College Baseball/Economy

Anything is possible but it is more likely football will get cur backs. very few college football programs make money. BB is fairly lean and inexpensive for a college to run. You may see a cut in the 35 roster max.

.

Looking back to your situation (getting ready for college fees), we always viewed any money that was available to assist in the kids' education as being Manna from Heaven. With only 11.7 scholarships at the D1 level, and none at D2, anyone who "knows his kid is gonna' get a scholarship", either better look hard in the mirror, or look for an Advisor, because the kid will get drafted.

Today, the competition is so great for the few dollars available, that it is always safer to figure out how to get it done without a scholarship, pick a school that matches said kid to the tee, and get down and kiss the ground if he actually gets offered something... yes, even "book money". People, don't fall for all the stories you hear out at the ballfield... "so and so's kid got a full ride!" They are darn scarce. YES, there are many on here who have experienced full rides... maybe 30? Out of 10,000 kids on D1 rosters this year alone? Don't plan your kid's future on your dreams for him...

Economy up / economy down.... great question, but shouldn't matter. Plan accordingly.

And once again, I thank all of you for your participation in my sons' education. That is a sincere thanks.

cadDAD

.

Academy Dad has offered some very sound advice. Take the approach of funding your son/daughter's education without baseball monies and consider anything else a bonus.
College baseball programs are already being impacted by the downturned economy, and some of the smaller programs are currently taking measures. Cutting back on travel is one approach, and you can bet that many schools will adjust in this area next year. Post season tourneys may be re-located or downsized.
What does it mean to the students and or parents? We'll see, but fundraising efforts will certainly be an area of increased emphasis. Maybe parents will be asked to shell out to help fund non-conference travel at some of the smaller schools.

I don't think it will be school budgets, rather family budgets that will be affected. My son choose to go out of State with a very nice scholarship, but high OOS tuition. With that said, if his scholarship would have been in the 20-30% range and there were similar options in State, it would have been suggested that he not cross the State line. With 11.7 scholarships spread in a different manner, and the economy on it's present coarse, IMO kids may stay closer to home when it comes to school selection.

A "good fit" does not only mean a kids baseball and academic fit, but also includes a families ability to pay.

I think it's important to remember a "good fit" is the ultimate goal, and "perfect fits" are far and few between.

Money was always a big deal with us. We had to get X dollars or my son stayed in Canada. You can call it mercenary or what ever you like but it paid off. You can only tell if it was a great Fit after it is all over.
I agree family budget will alter things including the lead up to college. Those high priced elite teams will be out of reach for many more people. I am so glad I pushed for the best scholarship he could get. He even got a nice increase in his Soph year. tuition rises on an average of 5% every year.

Thanks for the interesting replies. I hate the thought of something completely out of our control disrupting a process that I've watched my son work so hard for. We do plan to stay in state, so the in-state tuition should work in our favor. Also trying hard at the coaches suggestion to improve his ACT score (24) to hopefully get acedemic money, as well.

I think that some coaches award scholarships also based on families economic situations. Those that can well afford to send their players to school are becoming walk ons while the coaches give out more money to those who need it most and will make an impact for their program, especially those that come from out of state.

Be truthful with the coaches about your economic situation during the process. They will help in anyway they can if they really want your player in their program.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
....Those that can well afford to send their players to school are becoming walk ons while the coaches give out more money to those who need it most and will make an impact for their program, especially those that come from out of state.

Where is that data coming from? Economic hard times are hitting every class and while I know few rich people, the ones I do know would never say..........

quote:

Bring in the poor kid, we'll pay our own way

Most people get "well off" because they don't give their money away. IMO

TPM and rz1, I think there's merit in what both of you have to say.

When my son and I attended TCU's Junior Day 2 years ago, I remember Recruiting Coordinator Todd Whitting referring to numerous players by name who were major contributors to their program but got miniscule athletic dollars in order to help the program recruit top players who were harder-up financially.

