If the player is on the roster and does not play that is not a redshirt year
By the way folks---I dont agree with the NCAA but they do make the rules so you need to live with them, like them or not---you will not change them
If they are on the 35 man roster (e.g. a counter) - but do not play - what is that called under the new rules then?
From the NCAA Website:
Redshirt Definition
"The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition."
As for the living with the rules - on Martin Luther King day, I guess I would have to respectfully disagree. If the rules are unjust, then we have a responsibility to protest.
From the NCAA Website:
Redshirt Definition
"The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition."
As for the living with the rules - on Martin Luther King day, I guess I would have to respectfully disagree. If the rules are unjust, then we have a responsibility to protest.
08,
I am not sure if anyone already attending had anything taken away, they were grandfathered in with their commitments, that is why this (except the roster rule) begins next year (30 on bb schoalrship) and then the following year (27 on bb scholarship). Most schools saw this coming, and have been in the 35 man roster or less for several years or just because that is where they feel they need to be for a college roster.
If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Those recruited walk ons will and should receive academic money when rules go into effect. They are only considered a walk on because there will be no academic money. The coach most likely has put in just as much effort in their recruitment as the NLI player. Why would you assume a recruited walk on player would sit? Don't confuse that with a player that just walks onto the field for tryouts.
If you take any colelge roster, you might be surprised to find that many players do not even have any bb money it might already be all academic, state funded earmed tuition, other sources, with the program supplying books.
I am not sure if anyone already attending had anything taken away, they were grandfathered in with their commitments, that is why this (except the roster rule) begins next year (30 on bb schoalrship) and then the following year (27 on bb scholarship). Most schools saw this coming, and have been in the 35 man roster or less for several years or just because that is where they feel they need to be for a college roster.
If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Those recruited walk ons will and should receive academic money when rules go into effect. They are only considered a walk on because there will be no academic money. The coach most likely has put in just as much effort in their recruitment as the NLI player. Why would you assume a recruited walk on player would sit? Don't confuse that with a player that just walks onto the field for tryouts.
If you take any colelge roster, you might be surprised to find that many players do not even have any bb money it might already be all academic, state funded earmed tuition, other sources, with the program supplying books.
If they are attending with "academic" money then they would have gotten that academic money regardless if they played baseball or not.
What I am saying is that if a player is getting zero athletic money, then why should the athletic department have any hold over that player?
BTW: I am very aware that many players got little or nothing in the past with money coming from other sources. Just because I am an 08 parent does not mean I am not informed. I have spent countless hours talking to older parents, players and coaches - as well as here on HSBBW.
08
What I am saying is that if a player is getting zero athletic money, then why should the athletic department have any hold over that player?
BTW: I am very aware that many players got little or nothing in the past with money coming from other sources. Just because I am an 08 parent does not mean I am not informed. I have spent countless hours talking to older parents, players and coaches - as well as here on HSBBW.
08
With BB money atleast you know you will be sticking around and not likely cut for atleast a year. If the BB money wasn't renewed you are now faced with transferring and renegotiating a new package. However if you have to sit you will get no BB money the next year because you are of no use to the BB coach until the mext year following your transfer. Talk about a rock and a hard place.
Parents please understand that recruiting is not an exact science. A coach has a formula he uses to score your sons. In reality that does not always work out for the kid or the team.It doesn't get any better in Pro ball either. Look at all the released players. How then could those highly skilled , professional coaches, scouts make a mistake on a kid ? Simple ....it is not an exact science !!!!!
Please understand that your son's playing time will be dictated by how he plays and practices. Intangibles can play a huge part as well. Leadership skills, attitude, hard work, dedication, hard nosed competitor etc...Those can not be easily perdicted but some coaches have a better knack for it than others.
In a perfect world everything we do at work is productive, we never make mistakes, we never make an incorrect judgement on the people we hire,the products we make, buy or sale should have no defects etc....etc...
