Skip to main content

18 replies

D1 to Juco transfer on the rise?

D Doughnutman1,000+ posts
I don't know if I am noticing a lot of transfers in AZ from D1 to JUCO because I am actually looking for it or it is normal. It seems like every Juco has picked up 3-5 D1's at the break. PVCC which is a mile from my house has picked up 4 and their program is in its second year and is now being considered one of the top Div 2 Juco's in the country. Anybody else noticing an increase or is this normal?
Hustle never has a bad day.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

fanofgamefanofgame5,000+ posts
I really think it will be on the rise with the roster limits to 35.Many frosh can no longer technically be red shirted(some stay but can not work out with the team).So many frosh might decide or be told to go back to a Juco.
I think NCAA should change rule and allow five frosh red shirts along with 35.This gives coaches more flexibility with players.I know many coaches do fine, but if you bring in lets say 5-10 frosh a year and maybe only 2 can contribute , you have a lot of guys that arent going to play.Then when you add in injuries etc. your roster can be slim.
I was told the JC transfer to D1 is also going to rise. It was around 25% and someone told me they expect it to go up to 33% and higher.

Many frosh are not ready to contribute right away. It is a steep climb from HS to D1 baseball.
Last edited by fanofgame
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by fanofgame:
I know many coaches do fine, but if you bring in lets say 5-10 frosh a year and maybe only 2 can contribute , you have a lot of guys that arent going to play.


one of the reasons the 35 man roster was put in place, was that some coaches at top programs were being accused of stockpiling players. Taking decent players off the market, and keeping them in their program, leading them on in spite of their lack of projectibility within that program. Add to that the prestige that a young player might crave, being associated with a national powerhouse, and there might not be a whole lot of clear headed judgments being made by the player. He won't realize he's made a mistake for a couple of years.

Here's the problem with what you propose, the way the rules are now.

The players 5 year clock starts running. Then, if after their second year at school, they realize that they have no prospect of becoming a major contributer, want to transfer to a lower D1 to play, they will have to sit a year, and now only have 2 years of eligibility left.

I believe 35 players is a plenty big enough roster. If you noticed last year, there seemed to be less of a gap between the top programs and the next tier under. I think that's good for college baseball.
Last edited by CPLZ
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
CPLZ is correct, in the past coaches took whoever they wanted to avoid them signing elsewhere, gave them a small scholarship and then after fall practice convinced them to go to the local JUCO. The new rules also helps parity in college baseball.

The transfer rule put in place is to help the school maintain graduation rates, as only incoming freshman counted in that equation. It also stopped players from "recruiting" during summer for the coach when he needed an experienced player.

It also forces coaches to go out looking for the right players for their programs. That means a better job in recruiting. It also forces the player to think long and hard about the process, instead of, if it doesn't work out, I'll go looking elsewhere.

The D1 to JUCO transfer is the only way a player can transfer back to D1 and D2 and D3 players also have to sit if they transfer to D1, this pervents D2 and D3 programs losing players that feel they have a better chance at the draft if they go to D1.

IMO, 35 is more than enough for a college roster. You only need 9 to play the game, and versatile players to cover for injuries, the only problem may become pitcher overuse, but pitchers make up and always will more than half of the roster.

Years ago parents complaining that their sons showed up on a D1 field and there were 40-45 rostered players come spring. Players were redshirted only because there were too many, not because they needed a year to grow a bit, that was another thing that coaches abused.

Now people still complain, but in essence the new rules have allowed players more scholarships and more opportunity to compete against a few instead of 5-6 (sometimes more) for his position.
CollegeParentNoMoreCollegeParentNoMore1,000+ posts
quote:
The players 5 year clock starts running. Then, if after their second year at school, they realize that they have no prospect of becoming a major contributer, want to transfer to a lower D1 to play, they will have to sit a year, and now only have 2 years of eligibility left.



If one of the years is a redshirt year, under the right conditions, the player can transfer to a JC and play his red-shirt sophmnore year at the JC and then transfer to any D1 school. In right situation, the player may only need to attend the JC for one semester before transferring. i.e. work out with the D1 team in the fall transfer for the spring.

Obviously transferring in your academic Junior year to a JC can set you back towards graduation, however one will still have two years of eligability left. Its an option.
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
Posted this on another website but is it appropriate...

--

quote:
Didn't want to hijack the last thread...

Really surprised that no one brought this up....But there is simply no mystery as to why there is a suddenly a huge increase in DI transfers to DII or JC...the APR rules were amended last year....and many DI coaches are simply using the new interpretation to churn their rosters without negative consequence to them.

