If a player is playing on the School Rec Club Baseball team after previously being a recruited player on the main team last year.. would that count as sitting out a year ?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I'm not sure what you mean by "sitting" out. Can you provide more information? Is the player a transfer student? If he transferred from a JC, was he a qualifier?
One thing is certain. If he plays on a school club team, and the school has a NCAA team, he will use one of his 4 seasons of competition.
One thing is certain. If he plays on a school club team, and the school has a NCAA team, he will use one of his 4 seasons of competition.
With D1 regulations a player must sit out a year if they transfer to another D1 school. Im trying to understand if playing on the Club team would be considered sitting out and be eligible to play next year at a different D1 school
Club is not governed by NCAA, so it would count as his required "sit out" year.
We use the term "sitting out" frequently, but the OP's scenario still isn't clear to me. When a player transfers to a D1 school from any kind of 4 year school, he must serve an academic year (2 semesters) in residence at the new school before he is eligible to compete.
It's OK to play on the club team at the new school during the year in residence. However, I suspect you're referring to playing on the club team for a year at the previous school. That would not meet the requirement.
It's OK to play on the club team at the new school during the year in residence. However, I suspect you're referring to playing on the club team for a year at the previous school. That would not meet the requirement.
CB, the year in residence that is required by Division I in baseball transfer situations must be served at the school where the athlete will be participating. Sitting out a year at the school that the athlete is transferring FROM doesn't satisfy the requirement.
Also, an athlete would be charged with a season of competition for participating against other outside teams as a member of a club team if the university in question sponsored baseball as both a varsity intercollegiate sport and as a club sport when the athlete participated on the club team.
Also, an athlete would be charged with a season of competition for participating against other outside teams as a member of a club team if the university in question sponsored baseball as both a varsity intercollegiate sport and as a club sport when the athlete participated on the club team.
Although it may not apply, I might add the "sit out" rule is a bit different if transfering from a 2 year school.
Thanks all for the comments it's really APPRECIATED. It's amazzing that there are this many rules to keep the kids off the field and on the streets.
quote:It's amazzing that there are this many rules to keep the kids off the field and on the streets.
I'm normally not in agreement with the NCAA but this statement is quite off base. The transfer rules are in place so that student-athletes don't take advantage by transferring from school to school with no eligibility ramifications. Graduation rates are important to the NCAA, and this rule reenforces the student-athlete's opportunity to come out of their collegiate experience with a degree.
quote:Originally posted by J H:quote:It's amazzing that there are this many rules to keep the kids off the field and on the streets.
I'm normally not in agreement with the NCAA but this statement is quite off base. The transfer rules are in place so that student-athletes don't take advantage by transferring from school to school with no eligibility ramifications. Graduation rates are important to the NCAA, and this rule reenforces the student-athlete's opportunity to come out of their collegiate experience with a degree.
I am with you on this one 100%.
Some see it as a punishment, others that accept the rules and understand them seem to be able to move forward, even those that have actually sat out to be able to play the following year.
I'm going to disagree a tiny bit with JH and TPM on the transfer rule. If the NCAA truly had the student-athlete in mind, the transfer rule would apply across the board, in all sports. imo, this rule protects/helps the coach way more that it provides any benefit for the student-athlete.
I'll be interested to see if club ball in any way effects eligibility. How could it?
I'll be interested to see if club ball in any way effects eligibility. How could it?
55mom- I agree about the fact that the rules should be ubiquitous. However, statistics strongly show that collegiate student-athletes graduate at a considerably higher percentage when they stay at the school they began their playing career at than those who transfer. With baseball being a sport that has had fairly low graduation rates in the past (in comparison to other sports), I believe the NCAA felt the need to implement this change in order to better ensure higher graduation rates. If I recall correctly, graduation rates have increased since the change was made.
quote:Originally posted by 55mom:
I'm going to disagree a tiny bit with JH and TPM on the transfer rule. If the NCAA truly had the student-athlete in mind, the transfer rule would apply across the board, in all sports. imo, this rule protects/helps the coach way more that it provides any benefit for the student-athlete.
I'll be interested to see if club ball in any way effects eligibility. How could it?
