The responses to this will vary based on the number of scholarships the program has to offer. The generic response would be if the coach doesn’t have skin in the game (athletic scholarship) you’re not a priority. This may be true where there are 11.7 baseball scholarships to divide up. It’s less likely to be true where the program only has six or less scholarships to spread as far as they can. 

The bottom line is produce and you will play. But the opportunity to prove you can produce may be in relation to how heavily the player is recruited and how much they’re given financially. I’ve seen recruits have to hit their way out of the lineup. I’ve seen others have to hit their way into the lineup one pinch hit at a time. 

I'd also look at it from another perspective: athletic scholarship, just remain eligible; academic scholarship must maintain whatever GPA is needed.

Now, how do prospective employers view it? 

Also, you produce, you play. Whether that comes after athletic recruits get their chances or not, there will be opportunities to deliver.

And, one other thing: an athlete on a baseball scholly can't decide baseball's not for him (which includes an injury); an academic scholarship gives him all the leeway to explore majors he didnt realize existed as a high schooler. An academic scholarship survives the cruel world of college baseball (assuming he makes the GPA).

johnlanza posted:

In the college world, would more opportunities be given to an athletic-scholarship player vs an academic-scholarship player?

If you're talking about baseball opportunities, generally, more will be given to the athletic scholy player.  The coach, by way of offering, has declared that he deems those players to have better baseball abilities than those who were not offered $.  When this is proven wrong too many times over a period of time, that is not a good reflection on the abilities of the coach to evaluate and recruit the right players.  So, all things relatively equal, that coach will give more opportunity to the players he has chosen as worthy of athletic scholy $.

I know I'm stating the obvious... why do i feel like this is sort of a trick question?    Johnlanza, what is the back story here?

cabbagedad posted:
johnlanza posted:

In the college world, would more opportunities be given to an athletic-scholarship player vs an academic-scholarship player?

If you're talking about baseball opportunities, generally, more will be given to the athletic scholy player.  

I know I'm stating the obvious... why do i feel like this is sort of a trick question?    Johnlanza, what is the back story here?

Not a trick question at all - I was probably a little vague.

At a prospect camp, this question came up (not me, it was another parent) during the parent Q&A with the head coach. His answer surprised me a bit. He said non-athletic scholarship position players have equal chances with scholarship players to become starters.

i figured it would be similar to a first round pick getting more opportunities than say a tenth round pick - you ride the pick (or scholarship athlete) until they prove they can’t play.

johnlanza posted:
cabbagedad posted:
johnlanza posted:

In the college world, would more opportunities be given to an athletic-scholarship player vs an academic-scholarship player?

If you're talking about baseball opportunities, generally, more will be given to the athletic scholy player.  

I know I'm stating the obvious... why do i feel like this is sort of a trick question?    Johnlanza, what is the back story here?

Not a trick question at all - I was probably a little vague.

At a prospect camp, this question came up (not me, it was another parent) during the parent Q&A with the head coach. His answer surprised me a bit. He said non-athletic scholarship position players have equal chances with scholarship players to become starters.

i figured it would be similar to a first round pick getting more opportunities than say a tenth round pick - you ride the pick (or scholarship athlete) until they prove they can’t play.

Haha... sounds like a coach with very little scholy money to offer    Really, though, that is the only PC way for a coach to answer the question.  I think your analogy is on the right track.  And, to be fair, there are PLENTY of non-scholy players that take PT away from scholy players in many programs.  In reality, many schools have limited resources and many RC's are young without a ton of experience, particularly at lower level colleges.  They only get to see so much of a player before offering and before the player shows up in the fall.  Also, there is development that occurs at the school and players react differently to different teaching and coaching styles.  It is also common that schools are not fully funded so many, if not the majority, players are not on athletic scholy.  So, again, for many reasons, non-scholy kids will win PT.

That said, I go back to the "all things being equal" statement.  If a decent program is fairly well funded, there will be plenty of good players and many will have scholy $.  You don't want to be the player without.  If your skill set stood out among this group, they would have given you $ in the first place.  So, now, you are in a tough spot trying to create enough separation beyond the kids they gave $ to.

I generally agree with what Cabbage said, as I often do.  But it does vary from program to program. Some of the top 50 D1 programs load up their baseball $ on pitching and that leaves the position players getting the scraps.  In those programs it’s not unusual for 2 or 3 position players to be starters and not be on any baseball $. 