In the past (at least since the "new" APR rules went into effect - 4 years ago?) a DI program was responsible for graduation rates for players they brought into their program. If a player was not an instant star there was still a graduation incentive to keep him around and develop him, and a risk for pulling his scholarship at years end/turning him into a recuited walk on, and giving his money to an incoming freshman.

Things have changed...

As of the end of last year, the DI programs are ONLY on the hook for players under a GPA of 2.6 Players OVER a 2.6 GPA can be cut free/shifted to recruited walk on status without and consequence to the program. It no longer matters to the program if athlets over 2.6 GPA graduate or not, the program is off the hook. For the players under 2.6, the program has to hang onto them.

This allows a DI program a great deal more latitude, to recruit a ton of freshmen more than they need to fill those leaving, wait til seasons end, see who did not make a significant contribution and pull their baseball money and give it to a huge freshman class.

At this point Players caught in the churn are left with the option of staying with their current program, a program who just told them that they are not worth baseball $, OR transfering to another DI and sit out a year...OR go to DII, DIII, or JC. This as the first year that the DI's had this option and the result, has been what you see...a migration out of DI. I would expect to see this continue and increase as more DI coaches use it to compete.


The obvious consequences are...

1. Increased competiion at DII, and JC particularly and the DI players are "reassigned."

2. A boon to HS players as many more players will get a shot at DI with baseball $ than would have gotten before...as it will be shifted from existing players at a rate not practical before.

3. Any DI player who is not producing in a big way will be at risk in many programs....and there will be a great deal less development of players at DI.

Cool





Second post responding to the "other side" of this issue...



quote:
The first argument that has been made to me is that DI is after all a competitive environment and so if you are not a big time producer you should lose your spot. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest.

The second argument that has been made to me is that if you are a ballplayer that you should not "dream" you should only go where you are absolutely certain that you can start from day 1. Your mistake for shooting too high.

Argument #3 says that the only way to develop is to play and you have no business going anywhere you are not certain to play. Again your mistake for not judgng your talent better and not knowing the rules. Buyer beware.

All three arguments seem to indicate that a 1 year sit out penalty is fine and that the year sit out is an excellent motivator to send players back to levels where they more clearly belong. Their fault for not judging the system better. On the other hand this rule shift has happened quietly and I am certain that few recuits know about the long term consequences and are shooting for the top and planning on development if they do not start.

Interesting side note...there has been some discussion that a player at seasons end might even tank classes to get under the 2.6 so that he is not at risk of losing his baseball $ and his guaranteed roster spot.

While I understand the recruiting that used to go on in college summer ball...but at the very least the NCAA should reverse the one year sit out for players who have had their baseball $ pulled mid college career. If you do not want me, why should you have the ability to stop me from going somewhere else the next year?

Cool
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.

Yep, I agree it has been broached...And Thank You!...

...and I hate to harp on this subject, but there was a whole lotta DI players out there last June who simply did not see it comming...and a whole lotta DI players this year who will not see it coming this year...and a whole lotta freshmen who have no idea how flimsy their hold on DI has just become...

If covering it again...when it is brought up in a thread...saves one family grief then it is well worth repeating...

Got this response on another website to the post above...

quote:
My son is a sophomore whose goal in life is to play in college and the information I learn reading this board introduces things I simply would not know and haven't been exposed to never having done this before.
It seems the recruits questions to the coaches must include very directly, how many scholarships did you withdraw last year? How many players transfered out of your program? Then they need to ask about it over a two or three year time frame to establish a trend. Are there some schools building a reputation for this? If so, is there a reason if the information is factual nobody has named them?
Thanks to all of you for the thought provoking information.


Given responses like this...then it is worth repeating.

Cool 44
.
fanofgamefanofgame5,000+ posts
[quote]While I understand the recruiting that used to go on in college summer ball...but at the very least the NCAA should reverse the one year sit out for players who have had their baseball $ pulled mid college career. If you do not want me, why should you have the ability to stop me from going somewhere else the next year?



And I am not complaining about the roster sizes.I was just giving the poster MY opinion.Seems we must put on every post JMO.
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
quote:
...there is simply no mystery as to why there is a suddenly a huge increase in DI transfers to DII or JC...the APR rules were amended last year....and many DI coaches are simply using the new interpretation to churn their rosters without negative consequence to them.

In the past (at least since the "new" APR rules went into effect - 4 years ago?) a DI program was responsible for graduation rates for players they brought into their program. If a player was not an instant star there was still a graduation incentive to keep him around and develop him, and a risk for pulling his scholarship at years end/turning him into a recuited walk on, and giving his money to an incoming freshman.