I would imagine, however, that he and other coaches who try to work deals like this have a significant challenge: talking recruits and their parents into accepting this type of arrangement. Like rz1 commented, most folks -- no matter how rich -- are rarely enthusiastic about giving their money away. In addition, two other variables come into play. First, there's the "pride" issue of getting athletic money. Second, wealthy parents may be leery of accepting no athletic money or minimal athletic money (25%), because historically the "show me the money" mentality has linked scholarship percentages to potential playing time. Also, if a player gets no athletic money, he is technically considered a recruited walk-on and has no idea whether he will be one of 8 or 18 RWO's brought on. Since the max roster size of 35 doesn't have to be met 'til right before the season begins, there's a lot of uncertainty for those types of players.

Where is the data coming from? I don't think that I have to reveal people's personal stuff, if they want to post it that's their business. Thing is, most people will not tell you how much their sons scholarships are, you have NO way of knowing who gets what.
I know of about 8 players from this area who went to play at programs with no scholarships, maybe got books, all because they could well afford the yearly tuition and the coach needed money for players who can't afford the high private school tuition. Recently a friend's son had to give up his scholarship for his last year, coaches will be asking more and more to give it up for the team.

The comment about bringing in the poor kid was not my quote, it was yours and IMO out of context from what my point was.
What I did say was to be truthful about your economic situation with the coach.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:
When my son and I attended TCU's Junior Day 2 years ago, I remember Recruiting Coordinator Todd Whitting referring to numerous players by name who were major contributors to their program but got miniscule athletic dollars in order to help the program recruit top players who were harder-up financially.

As one can see, it happens all of the time, everywhere, I just prefer not to name programs.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:
TPM and rz1, I think there's merit in what both of you have to say.

I doubt tpm and I run in similar circles so the "upper crust" is unfamiliar turf for me to draw examples from. Along with the points Infield08 makes, I still doubt there few situations in college athletics in general where parents will "take one for the team". However there are exceptions to every rule, but "happens all the time" I feel is a stretch when looking at the big picture nation wide. JMHO

The statement regarding "the upper crust" and who runs in what circles is completely out of line. Regardless of who you know and who you don't know has nothing to do with this.

This happens, TCU is just an example.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
The statement regarding "the upper crust" and who runs in what circles is completely out of line. Regardless of who you know and who you don't know has nothing to do with this.

This happens, TCU is just an example.

The reference was to baseball recruiting circles because in my area I can't list 8 legit recruits let alone know of about 8 players who went to play at programs with no scholarships, maybe got books, all because they could well afford the yearly tuition. In regard to those 8 families, all the "crusts" I know are at the other end of the loaf.

IMHO, I find it hard to comprehend a coach telling a family that because you have more, I'm going to give you less if he is competing for that players services during the recruiting process.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
The reference was to baseball recruiting circles because in my area.....

Well, maybe you need to research out of your area and not assume because you have never seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist.

There are a whole bunch of schools out there who do not give out scholarships at all but to those that need it. They have players that are willing to come and play for nothing just because they want to play in that program under that coach and go to that school. I'll give state schools as an example, some players that earn state tuition through hope type scholarships don't get much else. Maybe books, as long as both add up to 25% of a full ride. There are all type of reasons when awarding BB money or not awarding BB, at every school.

The NCAA does not force any school to give out any money for scholarships, but mandate that if you do, it has to be at least 25% and you can only give X amount of scholarships. Many coaches use the money they have to lure top players from other schools. Pitchers get most of it.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Well, maybe you need to research out of your area and not assume because you have never seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist.
I may not be the sharpest knive in the drawer, but I do have a clue. The words never or doesn't were ever used by me, the words exceptions and few were used

There are a whole bunch of schools out there who do not give out scholarships at all but to those that need it.
That's what confuses me. Except for some IVY discussions concerning aide, I don't recall discussion highlighting that thought, or anyone saying that as was an experience, or concern. That list of schools would be a great resource for HSBBW families researching schools and their scholarship philosophy.

They have players that are willing to come and play for nothing just because they want to play in that program under that coach and go to that school.
I'm not going to say the words never or doesn't occur because I don't know, but my opinion is "very very seldom" would a recruited athlete pursue that option.