Thanks for the input. Would there be a scenario where a team that has an upperclassman at MIF, and the coach who knows that a possible MIF recruit will get a load of academic scholarship dollars would prepare for the future by allocating the athletic scholarship dollars for other team needs?

Surely, the most important point (for playing) is, at least at a D1, if you have an athletic scholarship, then you are counted as one of the 27 allowable scholarship players, they can't take the roster spot away and give it to someone else (at least in the 1st year), so they have an incentive to develop you and give you opportunities. If you have an academic scholarship, then, from the point of view of the NCAA, you are a walk-on, competing with all other walk-ons for the 8 walk-on spots on the team. So, all those teams with 40 or 45 or 50+ fall rosters, 27 might have athletic money and be guaranteed, the academic scholarship players are in the other group, and thus some will get cut.  Obviously you still have a chance to be a starter, all those 27+8 will have that chance.  The 5 or 10 or 15 who are cut will not have that chance.

Once a player makes the team he will most likely play ahead of a scholarship player if he can better help the team win.  The coach has a direct need to win.  If a players is a non-scholarship player and for whatever reason the coach views him as only equal or maybe slightly better than a scholarship player then if cuts are needed that Fall he will probably be let go.  A scholarship player will be given more looks to prove he cannot play at a level needed.  The coach has invested money in the player and would look like a very poor recruiter if he cuts scholarship players over non-scholarship players.  However at the end of the season the coaches may "invite" a scholarship player to leave if he doesn't think he can contribute. My son had a former high school team mate that after his Sophomore season was informed he probably would not receive much playing time in the future and would be offered the opportunity to make the team.  The players offensive stats and defensive play was not such that I would have thought he would be in that position, but it appeared after the fact the coach wanted to invest the scholarships in a rebuild of sorts with JUCO or Freshman players.  The player moved to another program rather than face the somewhat uphill battle.  

Academic money and athletic money can both be offered if appropriately deserved.  I would be cautious in taking a non scholarship offer over a scholarship.  When 45 players show up in the Fall chances are the scholarship players are going to make the team. 

At the D1 level both can only  be offered if you have a 3.5 or a 1270 SAT (ACT equiv). Also lots of schools do not stack, some kids wind up in a situation where they may be offered athletic money, but they'll end up getting more academic money. 

Just curious, I know it wouldn't be official, but is there a list somewhere on this site of schools that will not combine? 

BaseballFan1965 posted:

 When 45 players show up in the Fall chances are the scholarship players are going to make the team. 

Can someone clarify this?  It's not "chances are" the scholarship players are going to make the team," it's that they WILL be on the team (unless they screw up or fail classes or really hate it or something).  That's why the math is not even, and it's not only about how many opportunities they get.  The scholarship players have to be part of the 35, or the coach gets fewer than 35.

I have no experience at all with this, I'm just really interested in watching things play out with people we know.

Generally speaking (which carries with it the caveat that there are always notable exceptions where AD's don't care much about baseball producing winning records), coaches play the players they believe will contribute the most on the field.

Period. End of story. Period.

Over the course of a season (which is how this should be judged), it doesn't matter the source of a player's scholarship, their status as a recruit, the extent to which their parents contribute dollars or offer their "advice," whatever dimension one might think up to consider.

Why? Because over the course of a season, their bosses (Athletic Directors) hired them to do one thing before all others: W-I-N.

As a result, coaches who value their livelihoods (which often encompasses the well-being of their families) do their best during Fall Baseball to identify those players who give them the best chance of winning. Period. End of story.

Sorry to be so blunt here (up to a point); but, anything beyond an attempt to parse distinctions of any sort over any appreciable length of time I consider nothing beyond examining one's navel.

Coaches do their level best to identify and recruit winners as recruits; and, they offer the selected ones some package of financial support that seems to make sense given the family's needs, the player's expected level of contribution to the team's success, and the anticipated availability of appropriately-sourced income to the player/family. This produces a variety of funding sources within a team's roster at the beginning of each academic year. However, once Fall Baseball begins, it's the survival of the fittest. Period. End of story.

Prepster, do you believe non scholarship players get an equal first shot with scholarship players? Or do scholarship players, the preferred recruits often have to fail before non scholarship players get a shot? 