Things have changed...

As of the end of last year, the DI programs are ONLY on the hook for players under a GPA of 2.6 Players OVER a 2.6 GPA can be cut free/shifted to recruited walk on status without and consequence to the program. It no longer matters to the program if athlets over 2.6 GPA graduate or not, the program is off the hook. For the players under 2.6, the program has to hang onto them.

This allows a DI program a great deal more latitude, to recruit a ton of freshmen more than they need to fill those leaving, wait til seasons end, see who did not make a significant contribution and pull their baseball money and give it to a huge freshman class.


Well, at the risk of sounding like a crotchety old man (I am but I don't like to admit it), let me point out that the above quote is a pretty significant misrepresentation of the APR situation and the way it may affect transfer behavior, especially for freshmen. For the great majority of players, leaving the program will cost the program a retention point regardless of GPA. That's because the new APR calculation only affects players who immediately transfer to a 4 year school full-time. Yet most (what, 90%?) of freshman who leave a D1 baseball program go to a JC. The current rules for transferring into D1 strongly encourage this. So a coach who decides to recruit "a ton of freshmen" intending to pull several scholarships would need to correctly guess which recruits will, a year or two later, choose to transfer to a 4 year school. It's tough enough to judge which recruits have the potential to succeed in baseball, without needing to select an entire class who all would skip the JC route.

Maybe one can make the case pulling a scholarship at the end of the sophomore year is easier now with the 2.6 rule. I'll suggest that a candidate for schollie pulling is already unhappy, because he isn't playing, and may leave even if he retains the scholarship.

A player has always had poor leverage at the end of his junior year. Most simply won't transfer.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
I may misunderstand your question, but I'll give it a shot.

The APR calculation applies (at least up unti now, but the method can be changed at any time) to scholarship players. As an example, the players during fall 2009 who are on scholarship form the cohort. About 5 weeks into spring 2010, data is collected and each player in the fall 2009 cohort can score 2 points-- one for having adequate academic performance during fall 2009, and the other if he is still attending the same college. The latter point is called the retention point.

Players who leave the school don't get the retention point, with a few exceptions. For example, a player who graduates gets a retention point even though he doesn't attend the following semester. Players who sign a pro contract don't lose the retention point. And, starting in 2007-2008 (IIRC), a player who has at least a 2.6 GPA, and who transfers to a 4 year school (not necessarily D1), and attends full-time during the next semester doesn't lose the retention point. He doesn't get a retention point either-- the APR score is derived from dividing the points scored by the points available, and in this particular situation, the retention point is removed from the points scored and from the points available.

The rationale for this 2.6 GPA scenario rests on data gathered over the last several years which shows that in general a transfer player is less likely to graduate than a retained player, but players who transfer to a 4 year school and have at least a 2.6 GPA graduate at about the same rate as retained players who have at least a 2.0 GPA. The folks who administer the APR have the charter to get players graduated, but no charter to help decide which players benefit from the pool of scholarship money. So they've written a policy which attempts to penalize the class of transfers which are more damaging to the likelihood of graduation.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
D Doughnutman1,000+ posts
So,
If you have over a 2.6 and transfer to a 4 year school there isn't any penalty to the school. If you have under a 2.6 and transfer to a 4 year school you are losing a retention point for your school. It would be in the programs best interest to let the 2.6+ go but not the less than 2.6 transfer.

Does that means that anyone who transfers to a Juco is hurting the school regardless of the grades because it is a 2 year school?
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Doughnutman:
So,
If you have over a 2.6 and transfer to a 4 year school [inserted: full-time] there isn't any penalty to the school. If you have under a 2.6 and transfer to a 4 year school you are losing a retention point for your school. It would be in the programs best interest to let the 2.6+ go but not the less than 2.6 transfer. Yes, but the program can only guess what the departing player will do, and is still at risk of losing the retention point if he doesn't enroll full-time at a 4 year school. I think that rarely happens now with D1 players.

Does that means that anyone who transfers to a Juco is hurting the school regardless of the grades because it is a 2 year school? Yes, and it hurts the program if he leaves for many other reasons.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
I don't think there is an explicit exemption for learning disabilities. However, for players between 2.0 and 2.6, there is a waiver if the player "satisfies a rigorous review of academic factors." Perhaps LD could factor into that.

I posted about the 2.6 policy before, and that post lists some of the other factors needed besides the 2.6 GPA, and provides a link to a NCAA document about this revision to the APR calculation. Previous post
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove

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.
×