't think it unusual that there would be fallout --- injuries, academic eligibility, shall we say a 'misread' of talent or commitment level. Now, I don't think that fallout regularly hits 12%, but then the next question is --- how much fudge factor should there be? Are three enough? Is six too many? (If you got that reference....you're old! Cool)

The program doesn't HAVE to have a 40 man Fall roster. I'd like to think most coaches will only take what he needs based on his program's track record. But the NCAA not allowing for expanded Fall Rosters could leave coaches scrambling to fill a 35 man Spring Roster from what? Walk-ons or JuCo steals/transfers?

Am I misreading this?
RusteRuste10+ posts
Quick question, I understand that the school money is for one year. I've heard several times that the player will probably get the same amount the following years if he is able to produce to the coaches expectations. Here is my question. When we met with several pro persons we are under the asumption that if whoever gets drafted they also sign or can sign a contract that stipulates a 4 year college deal that is considered a full ride. Are these different person to person or general across the board? It's one thing choosing to skip college if your getting huge dollars but another if you can get some money and a garentee that your college is fully paid if it doesn't work out. Are there any parents of players who went this route? And how do some of you feel are the pro's and con's of this situation?
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
I agree that most will not have an opportunity to play pro ball, but there are many folks here that have players that will have decisions to make come June. More than I have ever seen in the 5-6 years that I have been here.
As I just wrote to a parent who asked some questions, relax and enjoy the whole experience.
The change in rules refelcted a change in my attitude. I was wondering if anyone else felt that way.

Ruste,
All players have an opportunity to recieve money for their education (or to finish) when drafted. The amount is decided by the drafting team and can be negotiated.
One team interested in son out of HS, couldn't care less if his scholley was worth 125K or 5K. They would give him what was the average for Florida state tuition for a public university. On the other hand, son got almost as much to complete one remaining year from his drafting team than the other team was willing to give for 4 if they drafted him. There are no set rules to what they award.
The big if is, is it going to sit there or put to use?
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Orlando,
You can only have 27 counters, the rest are considered "walk ons".

A coach only needs 9 to play. Success usually comes from having a lot of arms in the stable, 15,16 maybe? That allows 20 possibly position players. Players get hurt that's a given, but I think the smaller roster forces the coach to be more aware of what his players are doing in the classroom (the first concern being student athletes). I would imagine losing a player for eligibility really HURTS.
If a program has 40-45 plus in the fall, it puzzles me. The coach should have done his homework from the beginning to make sure that his players he recruited can stay on tract. Not just go with the flow on who is eligible to play and who is not. that doesn't make winning teams, IMO.
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
1. I am glad my older son is almost finished with college so I don't have to think or worry about most of this stuff with him.

2. I am glad my younger son, who may or may not?, be good enough to play beyond HS has 3.5 years to go so I can watch what happens to gain a better understanding of the ramificiations.

It is hard for me to figure out where all of this will end up. I don't know what I'd advise a son to do if he were in 11th or 12th grade right now. Very confusing to me.
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
quote:
...but I think the smaller roster forces the coach to be more aware of what his players are doing in the classroom (the first concern being student athletes)...


I believe one of the outcomes of the compressed schedule (another rule change) will be more academic problems for players/teams. I hope not, but I haven't talked to anyone (players, parents, coaches, even an NCAA board member I know) who isn't concerned about it.
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
CPLZ - Educate me. I didn't think we were allowed to play Fall games? And these games count as part of the 56 and towards qualifying for the NCAA tournament? Maybe nothing more than an incorrect assumption by me. A quick look shows me Army doesn't play Fall games.

BTW, my friend on the NCAA board is from the NE and he thinks it is an absolutely ludicrous rule change. He doesn't think it will help NE teams on single bit. Yes, that just an opinion and nothing more, but he isn't a know-nothing knucklehead either. Just interesting to note.
Last edited by justbaseball
Infield08Infield081,000+ posts
From TPM:

quote:
Seems like some coaches still will do as they please and I would defintely stay far away from that situation, no matter how good the program was. Yes, he HAS to keep my player for one year, but come his sophmore season, I want to know he has somewhat solidified his roster opportunity ( I am not saying playing time) for another year, two, three.


Actually, according to an FAQ on www.national-letter.org:

"5. By signing a National Letter of Intent am I guaranteed that I will play on a team?