I'll give state schools as an example, some players that earn state tuition through hope type scholarships don't get much else. Maybe books, as long as both add up to 25% of a full ride.
A few States have a program in place, right? If you qualify, what is the % covered by the State in relationship to the cost of a full ride? If I read you correctly that percent is counted against the 11.7? I always thought a tuition only scholly was around 50% . I never have understood how those programs work, but have always heard others complain about it. What are the issues?

Just my 2 cents. I think that schools will try to recruit players that get a lot of need-based aid, in order to save the $ for the folks that wont get any need-based $.We were told by a coach that if an offer was 60%, and you got 70% need based $, they want you to take the non baseball$ so they can use the baseball $ elsewhere. Which seems to me like they can figure how much need aid youll get, and make the offer just a bit less than that in order to save the $. Personally, I think that when the economy goes down like this, the first guy that gets hurt is the one that can afford it the least.

rz - I know of three states with tuition programs. Florida has the Bright Futures (for now) that pays either 75% or 100% tuition for eight consecutive semesters. Most high school seniors qualify for 75% based on test scores. Tuition is around 30-40% of the cost. Tuition is $3,500 to $4,500 a year, but rising faster than inflation, like most places.

Georgia has the HOPE program, which is similar to Florida's program.

Louisiana has the TOPS program which pays 100% tuition of about $4K a year wth qualifying ACT or SAT scores. It doesn't pay for summer school. The team does though. The bar is not high. UL uses their baseball money to get out of state kids, who can also qualify for waived ut of state tuition with a B average or decent test scores. The bottom line is relatively consistant for most of the team. A relatively rural state like Louisiana or South Carolina has to go out of state to TX, Arizona and Florida for arms and legs. Room, board, fees and books make up the majority of costs in Florida and Louisiana.

Ron Polk is mad because MS has no tuition program to compete. At least they didn't when he wrote "the letter".

State money is NOT counted in the 11.7 unless BB $ is blended, then it must be 25% of the total cost combined. So many schools that sign recruits that have earned 75%-100% state tuitition can save their bb dollars for those they bring in from out of state. If tuition takes up 20% of the COA, the coach can add but it must be 5%, or he doesn't have to do anything, that's his choice and players and their families as well.

You want a personal example, my son was told from FAU, within driving distance to our home, that coach needed his room and board money for out of state players. It was his choice to pay for housing or live at home. Meanwhile, I know of an out of state player that was offered big BB dollars to come play at that school. While this didn't work in our case, about 2 local players I know of took the option. With living at home, state tuition and close by the family had relatively little costs for school so it worked for them. This didn't work for us and he really wanted farther away from home.

FWIW, Clemson gives out small scholarships in general, in state, out of state, but pitchers got most of the BB money and those needed out of state got more BB money. Out of respect for the coaches and program, I won't get into how they recruit and give out $$, but I am under the impression that a lot more is considered than talent. I have some folks here who have told me they were shocked how little they give, but sons signed anyway.

UM also gives out very little, two transfers I know of picked up the whole tab themselves (except books) but they lived close by so parents had no travel to worry about. They recruit close to home on purpose and give those in need the most and some live at home to cut costs. They also depend heavily on endowments for need. At 35% offer, if we could afford the difference son may have gone, just because it was UM and they have a winning program and produce first rounders. Yes I would be willing to give up money for a team to field an Omaha team.
At first it seemed like an insult, as it would to many, but that is just what they do. They were many of a few schools we talked to that claimed that they didn't have to give out anything, players want to come just becausde they are UM. Elitist attitude, maybe, but they can do that just because of who they are and players are pounding on their doors, and that is their perogative. They were 4 short on scholarships when son was recruitied. Not sure if things have changed. But I doubt it, how many people talk here about their sons signing to UM...NONE. I have to chuckle somtimes I get some folks asking me about UM, frankly it doesn't matter because unless they can afford it, they are not signing. I learned all of this at breakfast one morning with a UM parent in Omaha one morning who we played with on a team in HS. He got books only. She actually felt her son got the spot because they could afford it and he was drafted well so most likely they got much return on their investment. He was an insignificant non counter who played all of the time, so scholarship money has nothing to do with playing time at many programs.