My response was for the sit out rule, I am not going to get into the what is really fairstuff (re: being cut and not being able to play asap at a D1 program).
I may be wrong, but the reason that the NCAA instituted the rule in baseball (D1 only) was because of the high transfer rate in the sport and the poor graduation rate.
I think it very much protects the player. Each time a player transfers he can lose credits, which puts his graduation further and further behind.
I think that is what JH was trying to get across.
I just don't believe the NCAA had academic motivation when making this rule. If graduation rates are higher, it is a happy consequence, though the transfer rule is so new, I'm not sure useful information can be extrapolated just yet. The reduced rosters may influence the graduation rates as well.
I also don't think the NCAA is putting kids on the streets either. There have been a few exceptions to the sit out rule. While some will make the blanket statement that if kids are unhappy, they can just quit the sport. Sure they can, Why should a student give up the -athlete part of his college and the rest goes to the fairness of the rule, which has been discussed here before.
btw, my child is content with his situation, and does not want to leave his school.
I also don't think the NCAA is putting kids on the streets either. There have been a few exceptions to the sit out rule. While some will make the blanket statement that if kids are unhappy, they can just quit the sport. Sure they can, Why should a student give up the -athlete part of his college and the rest goes to the fairness of the rule, which has been discussed here before.
btw, my child is content with his situation, and does not want to leave his school.
Baseball is different than other NCAA sports for one main reason....Summer Ball.
What was happening was that more prestigious programs were using summer ball as a recruitment tool. If a player wound up at a mid or low level D1 and suddenly came into his own or had some growth spurt that made him a beast of a player (happens a lot at the college level), he would get an invite to a good summer league. At the summer league he would mix with players from other colleges that would solicit him to transfer to their school. With stars in their eyes, it wasn't hard to start raiding the mid majors of their hard recruited talent.
The NCAA stepped in and made the sit rule to prevent this raiding.
The roster rule came out hand in hand with the sit rule and the scholarship minimum. It was obvious that many big schools were stock piling talent. One reason was to have a deep pool and see who might become a great player, and the other, was to keep anyone else from getting that player. With the new transfer rule, it would have been much harder for those players that had been led down the garden path by recruiters to pick up and take their wares somewhere else, once they figured out that BigNameU wasn't really a good fit for them. BigNameU was famous for "book money scholarships", where they could sign a player to a NLI for a few hundred dollars of scholarship money and have 50 players on scholarship. The attraction to a 17/18 year old of getting ANY scholarship at his dream school was often enough to lure them into a web where they were just played like pawns. Coaches had rosters 50-60 deep.
The roster rule, combined with the sit rule, combined with the % of scholarship minimum, were part of a plan to try and make baseball players make better choices about where to attend, thereby increasing graduation rates.
Regards,
Chip
What was happening was that more prestigious programs were using summer ball as a recruitment tool. If a player wound up at a mid or low level D1 and suddenly came into his own or had some growth spurt that made him a beast of a player (happens a lot at the college level), he would get an invite to a good summer league. At the summer league he would mix with players from other colleges that would solicit him to transfer to their school. With stars in their eyes, it wasn't hard to start raiding the mid majors of their hard recruited talent.
The NCAA stepped in and made the sit rule to prevent this raiding.
The roster rule came out hand in hand with the sit rule and the scholarship minimum. It was obvious that many big schools were stock piling talent. One reason was to have a deep pool and see who might become a great player, and the other, was to keep anyone else from getting that player. With the new transfer rule, it would have been much harder for those players that had been led down the garden path by recruiters to pick up and take their wares somewhere else, once they figured out that BigNameU wasn't really a good fit for them. BigNameU was famous for "book money scholarships", where they could sign a player to a NLI for a few hundred dollars of scholarship money and have 50 players on scholarship. The attraction to a 17/18 year old of getting ANY scholarship at his dream school was often enough to lure them into a web where they were just played like pawns. Coaches had rosters 50-60 deep.
The roster rule, combined with the sit rule, combined with the % of scholarship minimum, were part of a plan to try and make baseball players make better choices about where to attend, thereby increasing graduation rates.
Regards,
Chip