College exit interviews

.

While it is by it's nature an extremely competitve environment...things are a bit more acute this year for many schools with the roster size changes...

Good news is thhat some schools have already made significant adjustments...started last fall...

Bad news...And you hit it...Exit interviews wil be dicy...already hearing things from parents about a a couple rostered non-graduated players likley out at DI's to make room..

Bad news/Good news...the filter down to DII, DII, NAIA, and JC will significantly affect those programs as the talent moves. While the players released may not be top DI's, from what I many will play very significant roles at their new schools.

One of My big questions is...are the DI's just simply going to take a big one year hit on the graduation/retention rates to get into roster size compliance? Or am I missing something?

44
.

Its a bit more subtle than that.

Just because you have signed an NLI, you are NOT guaranteed a spot on the roster. You are guaranteed that scholarship money for one year. That's it. You still have to earn your roster spot in the fall.

Don't be surprised to see a growth in the number of incoming freshmen who are red-shirted (thus not counting against the roster cap).

You report your rosters in the spring when the season starts. There will still be colleges with more than 35 there working out in the fall, trying to make the squad. And it's still a business.

quote:

Don't be surprised to see a growth in the number of incoming freshmen who are red-shirted (thus not counting against the roster cap).

It's my undertanding that under the new NCAA rules, red-shirted players WILL count against the roster cap.

Infield08, I wish you were right, but, again, it's probably more complex than that.

From the baseball recommendation committee report:

quote:

Institutions would be required to determine the additional student-athletes in the 35-person roster limit not later than the day before the institution’s first contest and may not make any changes to that roster for the remainder of the season.

What I read from that is, they will count the players receiving scholarship money at the beginning of the season (Counters) and then determine who to make active on the roster until it reaches the 35 limit. Any non-scholarship guy who doesn't make the 35 man roster is invisible to the NCAA since that isn't even set until the beginning of the season.

When you look at the announcement above (19 NLI's coming in), remember that they must give everyone who is receiving a scholarship at least a 25% ride of baseball money alone. That's almost 5 full scholarships ... about half of their allotted total for use over 4 years. And that's if they offered (and got) every player at the minimum amount and didn't have to go up on their offer to any player. It seems a bit high.

I'm wondering if the 19 includes some commitments that aren't receiving any baseball scholarship money. If so, then those players aren't considered as being "roster" players until the spring .. if then.

If a current player isn't receiving a scholarship, he falls into the same black hole. They don't have to send him packing ... just not count him.

It's still going to be a brutal business to some kids.

Infield08 is correct and the NLI guys are deemed to be on the roster for the spring/championship round. Some may in fact be RS.
I am not sure how you got the # of NLI players. Just because they signed with a college doesn't mean they are NLI players.

I am sure that the 19 are not all getting BB money. The the 25% min is not just BB money but a package which includes where applicable the academic money.
The school will cut players at the exit meeting from all levels. I have my fingers crossed this year.

The roster parameters may have changed but it is still the same story---you have to earn the roster spot---you have to earn the right to start--you have to earn the right to be on the travel squad---nothing has really changed that much---the kids with the talent will survive as they always have

the NLI is a contract between the College and the Player.

A. The player promises to come to that college and only that college else to sit out for a year at the D1 level.

B. The college promises to give him a scholarship for that year.

If no money is being given, then there is no need for the NLI. There isn't anything to sign.

That college must be reporting verbal commitments in addition to NLI's ....

... but I have a problem with that. I thought that a college couldn't mention someone who wasn't already a student unless they had a written commitment. To do so, in the absence of an NLI could be construed as tampering and interfering with other colleges recruiting efforts.

A college coach, in an interview can say "I have 19 players coming in", but if he identifies them by name, he needs to have the paperwork in order.

Bobble...
You're right. Went back and read my article again and this school has 11 with NLI's. That still makes 47 total kids to consider when you add up last year's team (FR, SO and JR) and the incoming players. This team needs 12 players to "go away" and maybe they know they'll lose that many to the draft. Its still worrisome for lots of kids and seems like a risk for the coaches. Exit interviews are in May, the draft is in June. A guessing game with human consequences.

quote:

The roster parameters may have changed but it is still the same story---you have to earn the roster spot---you have to earn the right to start--you have to earn the right to be on the travel squad---nothing has really changed that much---the kids with the talent will survive as they always have

TRhit

Yes, that's true. But now the roster limit really restricts the coaches. What about the kid who redshirted his FR year or the kid who only played limited innings? They could very well be off the team without any opportunity to "earn" a spot. Numbers and roster limits are going to result in a very different atmosphere this year.

the true intent of the legislation is to protect the players from this kind of action.

