Cut from D1? Lessons learned?

What were the reasons for their being cut ?---sometimes it has nothing do to do with talent


It is a privilege to play college baseball --not a right--

TRHit-

I don't know any of the specifics, just the result. Maybe it's more common than I suspected and I shouldn't be surprised at all, or there could be facts that I am not aware of that are unique to these players -- basically, I am just gathering information from those "in the know". Thanks.

GRAB


I like your term "apparently highly recruited"---what does that mean?

The D1 BB has had cuts for years. As long as I can remember. Not just in freshman year but any year. Sometimes it is talent but often it is the numbers game or occasionally it is a personality issue. Many new coaches will get rid of players to bring in their own guys.
You should always be aware it can happen to very good players. Now with new rules it is more important than ever to understand the issues of college ball.

Bobbleheaddoll

What are those issues?

TR you know reduced roster size and sit rule have complicated things.

Bobbl

Most rosters where in the same range previously ---I know shools who already have self mandated roster limit on all sports---as for sitting out a year it is what it is

Bottom line is a player has the talent and desire and grades he is fine---we need to stop making excuses--- the smart coaches will make it work and so will the players


Hey think about this---we play in many tournaments and each has different rules---let me tell you that you learn to adjust and very quickly or you will be left in dust

quote:

Bottom line is a player has the talent and desire and grades he is fine---

I don't agree. I have seen some very talented smart kids get cut. Some in their soph and JR years.
My son/s fresh roommate was cut because there were too many guys in his position. They were all very good.
A friend of mine was in his JR year in a D1 program in the Sun Belt and the new coach came up to him and told him to start looking for 3 new roomates.
Many teams have reduced rosters already. Last year many had 37-40 man rosters. Some of the bench guys got to workout and try to develop and become an every day player. Those guys may not get the chance. Not as much leaway to carry guys who are development guys.
We definitely disagree on this issue.

GSP,

College baseball is much different than high school and travel ball. It is a full time job with the added pressure of a college work load and in most cases an 18 year old being away from home for the first time.

There are many factors that can contribute to a freshman being cut in their first year, such as grades, not acting correctly in the college environment, not being able to keep up with the physical demands of doing the conditioning, not getting along with the demands of the college coaches, having to compete with guys who are three or four years older than he is who has developed at an accelerated rate through conditioning for two to three years, and the mental part of being the big fish in the high school arena and all of the sudden they are a small fish on the team. The skill level in college is much different than high school and sometime the coaches determine that in the long run, it is just not going to work out. Reality is the coaches bring in as many players he can to see what will work out, as others have indicated, the environment is changing with new rules from the NCAA, but in reality they will still hedge their bets not knowing exactly who they will be getting through the door. The better the team, the better the recruits…..

College baseball is a business and the coaches are out to try to win at all cost. When you step on to campus, all the love they were showing you during the courtship and honeymoon are gone and reality sets in and in many cases you see the real personality and demands of the coaches.

Guys,

Its just an unfortunate set of circumstances that many players and coaches must face. Even though the new reduction in roster numbers doesn't go into effect until next year, some D1 coaches are moving already to get these numbers down. My son's team has already brought their roster down to 33. The cuts the coach made were done due to academic issues, so it wasn't like these kids didn't see it coming. Also, if you're a walk-on, you're always looking over your shoulder for the guy behind you trying to take your job away.

Its a tough pill to swallow and no one wants anyone to be cut, but coaches need the best players they can count on to step up when needed. With the new rules coming into play its going to put pressure on alot of players to produce or face looking for a way to transfer and remain eligible for a few more seasons.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
TR you know reduced roster size and sit rule have complicated things.

I agree with TR. Most schools already have had mandated roster limits (some conferences) and many programs saw this coming.
Those that cut did so because of the kids that came because they wanted to wear a uni for that school. A couple of 100 bucks and a shirt made many happy, regardless of their talent or lack of. With a mandated 35 roster, the coach has no choice but to cut. Someone recently pointed this out to me and they were correct.

Those players may have been high recruits with no commitment attached, if the coach had to cut the roster, quess who has to go first?

BHD,
If your son's roomate was cut because too many in his position, if he was truely talented he could have remained in another position. Infielders are infielders and outfielders are outfielders, if you are not versatile as the next guy and the coach over recruited, you are out.

Different college programs have different policies, and it would behoove prospects to ask lots of questions before committing.

My son's future school has told us verbally and in writing that no one is ever cut from the team -- apart from academics or "off-the-field issues."

quote:

College baseball is a business and the coaches are out to try to win at all cost. When you step on to campus, all the love they were showing you during the courtship and honeymoon are gone and reality sets in and in many cases you see the real personality and demands of the coaches.

