Attention: Underclassmen

PG -

Thanks for posting that!

Rich
www.playinschool.com

I think it will be very interesting how the college landcape for baseball will play out with the changes with the draft and the GPA being higher.The JC transfer GPA was increased as well.

College academics are hard,much harder than HS,esp.with baseball.Most kids arent as prepared as many may think they are.

fanofgame- Amen.

PG - Thanks for posting.

Thanks for posting the info! A small change in GPA requirement could have a huge impact for many underclassmen!

Julie

Wow just read the article on ncaa they are changing a good bit, including some gpa for transfers. For those of you interesting in reading the article i read it is on the ncaa website.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/co...dent-athlete+welfare

quote:

College academics are hard,much harder than HS,esp.with baseball.Most kids arent as prepared as many may think they are.

I have seen this sentiment posted many times on this website, along with plenty of amens and virtual high fives. I don't see it the same way. You say most are unprepared, but I will provide hard numbers from our program. Since the 2008 grad class, we have had 14 players continue playing at the college level, 8 at D1. Not a single player has left school, or missed any PT due to academics. All D1 players are on track to graduate after 4, with 3 of those garnering all-academic honors and 2 all-conference.

After this spring, we add at least 6 more, 2 at D1. One player is having difficulty because his SAT is just above 1700. He will re-take.

Our parents found a school and coaching staff that demands accountability and work ethics in class and
on the field. College academics are harder only as much as 12th grade is harder than 10th. Responsibility to
motivate one's self to study is the difference.

A GPA change still only affects those students having difficulty already. If it's a learning disorder there is help available. If it's a lack of responsibility or poor parenting, why should a scholarship be denied a deserving student.

JMO

all322,

Sounds like you guys have done an outstanding job with your HS athletes.Do some research on transfers from D1 as well.

The point I am making is not guys that have 3.5-3.6 and AP classes necessarily BUT the guys that get in with a 2.0,now raised by NCAA.

A 2.0 in HS and then to college with baseball and school work is a big huge jump.My son attends a difficult school ,many say it is the school of spoiled children,and yes many are affluent,but the work load has no mercy,and if you dont make the grades you wont stay.

First a 2.0 in HS wouldnt even get you in at many academic schools in the first place.

Why did the NCAA raise the bar?IS it due to the studies done that players with 2.0 aren't making it in college baseball?That would be a statistic worth knowing about.

And I am sorry the jump from HS to college is much harder than a soph to senior in HS.I went back and finished my BS in nursing just two years ago.I had high grades in HS and I am an adult,and obviously not doina sports,LOL,it was hard,and I was at a state school thats not considered a high academic school,but more of a commuter school.

Again I praise your success rate with your HS atheletes,it speaks well of your program,But its still a big jump, and many frosh across the nation leave D1 at fall break because they cant do it,or aren't prepared.

quote:

First a 2.0 in HS wouldn't even get you in at many academic schools in the first place.

I agree that 2.0 is a VERY low bench mark, and 2.3 isnt all that better. But with a solid SAT/ACT to fill in the gap, students can certainly find a solid academic school to attend. The question then becomes... why did Jonny get a 2.0 GPA, yet such a high SAT? Lack of motivation, drive, willingness to succeed academically while actually in class? All of these things are taken into consideration when an admissions department is reviewing transcripts and test scores.

Fanofgame,

Your original post stated MOST were not prepared, but seems that colleges are doing pretty well at selecting ones who are. As I said before, I hope
scholarships go to the deserving student who can also play a bit.

Check out this news:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/...es-hit-all-time-high

Great article,thanks for sharing.I wonder why then the standards were made even more stringent?

The JC I believe went to a 2.5 for transfer.

The bottom line is the NCAA just made it tougher for many to go to college and play sports.Yes some will get in with SAT scores, but many coaches are looking at work ethic tendencies not just test scores.JMO

quote:

All of these things are taken into consideration when an admissions department is reviewing transcripts and test scores.

Absolutely!!!

I think there was another thread in which 3FG pointed out these changes when they first came out. IMHO, when the dust settles the $2000 stipend (whatever happens with it) will end up being a mere footnote to this story. The eligibility changes will be the big story for years to come. The question is how long before it all hits the fan.

Under the new rules freshmen will have to have a full half point higher GPA if they want to play as freshmen. Using the NCAA's example, a freshman with a 1000 SAT and a 2.0 GPA can now play as a freshman. However, under the new rules he would have to have a 2.5 GPA to play immediately. The minimum GPA a kid could have and play immediately would be a 2.3. I'm not sure what the SAT to go with that 2.3 would be, but it would be over 1000.

