Coach Polk's letter to the NCAA.
http://www.clarionledger.com/assets/pdf/D085828917.PDF
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
He rights prettie gud fer a coche. 
And to think, our son's are working their tails off to get into this situation - are we crazy??? 
quote:Originally posted by Panther Dad:
He rights prettie gud fer a coche.
PD, you write pretty well for an accountant.
In pg. 3, he hits them in the pocketbook. Maybe that will get their attention.
OK, I read the whole thing. Now, for those of us with young hs'ers what can/should we do?
Seeking advice from the sage and wise hsbaseballweb old timers (you know who you are.) Step up and guide us.
Seeking advice from the sage and wise hsbaseballweb old timers (you know who you are.) Step up and guide us.
Cobra,
We need to contact all voting members, and voice our concerns, also. It looks like that would be the D1 Presidents, etc....
Also, if anyone has any connections to D1's, etc..., we need to get on the horn with them as well.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. It's about numbers. Now, let's get out there and help out the Great American Pastime.
We need to contact all voting members, and voice our concerns, also. It looks like that would be the D1 Presidents, etc....
Also, if anyone has any connections to D1's, etc..., we need to get on the horn with them as well.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. It's about numbers. Now, let's get out there and help out the Great American Pastime.
pmr@ncaa.org
From their contact page.
From their contact page.
Coach Polk has ranted against the NCAA and its practices for years and even retiredt from Miss State in protest, before resurfacing at Georgia. Hopefully, this letter will get the attention of the administrators who make the decisions. It really is all about the kids and the NCAA has not been willing to bend on this matter. Hopefully, this will bring some recognition to the problems that are at hand.
quote:Originally posted by bleacherbummin:
And to think, our son's are working their tails off to get into this situation - are we crazy???
Not only are they working their tails off BB, some parents are spending a lot of time and money to be in this situation. It may make more sense to invest all the money that was spent on being seen and just walk on to the college of your choice.
knowitall, I understand what you mean but we've had this discussion several times here. If you ask yourself the question, "why do we do this?" and the answer is, "for the scholarship money" -- well, you ain't as smart as you look! <-- not referring to any one person, of course. 
I know Polk begged for completion...........
But does anyone have a "cliff notes" version?
I stopped on page 4 and I think he repeated himself only about 6 times.
I guess I will attempt completion on a rainy day.
But does anyone have a "cliff notes" version?
I stopped on page 4 and I think he repeated himself only about 6 times.
I guess I will attempt completion on a rainy day.
How sadly typical of the younger generation. No attention span at all...
quote:Originally posted by Texan:
How sadly typical of the younger generation. No attention span at all...
Sometimes passion clouds judgement.
And I'm sure we will get rain sometime soon.
So when the sky turns grey, Mr. Polk's material will be digested.
As for now, I got to get back to watching Barney video's and playing Sony Playstation.
As intelligent as we all are, the letter gives me a little tired-head. I wonder if 100 one paragraph letters would have been as effective. 
<-- I don't mean to make light of a serious subject. I know these issues will impact our kids.
<-- I don't mean to make light of a serious subject. I know these issues will impact our kids.
The letter is pure Polk-ism---I think you have to know the coach to undertsand him and what he says and how he says it
He is not an english Teacher---he is a simple baseball coach that cares about the game
Way to go Coach !!!
He is not an english Teacher---he is a simple baseball coach that cares about the game
Way to go Coach !!!
quote:Originally posted by Panther Dad:
knowitall, I understand what you mean but we've had this discussion several times here. If you ask yourself the question, "why do we do this?" and the answer is, "for the scholarship money" -- well, you ain't as smart as you look! <-- not referring to any one person, of course.
I didn’t know this had been discussed so many times. I apologize. Go ahead and close PD.
quote:Originally posted by Panther Dad:
As intelligent as we all are, the letter gives me a little tired-head. I wonder if 100 one paragraph letters would have been as effective.
I agree.
nono, knowitall -- the topic is a very good one -- and interesting in light of how we might help Coach Polk's campaign. I for one am very interested to know the motivation for the rule changes -- which seems to be to improve the school's APR, despite an inappropriate comparison between sports. It will indeed impact our kids in the offers that are handed out ---- and especially when considering how the no-transfer rule will change the process.
It's a good topic -- I never would have seen this letter -- I'm glad you provided the link.
It's a good topic -- I never would have seen this letter -- I'm glad you provided the link.
In Coach Polk's letter he referenced in state lottery money. How do you find out if Texas is one such state?
It's not
Kellerdad, Thank you very much for the info, it is well appreciated.
