Did anyone see this. . ."NCAA to consider scholly override

Thanks for the head's up. Here's a link from the NCAA site:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykss...on+-+10-02-07+update

Interesting.

I always said that it didn't sit well with coaches on how to spend their own money, especially with 11.7 schoarships to give out.

wow! ...and so the saga continues.....is there really any hope they'll get this right? If they abolish the changes would that also include the no transfer policy?

OK that changes the landscape in the recruiting of 08 players and i would think would slow down early signings. What does everyone else think?

Now all you have to do is get the NCAA Board to admit it was wrong.

Meaning, good luck!

And BTW, you have to love this statement in the article about the decision to impose the one-year sit-out rule on transfers:

"That proposal required a commitment by the student-athlete to an institution, and the financial aid proposal would demonstrate a commitment by the institution to a student-athlete."

How dense are these people? Putting a 25% minimum on the scholarships doesn't mean the school makes a reciprocal commitment. It just means that if the coach cuts you down below 25%, now you'll go all the way to zero. But you still can't transfer without sitting out a year.

The article suggests they will reconsider the 25% but not the transfer rule. So any hope is misplaced.

What's going to happen to all the '08 players who have received verbal promises of scholarship amounts this past summer and fall if the rules are changed once again? Are coaches going to change the amounts before NLI signing day? What a mess.

As far as scholarships are concerned keep in mind that this was not going to affect the '08 players as the changes wouldn't be effective until August of 2008. The only changes affecting the '08 players would be the roster cap as coaches will start preparing for that with next year's class.

.
Great info..That's why I'm here...Thanks!

44
.

PANTHER... I believe Infield08 is referring to the recruiting class of '08 - in other words our current HS seniors - and they are the ones most directly effected by the rule changes. Coaches are currently trying to figure out what they have to offer them. The rules go into effect with their class and so the NLI's signed in November will be governed by the new rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Natural:
PANTHER... I believe Infield08 is referring to the recruiting class of '08 - in other words our current HS seniors - and they are the ones most directly effected by the rule changes. Coaches are currently trying to figure out what they have to offer them. The rules go into effect with their class and so the NLI's signed in November will be governed by the new rules.

Actually it would be any player signed after August of 2008 which would affect the '09 class.

The rules affect the 2008 high school graduating class. These kids will sign an NLI November, 2007 with a grant amount stated on it for the Fall of 2008, therefore.....

they are the most affected !!

They will become "counters" the day they set foot on campus in August 2008

Baseball Workgorup

quote:

Donald Beggs President Wichita State University

Rick Chryst Commissioner Mid-American Conference

Michael Cross Exec. Associate Athletics Director Princeton University

Chris Dawson Associate Commissioner Pacific-10 Conference

Jack Evans Faculty Athletics Representative UNC, Chapel Hill

Dennis Farrell Commissioner Big West Conference

Michael Gaski Head Coach UNC, Greensboro

Dan Guerrero Athletics Director UCLA

Walter Harrison President University of Hartford

Alan Hauser Faculty Athletics Representative Appalachian State University

Lynn Hickey Athletics Director University of Texas at San Antonio

Bruce Johnson Faculty Athletics Representative Missouri State University

Dave Keilitz Executive Director ABCA

Judy MacLeod Executive Associate Commissioner Conference USA

Paul Manieri Head Coach Louisiana State University

Joel Maturi Athletics Director University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Pat McMahon Head Coach University of Florida

Danny Morrison Athletics Director Texas Christian University

Betsy Mosher Sr. Associate Athletics Director California State University, Fresno

Bernard Muir Athletics Director Georgetown University

Gene Smith Athletics Director Ohio State University

Lance Tatum Faculty Athletics Representative Troy University

Larry Templeton Athletics Director Mississippi State University

Kevin Weiberg Commissioner Big Twelve Conference

Tim Weiser Athletics Director Kansas State University

Ron Wellman Athletics Director Wake Forest University

regarding College Baseball - these folks -

1) have defied common sense

2) shown themselves to be out of touch w/players, parents, AND hsbbweb

3) now shown themselves to be out of touch with the institutions that they claim to represent




shame on those in the group who DISAGREED (if any), but didn't speak up or speak out publicly against the wacky proposals

Does anyone else think that it's strange that only 3 of the 26 members of the "Baseball Work Group" are actually BASEBALL folks?