Coaches contracts are won by the product that they put on the field. In a perfect world it should be determined by the product they put in the world *grown men that had a chance to play the game they loved and grew up to be exemplary men from the experience*.
Please understand that your son's playing time will be dictated by how he plays and practices. Intangibles can play a huge part as well. Leadership skills, attitude, hard work, dedication, hard nosed competitor etc...Those can not be easily perdicted but some coaches have a better knack for it than others.
In a perfect world everything we do at work is productive, we never make mistakes, we never make an incorrect judgement on the people we hire,the products we make, buy or sale should have no defects etc....etc...
Coaches contracts are won by the product that they put on the field. In a perfect world it should be determined by the product they put in the world *grown men that had a chance to play the game they loved and grew up to be exemplary men from the experience*.
quote:Originally posted by 08Dad:
If they are attending with "academic" money then they would have gotten that academic money regardless if they played baseball or not.
What I am saying is that if a player is getting zero athletic money, then why should the athletic department have any hold over that player?
BTW: I am very aware that many players got little or nothing in the past with money coming from other sources. Just because I am an 08 parent does not mean I am not informed. I have spent countless hours talking to older parents, players and coaches - as well as here on HSBBW.
08
Sorry 08, didn't mean it that way.
It just bothers me all this talk about cuts and not having money renewed. Understand that this IS NOT how most coaches run their programs. Placing panic and fear should not be the agenda. Most coaches recruit (no it is not a perfect science) with the thought that this player they have spent time watching maybe for hours,months, years, regardless of what he gets will remain in my program for 3-4 years. I hope that you can understand that.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
dng
I must tell you that I missed nothing including the "point"
You missed the 'b' on your keyboard (and in your proof reading)
Let me make this clear, BHD stated that he has seen any players, good ones cut.
Ths is not the norm for me. There are circumstances yes. In three years I never saw a player cut on son's team, one player I think was "run off" for lack of better word. I am not sure of all the circumstances other than he a very talented player he wanted more playing time and was pretty sulky about that, and that doesn't work for team chemistry. A few have left to play a bigger role before it was too late, one left to follow the pitching coach to Florda. No one was ever cut.
Cutting players in MOST circumstances means to me, the coach didn't do his homework, the player got in over his head.
I also have stated that I don't like the rules, but you do pretty much have to live with what the NCAA dictates.
I am in no way speaking out against a coach, but did Polk have a choice, he HAD to get his roster down. What should have been done, is that players were given options end of summer, everyone new this was coming. Didn't Ron Polk and a few others see it? We here did.
Ths is not the norm for me. There are circumstances yes. In three years I never saw a player cut on son's team, one player I think was "run off" for lack of better word. I am not sure of all the circumstances other than he a very talented player he wanted more playing time and was pretty sulky about that, and that doesn't work for team chemistry. A few have left to play a bigger role before it was too late, one left to follow the pitching coach to Florda. No one was ever cut.
Cutting players in MOST circumstances means to me, the coach didn't do his homework, the player got in over his head.
I also have stated that I don't like the rules, but you do pretty much have to live with what the NCAA dictates.
I am in no way speaking out against a coach, but did Polk have a choice, he HAD to get his roster down. What should have been done, is that players were given options end of summer, everyone new this was coming. Didn't Ron Polk and a few others see it? We here did.
TPM it sounds like your coach runs people off instaed of cutting them. How many BB programs keep their roster in tact for 3-4 years. The turn over in most programs is unbelieveable. This is why thyey are trying to stop transfers. I have seen huge turnovers at most of the colleges that I follow. Many reasons why players leave. Some reasons are very valid and many aren't. Play Hard makes it very clear the impact it can have on a student and his family.
As I said I have no problem with the reality that a player can get cut but at least let him move on. BB can be a tough racket and you have to be prepared for what can happen.
As I said I have no problem with the reality that a player can get cut but at least let him move on. BB can be a tough racket and you have to be prepared for what can happen.