And it was a generic reference to states that provide "automatic" state-funding to students from those states --- I don't think all such cases are the direct result of lottery revenue.
From Miss St website. 66 players will take part in fall practices. That means 31 will have to transfer by semester or be cut. I wouldn't like to be put in that situation if I was a coach or student/athlete.
Clemente no they can carry more that 35 in the spring of 08. The number to be cut will dpend on seniors leaving and new recruits in o8 fall.
Another thing is wether the 66 are scholarshiped or some walk ons. If they don't want to sit out the coach will have to release pretty quickly the ones that have no chance to be fair to them.
Another thing is wether the 66 are scholarshiped or some walk ons. If they don't want to sit out the coach will have to release pretty quickly the ones that have no chance to be fair to them.
quote:It may make more sense to invest all the money that was spent on being seen and just walk on to the college of your choice.
Some of us were/are/will spend $10,000 per year on select baseball travel teams...for several years.
To get $6,000 per year in scholarship money.
With so many strings attached.
A talented player without a scholarship is a tremendous risk to a coach.
The coaches vote and approve the changes to the rules.
It is the National Collegiate Athletic ASSOCIATION.
Although the NCAA has become a bureacracy with a mind of its own, the COACHES make up that association and are ultimately responsible for the NCAA's actions.
When the coaches can no longer attract and command the talent, the rules will change.............
For those that need to know what to do in the mean time...........
There are many, many hurdles.
Find a way.
Make the team and contribute.
We moved from Georgia where the "HOPE" scholarship was available. The kid had to maintain a "B" average to get full money for a public college. You could use it for a private but if I remember correctly, it wasn't for the full amount.
I also read that something like 75% of the kids playing sports failed to meet the requirement and loss their Hope after the first year.
I know for certain that it is a huge help for the Georgia schools to recruit Georgia kids.
Christmas, two years ago, my son attended a Florida State camp and those coaches were very blunt about it; unless you are a super stud ball player, they only recruit in the state of Florida for the same reasons.
I also read that something like 75% of the kids playing sports failed to meet the requirement and loss their Hope after the first year.
I know for certain that it is a huge help for the Georgia schools to recruit Georgia kids.
Christmas, two years ago, my son attended a Florida State camp and those coaches were very blunt about it; unless you are a super stud ball player, they only recruit in the state of Florida for the same reasons.
It seems a little odd that a coach who is so worried about having to cut players would bring 66 of them into fall practice. I hope that is a typo. If not, there are going to be a lot of dissappointed kids in Starkville.
Unless he is trying to prove a point to the NCAA.
Unless he is trying to prove a point to the NCAA.
I inquired about how to help and this is the response received:
You can write Dr. Myles Brand (mbrand@ncaa.org) at the NCAA (President of the NCAA). He is the key person behind all this.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
If you are passionate about making a difference in NCAA college baseball, you can get started with Dr. Myles Brand.
You can write Dr. Myles Brand (mbrand@ncaa.org) at the NCAA (President of the NCAA). He is the key person behind all this.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
If you are passionate about making a difference in NCAA college baseball, you can get started with Dr. Myles Brand.
Perhaps there are a few obvious issues -- but does anyone care to spell out the things we should be opposed to here? I have a bit of an issue with over-recruiting so is it a bad thing to limit roster sizes? I think it's a shame that some of the schools can/could lure a kid for books with the promise of an opportunity that may not exist in reality. Outside of objecting to the 11.7 number, the unfairness of the APR application for baseball, and the no-transfer rule.....how should one argue for further reform? Sometimes it's tough to oppose issues deemed as improvements without offering compromise positions.
quote:Originally posted by Panther Dad:
Perhaps there are a few obvious issues -- but does anyone care to spell out the things we should be opposed to here? I have a bit of an issue with over-recruiting so is it a bad thing to limit roster sizes? I think it's a shame that some of the schools can/could lure a kid for books with the promise of an opportunity that may not exist in reality. Outside of objecting to the 11.7 number, the unfairness of the APR application for baseball, and the no-transfer rule.....how should one argue for further reform? Sometimes it's tough to oppose issues deemed as improvements without offering compromise positions.
You named three “the 11.7 number, the unfairness of the APR application for baseball, and the no-transfer rule.”
Rules on how scholarship must be spent and coaching limits can be four and five.
Some of these rules only apply to baseball.