I think scholarship players get the first, as well as the harder look; but, I also think that it doesn't take good coaches long to size up what they have. Once they do, they'll go with the player they think stands the most consistent chance of producing what they need on the field.

One more thing: At the risk of stating the obvious, I believe generally that players offered athletic money tend to be better players than those who are not; and, because of that, they tend as a group to end up being the ones who see the most innings in games. At times, I hear non-scholarship players (and their parents) blaming coaches' bias in favor of scholarship players as a principal reason for that. More often than not, what is actually at work is that the player on the field is the better player more consistently.

Prepster posted:

I think scholarship players get the first, as well as the harder look; but, I also think that it doesn't take good coaches long to size up what they have. Once they do, they'll go with the player they think stands the most consistent chance of producing what they need on the field.

Yep.  The school has a vested interest ($$).  They'll give a player with an athletic scholarship a longer look before yanking on the leash.

All depends on the school and the coach ......  all that matters is how much it will cost you and if the player performs, do that and all the rest is conjecture , speculation ...  at sons school , athletic, financial aid, academic .... none of it matters.... perform and you play

bacdorslider posted:

All depends on the school and the coach ......  all that matters is how much it will cost you and if the player performs, do that and all the rest is conjecture , speculation ...  at sons school , athletic, financial aid, academic .... none of it matters.... perform and you play

I agree. 

Some state schools are so affordable, with prepaid tuition, throw in academic earned money funded by rich state lotteries, you don't need athletic $$.

ADBONO made an excellent point As well, athletic $$ go to pitchers, and then guys up the middle.  There isn't much left after that, so academics plays a huge part in any opportunity. 

And as always, Prepster is on the money.

In the case of a high academic D1, a coach may steer 1600 SAT player he wants toward academic scholarships he knows the university can award, and then have more in the pot for athletic scholarships.  There ARE some very smart baseball players out there. 

Good to see you back, TPM!

Here's another interesting twist to this topic that seemingly doesn't get discussed or considered much... a real and unbiased scenario...

D1 school does their typical recruiting.  Most athletic $ goes to P's and select few others (as someone else pointed out above).  So, most returning and new position players are relying on academic $.  The roster sits at 40 in the fall.  The staff did not nail it this year in their recruiting efforts.  A few freshman were assured a roster spot but no athletic $ and it turns out they are not as good as expected.  The staff will have to get the roster down to 35 by spring.  They will have to let go a few upperclassmen who are better players than those freshmen and more likely to contribute but are no longer part of the new group that was assured a roster spot.  

cabbagedad posted:

Here's another interesting twist to this topic that seemingly doesn't get discussed or considered much... a real and unbiased scenario...

D1 school does their typical recruiting.  Most athletic $ goes to P's and select few others (as someone else pointed out above).  So, most returning and new position players are relying on academic $.  The roster sits at 40 in the fall.  The staff did not nail it this year in their recruiting efforts.  A few freshman were assured a roster spot but no athletic $ and it turns out they are not as good as expected.  The staff will have to get the roster down to 35 by spring.  They will have to let go a few upperclassmen who are better players than those freshmen and more likely to contribute but are no longer part of the new group that was assured a roster spot.  

I would think the guys with no athletic money would be the guys to go, especially if they are not as good as anticipated. Why let go of older contributors for younger, less talented guys?

PABaseball posted:
cabbagedad posted:

Here's another interesting twist to this topic that seemingly doesn't get discussed or considered much... a real and unbiased scenario...

D1 school does their typical recruiting.  Most athletic $ goes to P's and select few others (as someone else pointed out above).  So, most returning and new position players are relying on academic $.  The roster sits at 40 in the fall.  The staff did not nail it this year in their recruiting efforts.  A few freshman were assured a roster spot but no athletic $ and it turns out they are not as good as expected.  The staff will have to get the roster down to 35 by spring.  They will have to let go a few upperclassmen who are better players than those freshmen and more likely to contribute but are no longer part of the new group that was assured a roster spot.  

I would think the guys with no athletic money would be the guys to go, especially if they are not as good as anticipated. Why let go of older contributors for younger, less talented guys?

Recruiting promises.  Roster spot guarantee for spring.  None of those involved have athletic $.  I'm sure the same  roster guarantee was offered to some of the upperclassmen when they were being recruited as incoming freshmen as well.  The guarantee is for the spring, not future seasons.  Now, the better upperclassmen have no such guarantees and thus...