One of the basic tenents of law is the concept of a bilateral contract. You do something for me, I do something for you. A contract where I agree to do something for you but you do nothing for me -- a unilateral contract -- would be tossed out by any judge in this fair land.
Having said that, if a coach cuts a kid and he doesn't get his scholly, he should be free to do as he pleases. Putting restrictions on him (one year sit out rule) to me represents a de facto unilateral contract which I believe exposes the NCAA to lawsuits somewhere down the road.
Having said that, if a coach cuts a kid and he doesn't get his scholly, he should be free to do as he pleases. Putting restrictions on him (one year sit out rule) to me represents a de facto unilateral contract which I believe exposes the NCAA to lawsuits somewhere down the road.
At one college camp the coach said that the chances of a player being cut for other than disciplinary reasons were extremely remote. At another the coach said that if a player didn't pan out it was his failure as a recruiter and as long as the player continued to work hard he wouldn't be cut.
I believed them and I hope they represent the majority of college coaches.
I believed them and I hope they represent the majority of college coaches.
quote:Originally posted by Frank Martin:
Divison 1 can cut or not renew scholarships at any time.
15.3.4.3 Reduction or Cancellation Not Permitted. Institutional financial aid based in any degree based on athletics ability may not be increased, decreased or canceled during the period of its award:
(a) On the basis of a student-athlete’s athletics ability, performance or contribution to a team’s success;
(b) Because of an injury that prevents the recipient from participating in athletics; or
(c) For any other athletics reason.
15.3.4.3.1 Athletically Related Condition Prohibition. An institution may not set forth an athletically related condition (e.g., financial aid contingent upon specified performance or playing a specific position) that would permit the institution to reduce or cancel the student-athlete’s financial aid during the period of the award if the conditions are not satisfied. (Adopted: 1/16/93; Revised: 1/11/94)
15.3.4.3.2 Decrease Not Permitted. An institution may not decrease a prospective student-athlete’s
or a student-athlete’s financial aid from the time the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete signs the financial aid award letter until the conclusion of the period set forth in the financial aid agreement, except under the conditions set forth in Bylaw 15.3.4.1
15.3.4.1 Reduction or Cancellation Permitted. Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability may be reduced or canceled during the period of the award if the recipient: (Revised:1/11/94, 1/10/95)
(a) Renders himself or herself ineligible for intercollegiate competition;
(b) Fraudulently misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement
(c) Engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary penalty (see Bylaw 15.3.4.1.2); or
(d) Voluntarily withdraws from a sport at any time for personal reasons; however, the recipient’s financial aid may not be awarded to another student-athlete in the academic term in which the aid was reduced or cancelled. A student-athlete’s request for written permission to contact another four-year collegiate institution regarding a possible transfer does not constitute a voluntary withdrawal.
*************
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
TPM it sounds like your coach runs people off instaed of cutting them.
Running off players is a problem at many schools where the coach won't cut.
In this particular case, the player was told where his role would be the following year. He wasn't happy so he moved on. This player was multi talented. He transfered to a JUCO and got drafted, third round. So I doubt it was because he wasn't talented, there was something else going on there. That really doesn't sound like he runs off lots of players does it?
Basically, if you look at the transfers that take place, often you will see the same schools over and over. Some restock and some reload. I don't see lots of roster turnovers in most schools other than new frosh players, draft replacements, etc.
CADad's post just about sums it up as to what you should expect from a coach and I htink that is teh majority.
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
Yes TRhit, you missed the point completely. The point was not about the kid being cut, it was about him being forced to sit out a year and worse, losing a year of eligibility if he had already redshirted a year.
That was the point TRhit, and it's not only unfair, it's also very unethical. Just because it's in the rules, doesn't make it fair.
Take my advice. Just copy and paste the Bylaws and you never get in a squabble.
You will learn that expressing an opinion or conviction on a public forum only subjects you to debate.