...boy I wish more would take the time to understand this.

j2h6

That is precisely why the prospective recruit should attend a few games and/or practices unannounced so as to see the Coach and his staff in action

quote:

Originally posted by j2h6:

quote:

College baseball is a business and the coaches are out to try to win at all cost. When you step on to campus, all the love they were showing you during the courtship and honeymoon are gone and reality sets in and in many cases you see the real personality and demands of the coaches.

...boy I wish more would take the time to understand this.

True and I think that the above is a sad statment for those who see one personality and then another once they get to school. We all know the recruiting process is a c ourting phase. I agree with TR, go watch coachin practise or a game, netwoork and speak to others.

My son got pretty much what he expected. Oh he had some rough times when he got his azz kicked in for not doing what he was supposed to and a head coach that stressed too much (all for the good of his players and program). But he never felt in anyway that they didn't care about him or his work on the field and his work in the classroom and promises of development were kept on their part.

I don't think any HS player fully understands teh demands that will be placed upon them, no matter where they attend.

Clarification on recruits !
Highly recruited = 50% or more scholarship at a state school,60% or more at a UC school 70% or more at a private school.
Recruited = some scholarship
Prospective recruit = Nothing
Until they offer it to you & have it writing , you have , Nothing!
With the new ruling for 08'-09' things will change . I've said this before and i'll say it again , go where you have the best opportunity to play & they want you the most = scholarship money !There is a place for everyone to play ,they just have to find it , whether it's D1,D2,D3,Naia or Juco . Baseball is a great game ,it's even better , when your playing it ! Good Luck to all !

TPM my son's roommate was a catcher. 1 of 7 on the team. He was behind some talented catchers and it was just numbers. He was also a top student and came from a Large Dallas area HS.
I think he was just a victim of too many guys to get playing time.

quote:

they want you the most = scholarship money !

Aint that the truth. BB money = we want you.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

quote:

they want you the most = scholarship money !

Aint that the truth. BB money = we want you.

So how much money equals we want you ?

How much less will you take and still feel wanted ?? That 25% minimum will cause both pay raises and pay cuts?

The more you get ,the more the love.
Everyone has there threshold but the more BB money the more likely you will get an opportunity to show what you can do. Talk is just that .Talk.

25% wouldn't even come close.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
TPM my son's roommate was a catcher. 1 of 7 on the team. He was behind some talented catchers and it was just numbers. He was also a top student and came from a Large Dallas area HS.
I think he was just a victim of too many guys to get playing time.

WRONG. He was a victim of bad recruiting and poor development on the coach's part. Who recruits 7 catchers all to be there at the same time?
I have seen catchers converted to pitchers, OF, third base. Not cut.

quote:

25% wouldn't even come close

If that's your criteria, my guess is that there are a whole lot of position player "losers" in your book.

I know of a position player who got 68% and a grand total of 13 at bats his freshman season.

I also know of another position player who got WAY less than the newly-mandated 25% and is headed to the Cape this summer.

There are too many variables involved -- some known, some unknown -- to be that dogmatic on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

WRONG. He was a victim of bad recruiting and poor development on the coach's part. Who recruits 7 catchers all to be there at the same time?

Would it be..........................................................................a stockpiler??

Deciding on a college by who the highest bidder is leaves all the other variables of FIT to chance?

Haste makes waste

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
The more you get ,the more the love.
Everyone has there threshold but the more BB money the more likely you will get an opportunity to show what you can do. Talk is just that .Talk.

25% wouldn't even come close.

I know a player who got very very little money and played a HUGE roll on the Clemson staff. Drafted 13 in 2006. I know some players who got more and played less. The above is not how it always works, it's your assumption.

With 35 players and half as pitchers and half as position players you get to show your stuff only against 15 or 16 other players. That's it. Many times that's less than in HS.

The value of proper instruction baseball-wise is worth leaving a couple grand on the table.

Infield08
The player with the 68% didn't get it done and the one with less money did right !

In the end it all comes down to performance. The guys who got big money and didn't play a lot were possibly behind some more experienced players and that is just 1 possibility. We have listed all thye things that can affect a players PT so I won't do it again.
It is true in pro and college that the more you get the better the opportunities. We all know you have to win your PT but there is also a pecking order that plays a role in PT.
I do not put that down to over recruiting and actually it was the new sit rule & 25% min I believe that played a big part in him being cut.

I strongly beleive in the pecking order and in many programs that's how it works. There is no pecking order when you have a staff of 15 pitchers and only 3,4 make significant contributions and others don't. That's poor recruiting and coach mismanagement.