No. Signing a National Letter of Intent does not guarantee you playing time or a spot on the team. Rather, by signing a National Letter of Intent, the institution with which you signed agrees to provide you athletics financial aid for the academic year."

So conceivably, according to my understanding, a college coach could bring on 40 players and cut whomever he wanted after the fall, as long as the insitution fulfilled its obligation to provide athletics financial aid for the entire academic year. In other words, a coach could keep a couple of recruited walk-ons who really impressed him in the fall and cut a couple of athletics-money players who failed to live up to their billing.
Last edited by Infield08
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
quote:
So conceivably, according to my understanding, a college coach could bring on 40 players and cut whomever he wanted after the fall, as long as the insitution fulfilled its obligation to provide athletics financial aid for the entire academic year. In other words, a coach could keep a couple of recruited walk-ons who really impressed him in the fall and cut a couple of athletics-money players who failed to live up to their billing.


This essentially true but if you cut an NLI player you have reduced the roster by 1 spot. It is no gaurentee to play but it is less likely you will be cut and more likely you will get a chance to play.
Last edited by BobbleheadDoll
fanofgamefanofgame5,000+ posts
tiger paw mom,

i agree with you. i would rather have the coaches scrambling for players because they didnt recruit properly then have the student athlete have to scramble looking for a place to play. it is not right for these kids that have worken hard and get asked to come to a school to play and then they get cut. yeah as one poster said the good ones will make it, but i think a lot of good players will get hurt by this.
jmepopjmepopHSBBWeb Old Timer
Based on the rules now I feel certain that we would have given a lot more consideration to playing DII or DIII and I have to believe the quality of play at those levels will improve. The only scary part about that is now DI guys that do decide to transfer will be looking at these alternatives and it could cause a ripple down effect. Consider you were a starter last year and a player that was unhappy sitting at DI choses to come to your school. Very good chance that you could lose your starting role.

I really can't see how this 1 year rule at the DI level does anyone any good and wouldn't transferring to another school at a lower level have the same effect on the APR? If that is the case then what is the point?
Infield08Infield081,000+ posts
quote:
wouldn't transferring to another school at a lower level have the same effect on the APR? If that is the case then what is the point?


Good question you pose, jmepop.

One thing prospects can do is to look at the historical size of individual schools' rosters, both in the fall and spring. Some schools have frequently been guilty of over-recruiting in the past and one should be especially leery of them. On the other hand, some schools have traditionally maintained roster sizes with lower numbers. My son's future school, for example, has maintained a fall/spring roster size of about 30-31 for years. In the case of programs with smaller year-round rosters, players typically don't have to worry about getting cut and scrambling to find a new place to play.

Even at those schools with smaller rosters, there will still be competition. The difference is that teammates will be competing against each other for a chance to play instead of a chance to stay.
Last edited by Infield08
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by justbaseball:
CPLZ - Educate me. I didn't think we were allowed to play Fall games? And these games count as part of the 56 and towards qualifying for the NCAA tournament?


See the traffic on the linked page, regarding fall games (legal, and done by some New England teams), and the concept of the "Championship segment". Fall games are legal, but only the ones played after sometime in February are really useful in getting to the WS, and the 35 man limitation comes into play in February. 56 games maximum.
Discussion of rosters and fall games
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by justbaseball:
CPLZ - Educate me. I didn't think we were allowed to play Fall games? And these games count as part of the 56 and towards qualifying for the NCAA tournament? Maybe nothing more than an incorrect assumption by me. A quick look shows me Army doesn't play Fall games.

BTW, my friend on the NCAA board is from the NE and he thinks it is an absolutely ludicrous rule change. He doesn't think it will help NE teams on single bit. Yes, that just an opinion and nothing more, but he isn't a know-nothing knucklehead either. Just interesting to note.


jbb,
Yes, schools are allowed to play as many fall games as they wish within the 45 day, "fall session". Those games do count against the total of 56, but don't however figure into what the NCAA terms, "Championship Session", meaning the spring season, for ranking or bids.

This past fall Army played 6 intercollegiate games, 2 each against Marist, NJIT, and Ithaca.

The debate rages on about whether the new season will help level the playing field between northern and southern schools. We NCAA baseball parents constantly, and not without cause, decry the differences between us and other sports as unfair. This is a rule that would seem to fall in the fairness category, not only with other sports, but within other schools.