Why get pummeled by self-proclaimed experts. If they truly were, they would be "on the beach collecting 20%"
You will learn that expressing an opinion or conviction on a public forum only subjects you to debate.
Why get pummeled by self-proclaimed experts. If they truly were, they would be "on the beach collecting 20%"
thats a balk
I don't understand the thinking on your part---if it is in the rules then is legit---maybe not fair in your eyes but certainly fair in mine ---the rules are there and if they are obeyed than all is fair
Is not life all about rules and playing within their scope--does your office have rules? do you agree with all of them?
To Old Slugger:
There are no self proclaimed experts as you term them on this site---all are equal and free to express their opinions---
By the way I was brought up to obey the rules of the game, whatever the game may be-- if you don't like the rule then do no partake--it is that simple
I don't understand the thinking on your part---if it is in the rules then is legit---maybe not fair in your eyes but certainly fair in mine ---the rules are there and if they are obeyed than all is fair
Is not life all about rules and playing within their scope--does your office have rules? do you agree with all of them?
To Old Slugger:
There are no self proclaimed experts as you term them on this site---all are equal and free to express their opinions---
By the way I was brought up to obey the rules of the game, whatever the game may be-- if you don't like the rule then do no partake--it is that simple
TRhit-
This is a "NEW RULE" that does not benefit the kid what so ever, it actually could hurt them.
Let me ask you,have you ever seen a rule where you totally disagreed with and you wanted to do something to change it because it was unfair, and if so, did you just quit, walk away and not partake? Or did you voice your opinion and try to do the right thing.
Yes TRhit, I do have rules at work that sometimes I disagree with, But not one of those rules penalize a kid through no fault of his own.
You get fired today, they say you cannot get a job at the same level of pay in the same line of business for one year, are you okay with that?
Some of these kids will have had the rule changed right under their feet. Is that right?
Cmon TRhit, you can argue all you want, but what is right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Especially if it effects a kid in a negative way!
This is a "NEW RULE" that does not benefit the kid what so ever, it actually could hurt them.
Let me ask you,have you ever seen a rule where you totally disagreed with and you wanted to do something to change it because it was unfair, and if so, did you just quit, walk away and not partake? Or did you voice your opinion and try to do the right thing.
Yes TRhit, I do have rules at work that sometimes I disagree with, But not one of those rules penalize a kid through no fault of his own.
You get fired today, they say you cannot get a job at the same level of pay in the same line of business for one year, are you okay with that?
Some of these kids will have had the rule changed right under their feet. Is that right?
Cmon TRhit, you can argue all you want, but what is right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Especially if it effects a kid in a negative way!
thats a balk
Rules are what they are---if they are in place then they are what you deal with and learn how to deal with it or fail---
I have learned that you deal with what is dealt you, especially with the NCAA --you won't change them--they are what they are--you learn to cope not try to change
I am sorry you feel as you do--things won't change because you want them to
Rules are what they are---if they are in place then they are what you deal with and learn how to deal with it or fail---
I have learned that you deal with what is dealt you, especially with the NCAA --you won't change them--they are what they are--you learn to cope not try to change
I am sorry you feel as you do--things won't change because you want them to
You should e-mail or call the NCAA about your concerns. I think the rule is unfair as well.
quote:By the way I was brought up to obey the rules of the game, whatever the game may be-- if you don't like the rule then do no partake--it is that simple
The key is were you brought up to question them ? Public pressure is how you change rules that are not in the students best interests.
This isn't just about BB like playing for a team like you run. You get cut there and you can move on. No one gets hurt other than some hurt feelings. In college it is a huge impact on the student financially and academically. If a coac h has to cut someone let that player have the freedom to chose were he can continue to play D1 as they did before with a release.
TPM there are tons of player who leave after the spring term is over other than draft. I think players should finish the year out and be able to move if they have a valid reason and get mutual release.
Obviously the old rules hurt the college APR. Players don't leave unless they are unhappy, drafted etc..