Then came Auburn, son very interested. Coach at the time told us that he only had 30-35%, he needed to give a badly needed player more money, that was all he had to offer. His priority was not in pitching that year, obviously. Again, it sounded insulting for a pitcher, but now I understand that is what coaches do.

You can argue all you want, it exists, people just don't talk about it, they don't tell you their sons offers or no offers because it is no one's business. Especially when they are still attending. Or after because this info can hurt programs in recruiting. I gave two examples where coaches are no longer at the programs,

This may be a bit off topic, but on my son's travel team the kids with the big offers had the better off parents who could afford college camps, showcases, etc. The economy is causing schools to cut back and as BBHD said, many are cutting football. In Washington State a DII just axed their football program. It was news to me though that football looses money, maybe only the DIIs on down?

quote:

It was news to me though that football looses money, maybe only the DIIs on down?

I would venture to say that most in all divisions probably don't make much money. I don't know specifically football, an article I've read in the past couple of years said that only about 19 DI schools make a profit in their athletic departments. Most are in the red.

I know here at SEMO the football team lost about $700k in 2007 I believe it was.

quote:

Originally posted by Pop Up Hitter dad:
This may be a bit off topic, but on my son's travel team the kids with the big offers had the better off parents who could afford college camps, showcases, etc. The economy is causing schools to cut back and as BBHD said, many are cutting football. In Washington State a DII just axed their football program. It was news to me though that football looses money, maybe only the DIIs on down?

JMO but the kids who got the bigger offers did so because they had bigger talent and because the parents could have likely afford to send their players someone else, they needed to do this. And you do not know what other offers they were getting and their particular economic situation. I know folks who spent huge bucks sending their kids everywhere because they needed exposure to get bigger offers. They were essentially tapped out and took the best $$ offer because that was their goal.

Let me pose a question to you all. If you could afford to send your son to school for 4 years, and his dream school offered no or little scholarship because they needed it for others, but was highly recruited, would you turn it down if you felt that he was getting a good education (the primary reason to go to school) and playing for a winning team or played in a highly visible and successful conference team...absolutely not, I wouldn't.

quote:

Florida has the Bright Futures (for now) that pays either 75% or 100% tuition for eight consecutive semesters.

That is why you cannot claim nationwide that players "all the time" walk on to programs without scholarship money. I know there are exceptions to every rule but FL, GA, or what ever state has those programs cannot be compared to the rest of the country. In 85% of the States when you say no aide it means no aide. The student pays "full boat". In the States you speak of a good student walks in with a 40% scholly right off the bat. It's BS.

I may need to get "out of my area" to be as knowledge as some, but I do know that what happens in fl is not the norm for the rest of the country.

quote:

tpm quote:
If you could afford

That's the key. If I could afford it I do anything for my kids, but myself, like many others are forced to live within our means, and reality is reality. If I could afford it I would still ask my son would he be happy sitting on the bench at his dream school or playing at a good academic institution that wanted him for his ability.

With that said I feel that many kids who grow up in an "I can afford it" environment would choose that dream school for the materialistic reasons instead of the competitive drive reasons. That's not a rule, rather an assessment of a rich kids mentality.

I said a "highly recruited player" in my post. Just because one is awarded no bb dollars does not mean he will be a bench sitter. Of those players mentioned who had no scholarships all were starters.

BTW, UM is not a state school so their rules for state money are different. And FWIW, many schools recruit players whether they get state money or not, but in reality state kids cost them less. State tuition is not an automatic thing, it's earned state money, and it depends on the program you persue in HS. There are 3 levels of merit money awarded, 100% is not easy to achieve. So although this is a HUGE advantage for states with these programs, there are stipulations.
BTW, interesting that many D1 parent's of FL players who post here did not or do not send their kids here to play, not too many opportunities despite the state money, it's not all BS which you stated in your post before you changed it.

quote:

So although this is a HUGE advantage for states with these programs, there are stipulations. It's not all BS.