On the other thread now current (https://community.hsbaseballwe...yers-on-fall-rosters), we are told that the coach will take the best, and run off athletic scholarship or non-scholarship players as he feels appropriate.  No-one seems to know if all 40-50 on the fall roster were "guaranteed" a spring roster spot or not, but even if they were, they can be cut because the coach is in the business of winning.  So, which is it?  And, do you view an athletic scholarship a "guaranteed spring roster spot"?

anotherparent posted:

On the other thread now current (https://community.hsbaseballwe...yers-on-fall-rosters), we are told that the coach will take the best, and run off athletic scholarship or non-scholarship players as he feels appropriate.  No-one seems to know if all 40-50 on the fall roster were "guaranteed" a spring roster spot or not, but even if they were, they can be cut because the coach is in the business of winning.  So, which is it?  And, do you view an athletic scholarship a "guaranteed spring roster spot"?

Ok I’ll try to answer your 2 questions. The last one is pretty easy. Yes, an athletic scholarship is most definitely a guaranteed roster spot for the spring. Any athlete receiving athletic money counts toward the 11.7 total scholarship. So a coach would be extremely unlikely to “cut” one of those guys. 

This also kind of answers your first question. All the above responses are spot on. In the fall, everyone has a shot. The truth is, as stated multiple places above, the athletic money guys WILL have more chances to fail. But, if you are a walk-in with zero money and you mash, I guarantee you he will he kept around. Like another poster stated above, it may be at the expense of an upper classman. 

younggun posted:
anotherparent posted:

On the other thread now current (https://community.hsbaseballwe...yers-on-fall-rosters), we are told that the coach will take the best, and run off athletic scholarship or non-scholarship players as he feels appropriate.  No-one seems to know if all 40-50 on the fall roster were "guaranteed" a spring roster spot or not, but even if they were, they can be cut because the coach is in the business of winning.  So, which is it?  And, do you view an athletic scholarship a "guaranteed spring roster spot"?

Ok I’ll try to answer your 2 questions. The last one is pretty easy. Yes, an athletic scholarship is most definitely a guaranteed roster spot for the spring. Any athlete receiving athletic money counts toward the 11.7 total scholarship. So a coach would be extremely unlikely to “cut” one of those guys. 

This also kind of answers your first question. All the above responses are spot on. In the fall, everyone has a shot. The truth is, as stated multiple places above, the athletic money guys WILL have more chances to fail. But, if you are a walk-in with zero money and you mash, I guarantee you he will he kept around. Like another poster stated above, it may be at the expense of an upper classman. 

YG, the rules changed last year. If a scholarship kid "voluntarily" withdraws from the team, he can be replaced with a non-scholarship player before the season begins. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this happening, but I assume that it does.

Edited to remove wrong info about awarding scholarship to replacement player.

To clarify the above comment, the replacement player actually can be given the leaving player's remaining scholarship during the following semester or quarter of that same academic year and will not be considered a "36th" roster spot. 

However, if the replacement player stays on scholarship the following year, he will definitely count toward the 11.7 and 35-man limits.  

bacdorslider posted:

All depends on the school and the coach ......  all that matters is how much it will cost you and if the player performs, do that and all the rest is conjecture , speculation ...  at sons school , athletic, financial aid, academic .... none of it matters.... perform and you play

This is how it works at most places.  

As far as the athletic vs academic, put yourself in the coach's shoes.  As a coach if I have two equal players and I need to cut a player, one costs me 40% and the other costs me 0.  Which kid do you think is getting cut?     

d-mac posted:
bacdorslider posted:

All depends on the school and the coach ......  all that matters is how much it will cost you and if the player performs, do that and all the rest is conjecture , speculation ...  at sons school , athletic, financial aid, academic .... none of it matters.... perform and you play

This is how it works at most places.  

As far as the athletic vs academic, put yourself in the coach's shoes.  As a coach if I have two equal players and I need to cut a player, one costs me 40% and the other costs me 0.  Which kid do you think is getting cut?     

The one who's expected to contribute less is the one who gets cut, ultimately. Many times, that'll be the academic scholarship player (or walk-on) because players offered athletic scholarships tend to be the best players. However, that's not always determined to be the case once they've had to compete against one another in fall baseball.

Survival of the fittest. That goes for players and coaches.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×