Skip to main content

This article was posted on Baseball America regarding the upcoming NCAA meeting to review parts of the new baseball rules package. (Since I was able to email the article without needing a password I am assuming this was considered free content and okay to post here).


Polk stirs up coaches with letter about new NCAA rules

By Aaron Fitt
E-mail this article
October 19, 2007 Print this article


Say this for Ron Polk: he sure knows how to create a stir.

Polk has been a college baseball coach for 40 years—29 of them with his current school, Mississippi State—and it seems like he's been railing against NCAA injustices for even longer than that. But Polk has saved his most passionate crusading for 2007, when academic reform legislation threatens to transform college baseball's landscape forever.

The NCAA Board of Directors approved legislation in April that would require players to sit out a year when transferring from one Division I school to another; earn fall certification to be eligible to participate in spring competition; cap rosters at 35 players and cap scholarship players at 27; and require all players on athletic scholarship to receive a minimum aid package of 33 percent.

The roster cap and minimum scholarship requirements created an uproar amongst college coaches, who mobilized presidents of 72 Division I schools to request a vote to override the legislation at the Board of Directors' August meeting. In response to the override requests, the Academic Enhancement Working Group that had been originally charged with drafting the changes recommended the Board shelve the legislation for a year for further study; the Board ignored the recommendation, choosing instead to uphold the legislation with one modification: the minimum aid threshold was reduced to 25 percent.

Last-Ditch Effort

Polk has been a vocal critic of this process from the onset, but he ratcheted up his efforts in September, sending an 18-page letter to the presidents, athletic directors and coaches of every school that plays Division I baseball, the Board of Directors, the members of the working group, and others.

Polk probably could have streamlined his message—the first four pages are largely spent pleading with readers not to put down the letter—but he did help mobilize 52 presidents to request override votes again, the first time since the NCAA adopted its current governance structure in 1997 that a piece of legislation has been overridden twice. The Board will review the package again at its November meeting, but American Baseball Coaches Association executive director Dave Keilitz—a member of the working group--said he expects the legislation to be upheld.

"We knew from day one, hey, this is not going to be an easy process, and it's going to involve a lot of changes by a lot of schools, just because of the diversity of the many programs we have and the many facets involved in it," Keilitz said. "I'm not really surprised there is an override. I would be surprised if it got enough votes to throw this part of it out."

Polk's letter harshly criticizes the working group, which has 27 members but just three current college coaches. Not surprisingly, the letter annoyed and insulted some members of the working group, and caused others to wonder about the wisdom of such a brash approach.

"I think he made a lot of very valid points," said Louisiana State coach Paul Mainieri, a member of the working group. "But the thing is there's a system that's in place to effect change, and in order to effect change you have to follow the system.

"I had differences of opinion with a lot of people in those meetings, and I voiced them. But in the end that group tried to do what was best. Nobody in that group expected everybody to be happy with every aspect of that plan. It's one thing to be opinionated and it's another thing to personally attack people. I'm sure some people didn't take what Ron said very fondly."

United In Concern

Mainieri agreed with Polk's point that the minimum scholarship threshold and roster caps were unnecessary. Many coaches are very supportive of Polk's letter—particularly its assertion that college coaches would have cleaned up their own mess once penalties were put into place for low Academic Progress Rate scores. Indeed, baseball's average APR climbed from 922 in 2005 to 931 in 2006 to 934 in 2007, as scholarship reduction penalties have taken hold and the specter of future ineligibility for the NCAA tournament has loomed for schools with lagging scores.

"The only thing that ever needed to change was the penalty," said Baylor coach Steve Smith, the ABCA's first vice president and a former Polk assistant. "If the penalty was, in order to be eligible for the NCAA tournament, you have to have a 925 APR, I guarantee it would be fixed. You wouldn't have to worry about the transfer rule or the roster size or the minimum scholarship amount. If you want to modify the behavior, change the punishment. It's as old as mom and dad."

Smith and Tulane coach Rick Jones have said they fear the new rules will place a significant burden on private schools, but public schools like Mississippi State and LSU share their concerns about the minimum scholarship amount and roster caps. So do coaches at small, cold-weather schools, many of which are not fully funded and will be hamstrung by the inability to spread their limited funds out among many players.

"This has created quite a stir, and it doesn't matter if you're up here in the Northeast or down in the South," Albany coach Jon Mueller said. "The issue is we're a partial-scholarship sport, and the NCAA is really telling us how to spend our money."

What About Student-Athletes?

Most of all, though, coaches all around the country expressed concerns that student-athletes will be hurt by the changes much more than they're helped. Coaches everywhere are struggling to pare down their rosters while also trying to prepare for future losses to the draft and graduation, creating a situation where many players are going to find themselves without a scholarship or without an opportunity.

"I just don't think it's good business," Auburn recruiting coordinator Butch Thompson said. "I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it's right by people. A player like me, that was very marginal, just a solid contributor-type college player, I might not have the same opportunities anymore."

California recruiting coordinator Dan Hubbs said he agreed that the solid players who are not stars will now be left out in the cold. In the past, those players would often get a chance to play at the schools they wanted on a book scholarship, but now schools will be hesitant to offer them a 25 percent scholarship until very late in the recruiting process. Oregon State recruiting coordinator Marty Lees added that the roster cap will also take away opportunities for walk-ons.

"It will force some teams to make some decisions," Lees said. "Guys like Chris Kunda, Brian Barden—those guys were walk-ons here. The state of Oregon doesn't have 20 D-I baseball players every year, so the money it takes for in-state tuition versus out-of-state, you've got to be right, because kids can't transfer. People will be doing their homework now a little better."