Many conferences have rules that you cannot take away a players scholarship (unless he commits some sort of major behavioral infraction, fails to maintain academic eligibility or flunks out). If coaches continue to stock-pile and run off players in the spring, expect the NCAA to step in (but that's WAY down the road).

There are bigger issues facing college baseball right now that will demand the attention of the NCAA first.

quote:

Many conferences have rules that you cannot take away a players scholarship (unless he commits some sort of major behavioral infraction, fails to maintain academic eligibility or flunks out).

Huh? I thought scholarships were one year at a time. Players plan to play 4 years while getting their degree, but scholarships are taken away every year for reasons other than the issues you state. Maybe you meant you can't lose your sholarship mid-year?

In quite a few schools they don't allow changes (down) to a scholarship once it's been awarded for the full 4 years. Seriously. You will probably find it more common in relatively more expensive private schools, but I know that The Citadel has that policy and that's a public college. I know of a few more that do the same thing.

I wouldn't say that it's real common, but it sure makes sense to me. If they want a player to commit for 4 years, then they need to commit to him for 4 years too. The scholarships are written for one year at a time, but automatically renewed during the exit interview process (unless there has been a major problem of some type).

Most colleges won't take your scholarship away if you are still recovering from a sport-related injury at the end of the season.

---
just stating what I've personally seen, or what has been told to me, face-to-face, by different college coaches.

quote:

Numbers and roster limits are going to result in a very different atmosphere this year.

KC - respectfully disagree. I am not sure much has changed. I could be missing your point and for that I apologize in advance.

Under the old rules, say the team had 44 kids on the roster. I don't think the exit interview for the 44th kid was going to go all that well either. All that kid had to hang his hat on maybe was another go around the next fall but the school could have easily recruited someone who they felt would be better and the bottom-roster player would still be no better off. Also, the 35th kid or the 44th kid are going to find it difficult to get playing time the following fall regardless because only 18 kids can be on the field at any one time.

Are you arguing the 35th kid's spot on the roster may now be in jeopardy? It probably is but no more so than under the old rules. The key is to play not be the 35th man on the roster. I am not sure that many D1 programs are there to develop kids. No one seems to lament that some of these displaced D1 players will now end the careers of lower division players. In many cases, it ends the reality of being listed on the roster. It often times does not change whether someone would get to play or not.

I agree with TrHit. Nothing has really changed imho. It is just as difficult now as it was then to get on the field. The number of playable innings has not changed. The ability to be listed on the roster has indeed changed but not sure how much harm there is in that. For those that lose a scholarship because of it, that may be the biggest issue obviously. Again, schools that bring many in and cut scholarships will develop a reputation that will catch up to them sooner or later imho.

I guess my intent in this post was to point out that exit interviews this year will result in more heartache than ever before. Yes, there are only 9 players on the field, but in the past, not as many players got devastating news that their rostered days were over, changing their college plans. Yes, this has always happened, I just think more KIDS will be affected this year. I feel the new rules have changed things.
You correctly point out that

quote:

some of these displaced D1 players will now end the careers of lower division players

and this also tears me up. Its the trickle-down effect that I mentioned in my first post.
BTW, my college-age kid has had his sit-down and everything is fine. My emotions are for those players, in greater numbers than in the past, who down't hear good news this spring. And I do blame the NCAA for not thinking through the results of the new rules. Their intentions may be good, but that won't help the young men who get caught up in implementing the new rules.

Up to this change most programs only carried 30 to 35 players on the roster the and the travel roster was usually 25 or as mandated by their conference.

I see not much difference now

Hithard there is no school that says your BB scholarship is afe for 4 years. The NLI is only signed when BB money is involved and it is for 1 year. Anything beyond 1 year is up to the coach. Academic money is renewable if you maintain a certain GPA.
Now my son's freahman roommate was cut in his soph year. The coach told him no more BB money. He could have stayed at the school as a 4.0 student and he had no behavioral problems. Maybe too quiet and studious.
KC is right in being concerned as part of the duediligence and there are some who migh lose their opportunity because they don't carry more players who might have been RS and developed.
My son did poorly this year and it is obvious to me why. He could be on the chopping block after this his JR year and 2 excellent years. As you might put it this year he didn't earn his spot. H ehad actually just received a nice increase in his BB money at the start of the season. I am very concerned and can't believe what I saw this year and last summer in summer collegiate ball. After viewing the video stream I certainly know the why.