That extra half point may not sound like much, but in educationally
challenged states like mine it is huge. A lot of kids screw around for the
first two years of high school, realize they may be able to get an athletic
scholarship, then struggle for the last two years to qualify. It is hard
enough for many of them to get a 2.0, let alone a 2.5.

The new rule also increases the number of core credits a high school kid
must have prior to his senior year. The point of this rule is to eliminate
the "senior miracle" or "summer miracle" where a kid manages to miraculously
cram two years of core credits into his senior year and the following
summer.

I suspect these rules are going to have a disproportionate impact on minorities. But they will also seriously impact non-minorities from educationally impoverished areas of some states.

To the NCAA's credit, kids that do not meet the new GPA rules to play as
freshmen may still be admitted and receive scholarship money. However, they
must sit through an "academic redshirt" year. Logically, they should still
be able to play 4 years, under the NCAA's 4 to play 5 rule. However, with only 11.7 scholarships to divvy up, how many academically ineligible players can a school afford to recruit in a given year?

The rules may have a greater effect at schools that lose a lot of kids to the draft. Let's say you have a high level prospect who is projected to be a high draft pick after his junior year. Unfortunately, he is going to be an academic redshirt. Under the old rules you would have him for 3 years. Under the new rules you will only have him on the field for 2 years, but you have to pay for 3. Is it worth it? Some schools will still sign these kids. Others will shy away from them. And the schools that do sign them will not be able to afford many of them.

And some may never set foot on campus. Some high level prospects may decide
to go pro immediately rather than do an academic year in residence.

I have no idea how many baseball players this will affect. However, I do know of a number of high level college baseball players in SC that would have been required to sit out a year if this rule were already in effect. I suspect there will be a few kids at every major program that will be affected.

It's going to be different. If you think the $2000 stipend has created an uproar (130+ schools seeking to repeal it), you ain't seen nothing yet.

Great Post and Great Points.

quote:

I agree that 2.0 is a VERY low bench mark, and 2.3 isnt all that better. But with a solid SAT/ACT to fill in the gap, students can certainly find a solid academic school to attend. The question then becomes... why did Jonny get a 2.0 GPA, yet such a high SAT? Lack of motivation, drive, willingness to succeed academically while actually in class? All of these things are taken into consideration when an admissions department is reviewing transcripts and test scores.

2.0 or even 2.3 might be a low bench mark for some, but not everyone. We should look at the over all picture. 2.3 is going to be the minimum requirement! To me that is a very big difference if you are a 2.0 student.

I think it has been proven that poverty stricken areas tend to be less advanced academically. There are many reasons why a high school student might find it difficult to obtain a high GPA.

These new rules seem like even more separation of the classes. IMO, The poor people will suffer more from this lack of opportunity than those more fortunate.

And we are talking about all DI, not only high academic schools.

I wonder how many past All American athletes this would have affected. How many outstanding careers this would have eliminated. It would be interesting to know how many players in the NFL or NBA had a high school GPA below the 2.3 that will be required. I know many will say that shouldn't matter, college is not about producing pro athletes. However, on the other hand, college has sure helped many athletes become successful in life, even outside of sports.

Regarding baseball, on one hand you don't grade well enough to qualify and because of that you don't have much leverage with MLB clubs. You lose both ways!

It's good that they are emphasizing academics, but it is going to take away opportunity from many. IMO it will affect the poor much more than the wealthy, just like many of the other rules.

Anyway, it is what it is! I just thought people should know about it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid many will find out too late.

MTH,

Wish I'd have read your post before posting my thoughts. I agree with what you wrote. In fact, I even repeated some of it.

I can't argue with the NCAA demand that their athletes be better students. I can't believe there are many Division 1, 4 year colleges that admit students with 2.3 high school GPA's unless there are interesting circumstances surrounding the situation.

It certainly is true that poor students/poor areas/poor schools are disadvantaged academically. However, I can't expect the NCAA to lower their standards because of that fact. I believe that is a separate problem and that the NCAA must carry on trying to churn out as many accomplished/elite students as they do athletes. The NCAA wants student-athletes to succeed in college (the bare minimum is staying in school and managing a degree) - raising that minimum HS GPA, regardless of the cause of it being low in the first place, will raise the chance of their athletes' success in school.

JPontiac,

The interesting circumstances you are referring to... It's Talent!

It seems the NCAA and the MLB may be in cahoots with ending the idea of college ball being an incubator rather than the minors.

I wonder if the MLB will go back to supporting baseball leagues that have only baseball talent as the yard stick ?