Skip to main content

13 replies

College rules???

FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
Help me with my perception. Since I no longer have a college player I’m not up on all the rule changes. I understand there been changes that effect the roster sizes in D-1 programs. Many says this hurts the players. I’m trying to figure out who’s getting hurt. Am I right in assuming that the number of colleges remain the same ---- The number of games remain the same ---- The number of innings per game remain the same ---- The number of scholarships remain the same. If so then as I see it the number of actual “players” remain the same. Is the only thing that has changed is the number of players on the bench?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

B baseball16810+ posts
Fungo,

From what I know, your words above are correct. The people that are getting hurt are mainly walk-ons or recruited walk-ons. Obviously, all of the kids that play and then some are still on the team.

I'm not sure if when you are referring to the games, you're referring to the shortened time to get all the games in. This may hurt the players academically, which I'm sure you know, because of the high number of games in shorter time.
CM Coach May1,000+ posts
D-1 roster limit is now max 35. Many schools carried more than 35 at the D1 level. So now those players will trickle down to the D-2 D-3 JUCO or CC level. Players that would have been the 36-44 player on that D1 roster will play at the lower levels. Does that mean those players will push other players out? I dont know the answer to that one. I do think the roster limits are good.
RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
It would make sense the D1 players pushed down to D2 or D3 would push some D2 and D3 players further down the depth chart or off the roster. But I still believe there's a place to play at some level for a player with reasonable talent.

Fungo, two other things changed. 1) the length of the season and 2) the number of games from sixty to fifty-six. With the season shortened teams are often playing two non-conference games a week instead of one. A couple of pitchers have to be benefitting.
infielddadinfielddad10,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by RJM:
It would make sense the D1 players pushed down to D2 or D3 would push some D2 and D3 players further down the depth chart or off the roster. But I still believe there's a place to play at some level for a player with reasonable talent.

Fungo, two other things changed. 1) the length of the season and 2) the number of games from sixty to fifty-six. With the season shortened teams are often playing two non-conference games a week instead of one. A couple of pitchers have to be benefitting.


RJM,
I'm going to be a bit contentious, I guess. Just because a player is on a DI roster does not make him a DI player. Just because a player is on a DIII roster doesn't mean he isn't a DI player.
On a local board I ranted a bit about "DI" as the supposed measurement of the player. It just is not, at least in CA. In CA, we have so many more "DI" players than we have DI spots.
At our son's DIII from 2000 to 2004, they had players transfering in from DI's every year. Good DI's from the SEC, Big XII. Most never or rarely started at that DIII. Bottom line...dropping down from a DI roster does not mean you will push DII and DIII guys down. You might be still looking up.
Last edited by infielddad
RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
quote:
Originally posted by infielddad:
quote:
Originally posted by RJM:
It would make sense the D1 players pushed down to D2 or D3 would push some D2 and D3 players further down the depth chart or off the roster. But I still believe there's a place to play at some level for a player with reasonable talent.

Fungo, two other things changed. 1) the length of the season and 2) the number of games from sixty to fifty-six. With the season shortened teams are often playing two non-conference games a week instead of one. A couple of pitchers have to be benefitting.


RJM,
I'm going to be a bit contentious, I guess. Just because a player is on a DI roster does not make him a DI player. Just because a player is on a DIII roster doesn't mean he isn't a DI player.
On a local board I ranted a bit about "DI" as the supposed measurement of the player. It just is not, at least in CA. In CA, we have so many more "DI" players than we have DI spots.
At our son's DIII from 2000 to 2004, they had players transfering in from DI's every year. Good DI's from the SEC, Big XII. Most never or rarely started at that DIII. Bottom line...dropping down from a DI roster does not mean you will push DII and DIII guys down. You might be still looking up.
I don't dissagree. My point was in the generic world. It was easier than footnoting all the possible exceptions.

Let's say when the time comes my son draws interest from D1's. If he thinks playing time is questionable, he'll go right to D3. We don't have high end academic D2's in our region. There's always the possibility of bagging baseball in college. Baseball will not be a primary objective in selecting a college. There won't be transferring for playing time. The decision will be 80/20 academic.
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
Fungo - Having been a Stanford fan for a lot longer than our son was a player there...I can easily count a number of players, some of them walkons, who never played in their freshman and/or sophomore years...yet rose to become impact players by their junior year.