How can you say its a HUGE advantage but in the same breath say it's not all BS.

Its either BS, or it is not BS. I've never heard it referred to as "kind of BS", would that be like "kind of dead"?

It is important to point out that in Florida the "Bright Futures" program only applies to Tuition, not the full cost of attendence. As many here know and are painfully aware, room and board food as well as books are very significant costs. At the Florida JUCO's we are familiar with, you get either a 50% or 100% ride. The 100% ride includes off campus housing in condo's and a meal plan as well as books. Mine was fortunate enough that he qualified for 75% Bright Futures. He receives that full amount in cash to spend in any way that he (we) deem appropriate, usually supplementing food and providing for gas.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

So although this is a HUGE advantage for states with these programs, there are stipulations. It's not all BS.

How can you say its a HUGE advantage but in the same breath say it's not all BS.

Its either BS, or it is not BS. I've never heard it referred to as "kind of BS", would that be like "kind of dead"?

I said huge advantage but had stipulations.
How do you know what a "rich kid's mentality is". Are you implying that those who have more have less desire and don't work as hard? That's weak and insulting.

I suppose there are some DI college football programs that lose money, but in most cases Football profits enough to support all other sports, including baseball. Of course there are many more DI baseball programs than DI A football programs. If you take the top conferences, most of those colleges have football programs that bring in enough revenue to support all other sports. There are also some basketball programs that profit, but very few baseball programs do.

If you look at the top overall college sports programs you will normally see a big time football program that is a money machine that drives the entire athletic department. When the rich get richer in college athletics it is most often due to the football program. Those are the places with the best facilities, best support, etc.

Especially in the north, college football supports all the non-profitable sports (men and women) other than basketball in certain places. Most all the Big Ten schools, Notre Dame, Nebraska, etc. have football programs that can cover the budget for all other sports. It’s that way everywhere else, too.

At the University of Iowa, I think every sport (men and women) loses money except for football. Football pays for everything else.

There might be a few baseball programs that profit, but not many. Maybe some like Mississippi State or LSU do actually profit.

There have been several baseball programs cut. Even some very big schools in conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12. (Wisconsin, Iowa State, Colorado) don’t play baseball. This was a result of equality for women’s sports more than anything else. However, they don’t cut profitable programs. Not having a baseball team meant they could have one less women’s sport. I’m not against women’s sports, but think its BS when a sport needs to be cut to keep from adding a Women’s sport.

Some of this is confusing… at U of Iowa they have a women’s rowing program. That’s OK, but when we found out the Women Rowing team was recruiting a girl from our town who never rowed a boat in her life, it seemed kind of ridiculous. She was a good basketball player, though. I’m all for equality, but does it make sense to create a sport that allows giving athletic scholarships to people who have never participated in that sport just because that person is a female? Would someone who has never learned to swim get an athletic scholarship to swim for the state college? Why not just make sure that females and males have equal opportunities, somehow. Why cut a men’s sport if it is only to keep from inventing some new women’s program? That isn’t going to do anything to help women receive more opportunity? Unfortunately, if the economy doesn’t improve, we might see many more college programs cut. (Both men and women)

Maybe a college baseball program will be cut so that then women’s rowing can be eliminated. An “equal”???? male/female cut that will save lots of money for the athletic department.

Note: I am not against women’s rowing. I’ve never even seen a women’s rowing match and don’t plan on ever seeing one. Just using that as an example of the insanity involved in all this stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I said a "highly recruited player" in my post. Just because one is awarded no bb dollars does not mean he will be a bench sitter. Of those players mentioned who had no scholarships all were starters.

My apology for missing that portion of the post.

btw- what players were mentioned as starters who did not have schollys?. The FL players who may have been receiving State scholly's or the TCU players Infield08 mentioned. He didn't say they were starters, did he?

Gosh, so very much to add here, I hope I don't forget it all!