Ok, but the 11.7 number has existed for years so that's not a new argument and the APR was formulated with good intent....but may be implemented unfairly for baseball. I suppose we can reiterate the arguments Coach Polk is making. If the NCAA was to remove the roster limit, coaches could carry 47 players on 25% scholarships. Is that fair to the kids? Trust me, I seldom take the NCAA side on anything --- and I'm not necessarily doing so here --- but I'm trying to formulate reasonable objections in my own mind without negating the intent of the new rules. A 25% minimum scholarship will benefit many kids ---- yes, at the expense of those that are getting 10% or less. I know the "books" kids are important to programs as well, but it is easy for kids to get off-track (degree-wise) when their motivation to remain at one school is minimal. Again, good intentions with inappropriate application for baseball.
quote:Originally posted by Panther Dad:
Ok, but the 11.7 number has existed for years so that's not a new argument and the APR was formulated with good intent....but may be implemented unfairly for baseball. I suppose we can reiterate the arguments Coach Polk is making. If the NCAA was to remove the roster limit, coaches could carry 47 players on 25% scholarships. Is that fair to the kids? Trust me, I seldom take the NCAA side on anything --- and I'm not necessarily doing so here --- but I'm trying to formulate reasonable objections in my own mind without negating the intent of the new rules. A 25% minimum scholarship will benefit many kids ---- yes, at the expense of those that are getting 10% or less. I know the "books" kids are important to programs as well, but it is easy for kids to get off-track (degree-wise) when their motivation to remain at one school is minimal. Again, good intentions with inappropriate application for baseball.
Your right 11.7 has been there for years lets not worry about that.
The APR was formulated with good intent so let’s not worry about that either.
Reiterating the arguments of Coach Polk is a little redundant.
The NCAA has good intentions.
Let’s just forget this was ever posted.
I apologize again.
knowitall -- the discussion isn't always black and white -- I'm not criticizing your posts. Why don't you fill us in on your letter to the NCAA?
Maybe you just wanted us all to see his letter. If that was the intent, thanks for making it public. Many people here saw the letter that would have not seen it elsewhere.
See, your topic is good!
Maybe you just wanted us all to see his letter. If that was the intent, thanks for making it public. Many people here saw the letter that would have not seen it elsewhere.
See, your topic is good!
Just passing this along from Rivals.com, for anyone who may be interested except PD.
Polk letter opens eyes, ears
In an era where many coaches in college athletics operate on greed and ego, it's always refreshing to see those on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Mississippi State's Ron Polk is one of the good guys.
Mississippi State's Ron Polk is looking out for kids in his telling 18-page letter.
Polk might not be on the speed dial of many NCAA officials. But there's one thing the NCAA can't deny - Polk isn't pushing reform for himself, he's doing it for the kids.
Always a vocal opponent of many NCAA legislations, Polk has taken his battle to a bigger stage.
The legendary coach recently distributed an 18-page letter to media members and coaches. The letter was also sent to university administrators and other influential figures.
In this letter, Polk outlines what he believes is wrong with the newly passed NCAA legislation.
"I had to do this because we're being hampered by the NCAA with sanctions and other silly rules," he said. It's an educational letter and I'm hoping that many presidents, athletic directors and coaches act sooner rather than later."
In addition to the letter, Polk had stern words for the NCAA.
"Our coaches are trying hard to override some of the new legislation, and the media has been very supportive," he said. "I had to get everything in writing. Let's face it; the NCAA only cares about one thing - when the check arrives."
Polk isn't the only coach acting.
Clemson's Jack Leggett, Vanderbilt's Tim Corbin, Tulane's Rick Jones, North Carolina's Mike Fox, Baylor's Steve Smith, Sam Houston State's Mark Johnson and South Carolina's Ray Tanner are all part of a call list aimed at changing the minds of university officials nationwide.
To accomplish an override, some things need to happen.
Polk has 13 signatures in favor of the override. But to bring the issue to the NCAA in December, they must get 30 signatures. Polk is aiming for 100.
If that goal is achieved, the NCAA will revisit the topic at its general meeting in January. According to Polk, an override requires a 5/8 vote.
"If we lose this fight, we'll never get these rules out," he said. "We don't have the leaders and support right now. We need more."
Kendall Rogers is the college baseball editor for Rivals.com. He can be reached at kendall@rivals.com.
Polk letter opens eyes, ears
In an era where many coaches in college athletics operate on greed and ego, it's always refreshing to see those on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Mississippi State's Ron Polk is one of the good guys.
Mississippi State's Ron Polk is looking out for kids in his telling 18-page letter.
Polk might not be on the speed dial of many NCAA officials. But there's one thing the NCAA can't deny - Polk isn't pushing reform for himself, he's doing it for the kids.