One of them, I believe, became the 2nd all-time batting average leader at the school. When he walked on, the coaches had never heard of him. Its my understanding that the coaches warned him after Fall practices of his freshman year it might not be worth his time and effort to keep playing but if he wanted too they'd keep him on the roster. Another is the son of a sometimes-poster on this board who not only was an impact player but also brought the university great recognition for his stellar academics.

Will coaches have the patience to wait these kids out while keeping them on the 35 man roster? Or will they just get cut as freshmen?

I look at the 35-45 roster spots as optional for the kids. If they want to keep playing for whatever reason (e.g. like the kids above or just because they love being on the team), what harm is it to the NCAA? I know they're trying to reduce stockpiling, but is it just a case of writing a rule to stop the 5-10 abusers of the system? I don't really like rules written with that purpose in mind.
Last edited by justbaseball
S SKeep100+ posts
Fungo,

I do believe one of the changes that hasn’t been mentioned is that ball players will have to maintain academics in the fall semester too.

infielddad,

What you pointed isn’t something that’s just in your imagination. There’s a kind of snobbery that exists about this stuff, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it. It isn’t that out here in Ca the players are any better than the rest of the country, but as you correctly pointed out, there simply are more top drawer players than schools considered top drawer schools!

No matter what people think they know about the system out here, unless they’re actually in it, they truly don’t have a clue! Its changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and changes more every year! One of the things that makes it so difficult to understand, is our JUCO system. Its so huge now, and still growing, that for many people what makes the most sense is, forget scholarships and let the kids go to a JUCO for 2 years.

I’ve know lots of players who gotten ships to big name schools but couldn’t afford them even with the ship. The two years of JUCO is free by comparison, plus they have a record to take with them to a big school, or if they’re good enough, they can be drafted right then.

With the rules changes for D1, what’s happened is there’s much more emphasis put on academics than athletics, which is exactly the way it should be. But what will happen with more emphasis placed on academics is, there will be a lot of top players not getting ships who would have received them in the past, so the overall quality of D1 players versus the rest of college players will drop at least a tad.
S SKeep100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SKeep:
Fungo,

I do believe one of the changes that hasn’t been mentioned is that ball players will have to maintain academics in the fall semester too.

infielddad,

What you pointed out isn’t something that’s just in your imagination. There’s a kind of snobbery that exists about this stuff, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it. It isn’t that out here in Ca the players are any better than the rest of the country, but as you correctly pointed out, there simply are more top drawer players than schools considered top drawer schools!

No matter what people think they know about the system out here, unless they’re actually in it, they truly don’t have a clue! Its changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and changes more every year! One of the things that makes it so difficult to understand, is our JUCO system. Its so huge now, and still growing, that for many people what makes the most sense is, forget scholarships and let the kids go to a JUCO for 2 years.

I’ve know lots of players who gotten ships to big name schools but couldn’t afford them even with the ship. The two years of JUCO is free by comparison, plus they have a record to take with them to a big school, or if they’re good enough, they can be drafted right then.

With the rules changes for D1, what’s happened is there’s much more emphasis put on academics than athletics, which is exactly the way it should be. But what will happen with more emphasis placed on academics is, there will be a lot of top players not getting ships who would have received them in the past, so the overall quality of D1 players versus the rest of college players will drop at least a tad.
S SKeep100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SKeep:
quote:
Originally posted by SKeep:
Fungo,

I do believe one of the changes that hasn’t been mentioned is that ball players will have to maintain academics in the fall semester too.

infielddad,

What you pointed out isn’t something that’s just in your imagination. There’s a kind of snobbery that exists about this stuff, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it. It isn’t that out here in Ca the players are any better than the rest of the country, but as you correctly pointed out, there simply are more top drawer players than schools considered top drawer schools!

No matter what people think they know about the system out here, unless they’re actually in it, they truly don’t have a clue! Its changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and changes more every year! One of the things that makes it so difficult to understand, is our JUCO system. Its so huge now, and still growing, that for many people what makes the most sense is, forget scholarships and let the kids go to a JUCO for 2 years.

I’ve known lots of players who gotten ships to big name schools but couldn’t afford them even with the ship. The two years of JUCO is free by comparison, plus they have a record to take with them to a big school, or if they’re good enough, they can be drafted right then.

With the rules changes for D1, what’s happened is there’s much more emphasis put on academics than athletics, which is exactly the way it should be. But what will happen with more emphasis placed on academics is, there will be a lot of top players not getting ships who would have received them in the past, so the overall quality of D1 players versus the rest of college players will drop at least a tad.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×