1. Academy Dad has my vote - the economy is hitting all colleges and universities. While I do not believe the baseball schollys will be impacted, there are many things in many schools that will be. Google the topic and see how many schools have had their endowments hit hard. Look to whether you can fund your player, and consider schollys a "gift". By this, I am not suggesting that many players have to go without schollys, but that would just be my approach.

2. TPM is correct in her statements too. In our experience, we found a great variety in the manner in which a college/university will hand out schollys. By way of example, I live in a hotbed of baseball talent (So Cal). Several top D1 programs in our area have made it known to recruits I know personally that they give all or most all of their money each year to their top recruits, and ALL others will be recruited walk ons. Then there are other top D1 programs that will consider financial need in their offers. And they are MOST appreciative if you tell them what you can and cannot afford, and I believe they will continue to be most appreciative. Be honest with them. These colleges/universities do not treat their true recruited walk ons any differently than their scholly kids - in fact, you as the parent of a player would only know who got money and who didn't if they told you (which, sometimes they will and do tell, which I assume would come only with permission of the player). If they like and want your kid, they will do what is best for him that they can do within their means/ability - I did not find a one of them that we talked with when we were being recruited that were out to get "one up" on us in any way. Oh, and I also think that most of the top percentages of schollys will go to pitchers, then on down the line....

3. As for the future, I have had colleges/universities say that they will have to reduce their incoming class sizes simply because they have no more money.

4. Consider the new NCAA rules: if you give a scholly, you must give at least 25%. You may not give more than 27 total, and you may not roster more than 35. I don't think that rosters will be cut because of money (if they are smaller it is because that is the way the HC wants to run his program). I do know that colleges/universities are trying to top load on pitchers because the new compacted schedule which started last year has caused serious "pitcher wear out" which impacted results in the waining days of the season. This info. for what it is worth comes directly from a close friend who has two sons in college baseball - one of whom is a pitcher.

5. Oh, let's see - another topic. Not all schools are fully funded (not related to the economic downturn, already this way)...this is a good question to ask when it comes to talking about money. Some top academic schools are not (they may not be top tier in baseball, but they still have very good up and coming programs).

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I said a "highly recruited player" in my post. Just because one is awarded no bb dollars does not mean he will be a bench sitter. Of those players mentioned who had no scholarships all were starters.

My apology for missing that portion of the post.

btw- what players were mentioned as starters who did not have schollys?. The FL players who may have been receiving State scholly's or the TCU players Infield08 mentioned. He didn't say they were starters, did he?

The UM players I mentioned were transfers, they would have had to kept up a 3.0 for the year to receive any state money, which is good for 3 years if you return from out of state.
For UM being a private school, an average of state tuition costs are taken. It's a different formula.
Florida also has prepaid tuition. You can sign up when your child is born and pay tuition costs if they attend state school, what it costs 17-18 years ago. They also have a program talented top 20, if you fall within 20% of your schools class you get extra money. FL is a state with poor marks in graduation rates for HS but has good secondary options for those that work hard. Most programs want to keep their players in state and have a wide variety of talent to do so. Look at football rosters. Unfortunetly in baseball there are not as many schollies available at the larger top programs a handful, so many players do head out of state for baseball.

My originally post was about coaches asking those who can afford school to give up money so that others that need it can come to play. TCU cited as a program that does this. I am sure this is not the only coach who has this mentality in recruiting.
In our case, with our player being our youngest and last to go to school, we could afford to pass up the in state school with money back in your pocket for an out of state that would cost us quite a few more K a year (included in that projection was our travel costs a year, average). If we had others to follow most likely he would have stayed here. I did say that it is a personal family decision.

TPM -

agree, TCU is not the only coach/program that has this mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Let me pose a question to you all. If you could afford to send your son to school for 4 years, and his dream school offered no or little scholarship because they needed it for others, but was highly recruited, would you turn it down if you felt that he was getting a good education (the primary reason to go to school) and playing for a winning team or played in a highly visible and successful conference team...absolutely not, I wouldn't.

Yes....For the following reasons.