MTH just posted a thread on possible sit rule change.
"Believe it or not, the NCAA is actually considering changing this rule. Proposal 2007-68 would allow a one time transfer exception (i.e. no one year in residence) for kids who never received any athletic money. The NCAA is currently receiving comments on the proposal. It is my understanding that it will be considered at the next NCAA meeting,"
"Believe it or not, the NCAA is actually considering changing this rule. Proposal 2007-68 would allow a one time transfer exception (i.e. no one year in residence) for kids who never received any athletic money. The NCAA is currently receiving comments on the proposal. It is my understanding that it will be considered at the next NCAA meeting,"
TRhit is correct, if it is a rule, it is a rule that we have to play by or do not play at all. (for now)
Now having said that, I do not prescribe to the idea that "they are what they are--you learn to cope not try to change" mentality.
If you believe in your heart that something is truly unfair, whether it be your school, your government, your work or the NCAA you go about changing it in the proper way. I believe that's what made this country of ours so great, people had the right to voice their opinion, had the opportunity to correct something that seemed unjust.
If we all took the approach of sit on your hands a say nothing attitude, this would be a completely different country for us, our kids and their kids.
I do have a freshman in college this year and he was given money to play baseball "this year".
Now if he were cut at the exit meeting, I feel that he honored his year of scholarship money and is no longer obligated to this school. If a coach cuts my son (meaning he is no longer wanted) then my son should have an opportunity to go elsewhere without having to sit out a year if someone is offering him a scholarship (wanted).
I know people have different opinions on this and that's fine. This is my opinion and I feel in my heart it is the right one. So if I want change, I would do my best to bring about change before I "learned to cope".
Now having said that, I do not prescribe to the idea that "they are what they are--you learn to cope not try to change" mentality.
If you believe in your heart that something is truly unfair, whether it be your school, your government, your work or the NCAA you go about changing it in the proper way. I believe that's what made this country of ours so great, people had the right to voice their opinion, had the opportunity to correct something that seemed unjust.
If we all took the approach of sit on your hands a say nothing attitude, this would be a completely different country for us, our kids and their kids.
I do have a freshman in college this year and he was given money to play baseball "this year".
Now if he were cut at the exit meeting, I feel that he honored his year of scholarship money and is no longer obligated to this school. If a coach cuts my son (meaning he is no longer wanted) then my son should have an opportunity to go elsewhere without having to sit out a year if someone is offering him a scholarship (wanted).
I know people have different opinions on this and that's fine. This is my opinion and I feel in my heart it is the right one. So if I want change, I would do my best to bring about change before I "learned to cope".
How many is tons? Are they consistantly from the same programs? Does one or two affect the APR, or does 10 affect the APR? Look closely in the correlation between transfering and poor APR.
The 27 max was a benchmark to go forward in calculating the APR. Schools are not forced to use any athletic $$ if they choose not to. I think that each program has to be looked at individually for these statistics, that's my beef. If a school funds 0 how can you calculate graduation rates? Those schools do not place as much emphasis on making it to post season and a national championship each year, earning your degree comes first above anything else. That's the point here. The working group wants a commitment from coaches AND players that graduating is their #1 priority from all programs. Punish those who don't make the aproved APR. I think that was a common complaint for many college coaches.
For those wanting full scholarships for every player, I don't see how a school can fully fund baseball without funding every program, most programs can't afford that. Then you really upset the cart. We only want that because our kids play baseball, if you want to argue that point and what's best, argue that for every program the school offers. BTW, if you all feel that every player should get a full scholarship, and that ever happens most likely they will get NOTHING compared to something.
Schools fully fund programs that make them money, football or basketball. Even big baseball schools that sellout every seat in basebll season make no profit @ 3-8 dollars a head. That's why they need to run camps to help fund their expenses. If you are talking 40 a seat for a 80K-100K plus sport game your talking a BIG difference in who gets what in the importance of college sports.