That might be a positive impact of the legislation—as Florida coach Kevin O'Sullivan said, teams will no longer be able to recruit everybody they want and instead will have to focus on their needs. That, in turn, will assure players a better shot at playing time, which is one of the primary goals of the roster cap.

But forcing coaches to wriggle when building their rosters has plenty of negative ramifications, paricularly for underprivileged players.

"I coach a sport where a young man doesn't always go where he wants to go, he goes where he can afford to go. We don't offer scholarships, we negotiate them," Jones said. "That's not a healthy position to be in, but that will be amplified now. You're going to be negotiating scholarships even more now, and that's not healthy.

"Why would I have to give 25 percent to a kid who doesn't need it and not be able to give more to a kid who does? That's not fair. I think it's one-sided against the student-athlete."

Whether or not Polk and his 18-page letter was the right conduit through which to convey that message is not as important as the message itself. Now, coaches can only hope against the odds that their fervent opposition hits home with the Board of Directors.

"I hope they will choose to table (the changes)," Smith said. "I hope they'll say, 'You know what? This is a very controversial piece of legislation, with a wide-ranging impact. We've already changed the transfer rule, that's a major change by itself. We've already changed fall certification, that's major too. Let's hold off on this, this is going to hurt a lot of kids.'

"There are a lot of kids who are going to be cut that don't need to be cut. I remain optimistic that (the changes will be tabled), and if it doesn't happen, it'll go to the convention floor (in January), and it'll be very difficult to win a vote on the convention floor."

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Young head coach I talked to at a smaller size D1 said the Polk letter was just an old coach not liking change --- he said it is inevitable and they might as well get used to it.

My question is: what in the world is Miss State doing with 66 players at fall practice? Polk says he does not want to finish his career being "cruel" to players...but isn't it cruel to have 66 young men move their whole lives to a campus, enroll, and spend money to attend only to be cut or sent to JUCO at semester? No matter the roster limits, he could not keep 66 players. It is not fair to those young men because I guarantee he did not tell them the odds when he recruited them.
quote:
Originally posted by Natural:
Young head coach I talked to at a smaller size D1 said the Polk letter was just an old coach not liking change --- he said it is inevitable and they might as well get used to it.

My question is: what in the world is Miss State doing with 66 players at fall practice? Polk says he does not want to finish his career being "cruel" to players...but isn't it cruel to have 66 young men move their whole lives to a campus, enroll, and spend money to attend only to be cut or sent to JUCO at semester? No matter the roster limits, he could not keep 66 players. It is not fair to those young men because I guarantee he did not tell them the odds when he recruited them.


Polk did not necessarily recruit 66 players to attend fall workouts. I'm sure that number includes 'open tryout' guys that never expect to make the program. They could have 20-30 of those guys that are unrecruited walk-ons.
Sorry, but anybody who has been around a big time D1 program knows that "open tryouts" are just something the NCAA requires and they are not taken seriously by coaches. Such "tryouts" last one or two days and very rarely result in players being asked to stick around. I guarantee the 66 players at Miss State consist of a whole bunch of invited walkons and "books" scholarship kids... its called stockpiling... and Polk is certainly not alone in doing it. But it is exactly the practice that the NCAA is trying to do away with and that is why Polk objects.
quote:
Originally posted by KnightTime:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Natural:
My question is: what in the world is Miss State doing with 66 players at fall practice?

Polk did not necessarily recruit 66 players to attend fall workouts. I'm sure that number includes 'open tryout' guys that never expect to make the program.



**** Do you really think these kids showed up on a lark just to say they tried out, or do you think they are talented and genuinely want to be a part of the team because they love baseball?
quote:
Originally posted by Natural:
Sorry, but anybody who has been around a big time D1 program knows that "open tryouts" are just something the NCAA requires and they are not taken seriously by coaches. Such "tryouts" last one or two days and very rarely result in players being asked to stick around. I guarantee the 66 players at Miss State consist of a whole bunch of invited walkons and "books" scholarship kids... its called stockpiling... and Polk is certainly not alone in doing it. But it is exactly the practice that the NCAA is trying to do away with and that is why Polk objects.


I agree, open tryouts last 1 or 2 days. I counted around 50 players, but even that is just ridiculous.
Some of the new rules were designed to end this.

You do your job as a coach by working hard to recruit players that you have a need for in your program. If he is a player's coach, at an SEC program, he would have no problem finding 35 players who will fit into his program. SEC schools do not have to rely on walk ons to fill their needs.
Last edited by TPM
Son's team has rumors going round that the transfer/sit rule won't be put into effect. They state it as fact, not rumor. I told son I'd put it out to the board and to consider this a rumor. I told him that I understood the NCAA was going to take another look at the proposed changes but likely wouldn't change this 1 yr sit with transfers after Dec 2007. Could some more knowledgeable folks than me weigh in please? Thanks.
It would be proper to at least delay it an additional season/semester for these reasons:

1. The possibility existing players with a grant that exceeds 25% now, may be forced to transfer due to financial reasons if they get a reduction.

2. To allow more time for stockpiled rostered players to transfer after the Spring semester so as not to disrupt the entire school year. It is not fair to any student to disrupt the entire school year. It gives them more time to find a better fit instead of a "haste makes waste" decision.
Last edited by OLDSLUGGER8
Agree with your reasoning, OldSlugger ... just wish the NCAA would also agree. Makes sense under the circumstances, yes indeedy! But when do we know if this is going to go or not go into effect? Some of the players need to make decisions by December's end whether to return for their spring semester if it is in fact,going into effect. That would be the only way to avoid the 1 year of sitting ... sadly they may need make the "haste" decision.
Last edited by bleacherfan

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×