It does level the playing field in a couple of areas. Academically, all students will now face the same pressures. Pressures which have traditionally been shouldered only by northern athletes previously, if even to a lesser degree if one wishes to argue that. Secondly, is pitching rotations. Now southern #1's will have the same number of starts as their northern counterparts, thereby giving a more equal basis for assessing each team.
Last edited by CPLZ
O Orlando1,000+ posts
Any player who is given consideration to play ball in college is, by definition, a good player.

These rules probably have a more far-reaching impact, but players have wasted a year sitting before; even very good players who elected to go to that top-ranked school with a rosterload of similiar players. Being the guy 'on the bubble' isn't new with this rule change.

Of course, if a coach does his job well (by our definitions), few players will get cut. But I think it's disingenuous to suggest that a coach can know how each player he signs will perform over the course of the year, react to the new college experience, or keep his grades up, keeping in mind that a lot of the concern here would be for freshmen.

All the more reason to make sure your son is as prepared as you can help him to be.
B Bee>1,000+ posts
quote:
by jbb: He doesn't think it will help NE teams on single bit.
the uniform start date & other new rules are meant to help cold-weather teams inditrectly by hurting warm-weather schools


quote:
by jbb: I believe one of the outcomes of the compressed schedule (another rule change) will be more academic problems for players/teams.
as CPLZ noted, it's nothing new up north, but it will be something new for warm schools & may eliminate some students with "bubble" academics
igballigball500+ posts
I don't think its necessarily sinister that the roster is at 40+ in the fall and needs to be cut by spring. Many folks on this site are far more knowledable about these things, but aren't a lot of these guys walk-ons and you would think the coach had conversations with the guys on the bubble about their situations.
I imagine it comes down to how reputable and honest the coaches are. The importance of that will never change I guess.
B Bee>1,000+ posts
quote:
by MCO: if a coach does his job well (by our definitions), few players will get cut.
yes that's the kind of coach new recruits should be looking for
quote:
by MCO: But I think it's disingenuous to suggest that a coach can know how each player he signs will perform over the course of the year, react to the new college experience, or keep his grades up, keeping in mind that a lot of the concern here would be for freshmen
disingenuous or not, that's exactly the mission statement of all good coaches and "standard operating proceedure" for some
Last edited by Bee>
DB Danny Boydston1,000+ posts
Is sitting out a year similar to a redshirt.
In other words, when you transfer to a new D1 and begin classes in the Fall:
A.can you be on scholarship at your new school
B.can you practice with the team in the Fall or Spring
C.can you travel with the team (not uniformed)
or
do you go to school like a regular student and do all conditioning and baseball workouts on your own until the following Fall semester.

(Not considering it, just curious)

Thanks
Last edited by Danny Boydston
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by theygrowupfast:
Is sitting out a year similar to a redshirt.
In other words, when you transfer to a new D1 and begin classes in the Fall:
A.can you be on scholarship at your new school Yes
B.can you practice with the team in the Fall or Spring Yes
C.can you travel with the team (not uniformed)No, I don't believe so
or
do you go to school like a regular student and do all conditioning and baseball workouts on your own until the following Fall semester.

(Not considering it, just curious)

Thanks
MTHMTH10,000+ posts
Bobblehead,

To make sure I understand you, does cutting an NLI player reduce the total roster from 35 to 34?

Or could you still have 26 NLI's and 9 walk-ons (instead of 27 & 8)?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
quote:
So conceivably, according to my understanding, a college coach could bring on 40 players and cut whomever he wanted after the fall, as long as the insitution fulfilled its obligation to provide athletics financial aid for the entire academic year. In other words, a coach could keep a couple of recruited walk-ons who really impressed him in the fall and cut a couple of athletics-money players who failed to live up to their billing.


This essentially true but if you cut an NLI player you have reduced the roster by 1 spot. It is no gaurentee to play but it is less likely you will be cut and more likely you will get a chance to play.
Last edited by MTH
Dad04Dad045,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by observer44:
.
Part of the solution with warm weather schools will be an increase in on-line courses by players this spring to give them more academic flexibility.

Cool 44
.


What if they got alot more athletic flexibility and just went to more online baseball? Wink Big Grin

Seriously though, other than making strong pitching teams better, the changes are not an improvement, imo. They already miss more school that any other sport.

Last edited by Dad04

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×