1. Who determines need? The family who has saved and planned for their kids education. I think would be appropriate to
make that determination. In my neck of the beach, the mom of a family of who had to forgo her weekly nail appointment
has fallen on hard times. "Need" in my opinion is relative. And quite frankly any monies saved due to a scholarship,
which in my opinion is earned and not given would be applied to grad school anyway.

2. If your a highly recruited player, you'll have opportunities to play for other high profile winning program. Putting
the quality of the program aside, it really is how good of a education your getting. And how is that meassured? To me
it means your marketable when you graduate in your chosen major.

3. " The dream school for education " Recent conversations with a UC Prof., may shed some light. Student(A) attends
Stanford and graduates with a 3.0. Student(B) graduates from Big State U with a 3.2. Providing test scores are the
same who gets the nod for grad school.... Big State U. And this guy sits on the board that decides on who's in and
who's out. Basically it's the same as HS if your looking towards grad school. It's all about GPA and test scores.

However Stanford carries more weight if you decide not to go to grad school. Grades, test score and a couple of years
of experience trumps everyhring.

JMHO.

quote:

no11 quote:
TPM is correct in her statements too. In our experience, we found a great variety in the manner in which a college/university will hand out schollys. By way of example, I live in a hotbed of baseball talent (So Cal). Several top D1 programs in our area have made it known to recruits I know personally that they give all or most all of their money each year to their top recruits, and ALL others will be recruited walk ons.

I cannot argue with either one of you that the schools in the "hotbeds" have a certain approach. However, to assume the top programs in areas like FL/.SoCal is the litmus of the nation is somewhat naive. With the exception of the "bluechips", with the number of quality players in the hotbed areas a school can lay down the gauntlet of minimal aide and if a player does not accept the terms they'll find another to take his place. This site does not all live in those areas. In my opinion the average ability scholarship player has an advantage in many non-hotbed areas he has more leverage due to the fact the "herd" is smaller, thus fewer similar alternative players available.

rz, I only speak from my experience. Son was recruited by several out of state schools. Thus, while I specifically referenced only schools my geographic area, in our experience this applied to out of state schools also.

I do agree that the "herd" is smaller outside of our hotbed areas, however, schools outside out our areas are strongly recruiting from our "herd" and they still made the same statements.

quote:

Originally posted by no11:
TPM -

agree, TCU is not the only coach/program that has this mentality.

Thank you. I did also say to be honest in the recruiting process. This helps the coach to understand how to spend his money. If he wants you and knows you cannot afford to come, he'll make it happen, even if that means recruiting someone who can afford full tuition and that doesn't mean that player will sit. That went or the window when the NCAA made new rules.

As I said it happens, but for some reason rz just doesn't beleive me.

dswann,
Good point about Stanford if true, for those who don't know my son got some extra money to take him out of state, the understanding was that he got it for 3 years only. If not drafted he was on his own, they told us that in three years they needed his money, all of it. We were pretty confidant that he would be drafted, if he had to pay 4th year, his scholarship was fair enough for 3 years to cover the 4th. Everyone's situation is different.

For sure the rest of the country can find players in the big herd hotbeds.

While the herd might be smaller in other parts of the country, those at the top of the national herd, are also recruited heavily by the top programs that are in the big herd parts of the country.

As an example...

Using our home state, where the baseball herd would be considered fairly small. Here are some of the recent year HS players and who successfully recruited them. Note: Some signed pro contracts and didn't attend the college they signed with.

Ryan Sweeney - San Diego State
Jeff Clement - Southern California
Zach Von Tersch - Georgia Tech
Brent Warren - Oregon State
BJ Hermsen - Oregon State
Brance Rivera - TCU
Jeremy Hellickson - LSU
Dean McCardle - Stanford

quote:

Originally posted by no11:
rz, I only speak from my experience.
Thank you I really do appreciate that.

Son was recruited by several out of state schools. Thus, while I specifically referenced only schools my geographic area, in our experience this applied to out of state schools also.
Tough questions:
Did you feel that schools were taking "a shot" to see if they could "under value" his ability while thinking they could get his ability at minimal cost somewhere else, maybe in-state?
Were the using the programs prestige as a negotiating ploy