I really think that the working group set out to punish schools (not players) who consistantly over recruit and let players go, forgetting that the player is there to go to school first and play baseball second. That is why they dislike the draft. In trying to achieve some consistancy, they did overlook some things that might hurt the player who recieves nothing or gets cut because the coach just doesn't have time to develop him to be a D1 player, he is an immediate results coach.
By the way, do you think that our baseball players are the only ones who play a sport who only get a piece or nothing?
You need to figure out what is important. Are you upset because you need baseball to fund your players college education? That's not gonna always happen, let him play basketball (see how hard that is with only 14-15 a team) or football if that is what you or your player wants. Or are you upset because you want your player to go and maybe improve to be drafted later on? If that's the case send him to a good JUCO program that is less expensive, go 2 years and transfer. Because that most likely is NOT going to happen either. Or if all he wants to do is play pro ball, groom him to be a pro baseball player, accept where he falls in the draft and send him on his way.
The problem lies in the nature of the development philososphy of the sport, you do not have to attend college if you want to play proball, you do if you want to play football and now you have to be 19 before drafted in the NBA. JMO.
The 27 max was a benchmark to go forward in calculating the APR. Schools are not forced to use any athletic $$ if they choose not to. I think that each program has to be looked at individually for these statistics, that's my beef. If a school funds 0 how can you calculate graduation rates? Those schools do not place as much emphasis on making it to post season and a national championship each year, earning your degree comes first above anything else. That's the point here. The working group wants a commitment from coaches AND players that graduating is their #1 priority from all programs. Punish those who don't make the aproved APR. I think that was a common complaint for many college coaches.
For those wanting full scholarships for every player, I don't see how a school can fully fund baseball without funding every program, most programs can't afford that. Then you really upset the cart. We only want that because our kids play baseball, if you want to argue that point and what's best, argue that for every program the school offers. BTW, if you all feel that every player should get a full scholarship, and that ever happens most likely they will get NOTHING compared to something.
Schools fully fund programs that make them money, football or basketball. Even big baseball schools that sellout every seat in basebll season make no profit @ 3-8 dollars a head. That's why they need to run camps to help fund their expenses. If you are talking 40 a seat for a 80K-100K plus sport game your talking a BIG difference in who gets what in the importance of college sports.
I really think that the working group set out to punish schools (not players) who consistantly over recruit and let players go, forgetting that the player is there to go to school first and play baseball second. That is why they dislike the draft. In trying to achieve some consistancy, they did overlook some things that might hurt the player who recieves nothing or gets cut because the coach just doesn't have time to develop him to be a D1 player, he is an immediate results coach.
By the way, do you think that our baseball players are the only ones who play a sport who only get a piece or nothing?
You need to figure out what is important. Are you upset because you need baseball to fund your players college education? That's not gonna always happen, let him play basketball (see how hard that is with only 14-15 a team) or football if that is what you or your player wants. Or are you upset because you want your player to go and maybe improve to be drafted later on? If that's the case send him to a good JUCO program that is less expensive, go 2 years and transfer. Because that most likely is NOT going to happen either. Or if all he wants to do is play pro ball, groom him to be a pro baseball player, accept where he falls in the draft and send him on his way.
The problem lies in the nature of the development philososphy of the sport, you do not have to attend college if you want to play proball, you do if you want to play football and now you have to be 19 before drafted in the NBA. JMO.
I think peoople are forgetting that getting cut from the team is only one part of the damage - because of non-transfer conference rules, you can't sign with another team in the league either in some conferences. That means you're knocked out of the box with 7-8 schools all in your area.
That is particularly unfair for the non-scholarship kid. What happens if they want to stick it between their eyes or somewhere else?
Here's the lesson: If you sign with one team, better forget about going to a rival school within the conference.
That is particularly unfair for the non-scholarship kid. What happens if they want to stick it between their eyes or somewhere else?
Here's the lesson: If you sign with one team, better forget about going to a rival school within the conference.