The following is what I was told by a Top 25 D1 head coach:
We are now playing the same number of games but we are doing it in 3 less weeks. The number of games per week is now 5 instead of 4. Schools now need a pitching staff of 16-18 just to play all of the games. The roster cap is 35, with an average of 18 pitchers, 3 catchers and 14 position players. The D1 schools do not have the luxury of redshirting any position players unless they are injured. This same coach said that he will now select his position players from the JUCO's because he wants a player that has played 100+ college games (Spring and Fall)and not a freshmen that has zero college experience.

cbg it may infact push the coach to more experienced players since they have less time to develop players. Guys they might have RS and worked with are going to be more limited so more future potential players won't get the chance. The 25% and 35 man roster sqeezes the coach a lot more than the old rules. TR and CD miss this point. Kids that might have been RS because they had potential but played behind an incumbent player may not get the opportunity they might have.
I know several players who sat for a year or two who became starters.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
The 25% min is not just BB money but a package which includes where applicable the academic money.

15.5.4.1 Minimum Equivalency Value. Effective Date: Aug 01, 2008
An institution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency.

So the 25% is BB money in the sense that it consumes 0.25 of the 11.7 available scholarships.

bobble

Don't be so sure we missed the point---

I suggest you look up the equivalency and countable defs.

I think if you didn't miss the point, then you just like to disagree!

Tr I was being polite. the other possibility is that you don't give a **** about these young men and what happens to them.
You seem to think that if you don't come out of the box ready to be a starter then tough luck.

quote:

TR and CD miss this point. Kids that might have been RS because they had potential but played behind an incumbent player may not get the opportunity they might have.
I know several players who sat for a year or two who became starters.

We did not miss the point at all. Those guys in which you speak may have been the 14th or 15th best players on the roster. Obviously, it is no surprise they eventually became starters. If you are arguing the 35th player became a starter, then maybe you missed the point.

No I am talking about the 35-38th players.

quote:

Originally posted by HiHardHeat:
Don't be surprised to see a growth in the number of incoming freshmen who are red-shirted (thus not counting against the roster cap).

Infield08 replied that redshirts do count against the 35 man cap.
Here's the rule that supports his position:

17.4.8.3 Squad Size Limitation—Championship Segment. An institution shall declare a squad of a
maximum of 35 student-athletes by the day prior to its first scheduled contest in the championship segment of
the playing and practice season. Only those student-athletes who are declared as squad members at that time
shall be eligible to participate in countable athletically related activities during the remainder of the champion-
ship segment. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08)

And,

17.02.1 Countable athletically related activities. Countable athletically related activities include
any required activity with an athletics purpose involving student-athletes and at the direction of, or supervised
by one or more of an institution’s coaching staff (including strength and conditioning coaches) and must be
counted within the weekly and daily limitations under Bylaw 17.1.6.1 and17.1.6.2. Administrative activities
(e.g., academic meetings, compliance meetings) shall not be considered as countable athletically related activities.

So if you define a "redshirt" as a player who practices with the team, but does not compete, then the redshirt must be a member of the 35 man squad.

It would sure be great if that weren't true.

I agree that not much has or will change for many programs.

I also agree with HHH, good coaches make commitments to you with the understanding they are renewable and will renew them unless you mess up or not eligible.

Many, many schools now carry a roster of 35 or less, have even before that number became mandatory. It won't hurt them or their program at all. Those with larger rosters cut down before last summer, to give players a chance to transfer withour sitting out a year.

You still, as always, have to earn your time on the field and a spot on the 25 man travel roster.

Redshirts count in the 35, and as I mentioned before, unless a player is hurt you will see less and less redshirt players.

The 35 man limit will affect those that were given a uni and maybe some book money and never really made a contribution on the field.

I think that the NCAA thought this out well, they wanted to end large rosters that forced players to transfer because they sat.

JMO

The NCAA cuts the roster limit to keep kids from transfering to help academics, I guess, and shortens the season adding about six weeks with five games apiece, putting more stress on academics.

Academics (APR) has a net zero change and baseball quality tanks. It's going to look like little league in 3 years.