7 catchers on a program doesn't equate a pecking order to me either, but a lack in confidance as to those you have recruited as catchers, unless you convert them. A good D1 program only needs 3 maybe 4 max catchers. This seems to be common in many D1 programs.

TPM a big part of the problem was a coaching change . The HC doesn't over recruit. They only have 11 pitchers this year which concerns me and a 27 man roster. It was atransition issue and several walk ons showed up. Last season 17 pitchers were used and atleast 8 made significant impact. You know even great pitchers don't always get it done.
The catcher was a good catcher who played behind a couple of great catchers who are now graduated. I agree that to play you need 3 catchers but to develop you may need more depending on circumstances. 2 were from the DR and they left after spring break. I never saw the guy play but my son said he was very good but didn't produce freshman year and was RS second year and then cut at the exit meeting.

quote:

and then cut at the exit meeting.

I know this has been talked about over and over, but I want one person on this board to explain to me how is it fair for a kid to be cut and then be forced to sit out a year if he wants to play at another D1.
If he has been redshirted his sophmore year, then he would lose a year of eligibility.
Please explain!

quote:

Originally posted by thats-a-balk!:

quote:

and then cut at the exit meeting.

I know this has been talked about over and over, but I want one person on this board to explain to me how is it fair for a kid to be cut and then be forced to sit out a year if he wants to play at another D1.
If he has been redshirted his sophmore year, then he would lose a year of eligibility.
Please explain!

It's not fair. But most who run good programs don't cut unless there are issues with eligibility or off the field issues. Those who cut do so because they just have asked too many players to show up.

Who determines what is right and fair ? THE PARENTS !!! I do not think so

If the coach is doing what is legit within the rules than it is fair---unless of course it is your son---are we back in HS? Cmon folks

quote:

from thats-a-balk: I know this has been talked about over and over, but I want one person on this board to explain to me how is it fair for a kid to be cut and then be forced to sit out a year if he wants to play at another D1.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Who determines what is right and fair ? THE PARENTS !!! I do not think so

If the coach is doing what is legit within the rules than it is fair---unless of course it is your son---are we back in HS? Cmon folks

TR, you missed the point. I don't think anyone is advocating that a coach cannot unilaterally choose his roster.

In the example illustrated by TAB the NCAA has decided what is 'fair'. Frankly, I think the NCAA is doing a disservice to the athletes who have been cut 'mid-career'.

Divison 1 can cut or not renew scholarships at any time.

Good example a left handed pitcher who been draft 3 times, attends a Div 1 college gets hurt his junior year needing Tommy John surgery. They decide not to renew his scholarship. So he attends the Atlantic League Tryout Camp gets signs, throwing 91-93 mph. A MLB team work him out and sign him. The Div 1 college soon after is listing him as former player in pro ball on their web site.

dng


I must tell you that I missed nothing including the "point"

It's not the cutting that is unfair , it is the sit rule. I had no problem with the old rule which you could be cut and go to another college with a mutual release. Some coaches would release you with the provision that you could not play in the same conference. To me that was a good rule. It gave the coach total control over his roster and allowed a player to go to any college in a different conference if the coach gave him a cond release.
The only reason for the rule is to try to prop up the APRs and by doing so they hurt the student athlete. Underline STUDENT

Frank brings up a good example.
I followed a California LHP for a couple years. He was signed as a RS player coming off TJ. In 2 years he threw only a few innings and apparently he may need surgery again. He was cut his JR year with 3 years eligibility remaining. With the new rules they aren't prepared to wait. I was not surprised because he is a casualty of the new rules.

BHD,

I feel differently, I am against cutting,not the sit out rule. I am against how it was done. If coaches had revolving doors and their schools allowed it and this was hurting their APR then they should have been punished, not everyone. I find it very interesting that two schools known for that practice are top ranked this year and have very poor APR's. That I think made many coaches who do it right a bit upset. They did not want that rule.

JMO.

My primary issue with the sit out rule is the recruited walk on player. Let's assume he makes the 35 man but does not play e.g. red shirt freshman year.

Since he is getting no money from the school and he decides to transfer to another school where he might actually see the field, why should he have to sit?

Where has he gotten any benefit in exchange for the cost of losing a year (especially since now he will have burned 2 years of the 5 without ever seeing the field). All he can do is transfer to a non D1 school - which restricts his options - again having received no benefits for that restriction.

My other issue is with the reduced or eliminated scholarship player. If a player has his scholarship reduced or eliminated, I feel that the school has essentially changed the terms of the contract. As such, the player should have the ability to walk to another school and not sit out if they chose. The loss of scholarship $$ may make the school too expensive for a given player. Yet if they have to sit a year, what other school is going to give them $$ until they can contribute?

08