Always a vocal opponent of many NCAA legislations, Polk has taken his battle to a bigger stage.
The legendary coach recently distributed an 18-page letter to media members and coaches. The letter was also sent to university administrators and other influential figures.
In this letter, Polk outlines what he believes is wrong with the newly passed NCAA legislation.
"I had to do this because we're being hampered by the NCAA with sanctions and other silly rules," he said. It's an educational letter and I'm hoping that many presidents, athletic directors and coaches act sooner rather than later."
In addition to the letter, Polk had stern words for the NCAA.
"Our coaches are trying hard to override some of the new legislation, and the media has been very supportive," he said. "I had to get everything in writing. Let's face it; the NCAA only cares about one thing - when the check arrives."
Polk isn't the only coach acting.
Clemson's Jack Leggett, Vanderbilt's Tim Corbin, Tulane's Rick Jones, North Carolina's Mike Fox, Baylor's Steve Smith, Sam Houston State's Mark Johnson and South Carolina's Ray Tanner are all part of a call list aimed at changing the minds of university officials nationwide.
To accomplish an override, some things need to happen.
Polk has 13 signatures in favor of the override. But to bring the issue to the NCAA in December, they must get 30 signatures. Polk is aiming for 100.
If that goal is achieved, the NCAA will revisit the topic at its general meeting in January. According to Polk, an override requires a 5/8 vote.
"If we lose this fight, we'll never get these rules out," he said. "We don't have the leaders and support right now. We need more."
Kendall Rogers is the college baseball editor for Rivals.com. He can be reached at kendall@rivals.com.
IMHO...there is nothing wrong with the 35 man roster limit - no school should have 66 players at fall practice, that's an expensive tryout.
I see no problem with the transfer rule (if it applies to scholarship players only.) And 25% is a reasonable minimum scholarship amount.
The real problem with these rules changes is retaining the 11.7 limit. If they would increase the number of scholarships a school could fund and award, the problem would be solved. Coaches and athletes alike would have to make good decisions and live with those decisions. Players would have to perform and work hard in class to keep their scholarships from one year to the next. Coaches with integrity would honor their commitment for four years (as some do now) no matter the results, but because they would not be scraping pennies together for players, the pressure would be somewhat relieved to cut players and recoup scholarship money.
The big schools would still fund all their scholarships and the smaller ones would not. But, the limit on roster size will make it possible for those smaller schools to attract good players who do not want to sit the bench at Big State U.
Note that it is only the larger, fully funded programs that are complaining. The reasons are obvious. Their monopoly is being threatened. They cannot stockpile players under this new system and they don't like losing players to smaller programs.
PD is right - the situation is not totally black and white. There are gray areas that need to be considered. It is not BAD to insist players are performing in the classroom --- and it is not BAD to prevent greedy coaches from abusing kids by enticing them to Big State U with 1% "scholarships" only to send them packing at Christmas.
Just a few of my humble opinions. Please do not shoot the messenger.
I see no problem with the transfer rule (if it applies to scholarship players only.) And 25% is a reasonable minimum scholarship amount.
The real problem with these rules changes is retaining the 11.7 limit. If they would increase the number of scholarships a school could fund and award, the problem would be solved. Coaches and athletes alike would have to make good decisions and live with those decisions. Players would have to perform and work hard in class to keep their scholarships from one year to the next. Coaches with integrity would honor their commitment for four years (as some do now) no matter the results, but because they would not be scraping pennies together for players, the pressure would be somewhat relieved to cut players and recoup scholarship money.
The big schools would still fund all their scholarships and the smaller ones would not. But, the limit on roster size will make it possible for those smaller schools to attract good players who do not want to sit the bench at Big State U.
Note that it is only the larger, fully funded programs that are complaining. The reasons are obvious. Their monopoly is being threatened. They cannot stockpile players under this new system and they don't like losing players to smaller programs.
PD is right - the situation is not totally black and white. There are gray areas that need to be considered. It is not BAD to insist players are performing in the classroom --- and it is not BAD to prevent greedy coaches from abusing kids by enticing them to Big State U with 1% "scholarships" only to send them packing at Christmas.
Just a few of my humble opinions. Please do not shoot the messenger.
haha im just happy to say I read it all and understood it.
On Campus: Oct. 19
Polk stirs up coaches with letter about new NCAA rules
By Aaron Fitt
E-mail this article
October 19, 2007
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."
Polk stirs up coaches with letter about new NCAA rules
By Aaron Fitt
E-mail this article
October 19, 2007
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."