Baseball Buzz,
Typical. But those on the "working group" were supposed to gather information from those that are involved in baseball.

They should:
Double the schollies
Eliminate transfer rule
roster size 40, no walk ons
fall roster and spring roster the same (no overrecruiting)

FAT CHANCE HUH!

quote:

The NCAA national office has received the 30 necessary override requests to require the Division I Board of Directors to review its August action

tho accurate, more than a bit misleading

30 override requests require a review by the board, but they've recieved alot more than that

I'd be interesting to learn how many in the workgroup were over-ruled (via override requests) by the schools they represent, or in the case of conference commissioners how many override requests were from members of the conference they represent -
AND how the coaches voted on parts of the proposed changes

Yes BEE that would be very interesting. I also wonder how many overide request thay actually got.

When I made my call to the NCAA a few weeks ago, they told me that they expected quite a few but only needed the 30. I got the impression they had already received that.

I would bet with Polk's letter they may have been swamped.

As far as the info told to me, the biggest complaint is the money part. Most really liked the roster limits. I am hoping that the transfer issue also is a concern, but in reality, do most coaches really care if a player has to sit out a year? The player has options to transfer to another school other than D1, the coach has no other option, 27 scholarships, 11.7 and minimum 25%.

Posted August 08, 2007 10:16 AM Hide Post
Here's a Dream Plan

1) Raise the 11.7 scholarship to 14
2) Mandatory 28 scholarships at 50%( WHETHER YOU GIVE OUT 6 TOTAL SCHOLARSHIPS OR THE 14 EACH WOULD BE 50% NO MORE AND NO LESS)
3) Roster capped at 35
3) Guaranteed 4 years scholarships (similar to football and basketball)
4) Student must sit out 1 year if transfer's from D1 to D1 similar to Football and Basketball

How this would level the playing field

1) Creates parity in recruiting and in league play
2) No more false promises from some coaches
3) Protects the Student Athlete
4) The Student Athlete now chooses the school based on location, and courses offered and opportunities to play
5) Students would adhere to academic requirements imposed by NCAA

PRETTY SIMPLE IN MY OPINION

Now you see my plan above.

Now the bigger promblem as I see it is that academics was a huge issue with the NCAA and the Baseball programs however they have shortened the season which now adds a 5th game to a week. How does this improve academics when the head coach is judged on his wins and loses? Someone please help me understand because it makes no sense to me.

If they are going to keep the transfer rule in place there needs to be a bigger commitment to the kids. There needs to be a balance. That is why I don't like the recruited walk on status for a kid.
If they are allowed to transfer, no problem. But that is not the case.
If you are going to force a kid into a long term commitment to a school via the transfer rule, the school should be forced to do the same.

If, in the past kids kids were transfering frequently because of baseball, then who is to blame? Was it coaches make too many mistakes on recruits? Was it because coaches were allowed to have such large rosters that every year several peaple are going to be unhappy and transfer? Were that many kids choosing the wrong fit?

What do you think would happen if rosters were limited to 30 all full scholly? Would coaches be more selective in recruiting? Since a kid riding the pine is getting a free education, would he transfer or would he work harder and harder to be a contributor? Would a kid be more willing to sit his frosh AND soph year for the chance to contribute jr and sr.? Would JR's getting drafted in the later rounds be more likely to finish school since it is free? Would player turnover decrease, resulting in closer and more cohesive teams?

The 11.7 (however its sliced) and the no transfer rule together is a crock of sh1TT.

Now I'm all worked up and ****ed...I'm going to go have a beer and watch some football.

The schools that don't fully fund are still at a dissadvantage with your plan.

quote:

Would coaches be more selective in recruiting?

I agree they will be. That means guys who may have had an opportunity will lose it. Less developing guys who are borderline in the coaches opinion.
The transfer rule is a majuor problem and is clearly in the schools favour.

Bobble

If a school chooses to not fund baseball fully, that is their choice. They can't whine about a disadvantage when by their choice, they have allocated their resources elswhere. If you want to have a strong baseball program, make an allocation adjustment.

I agree that some schoold don't see sports as the way they want to allocate their resources.
However forcing schools to give 50% would further widen the gap. I think the schools should have their right to give what they want. It is up to the athlete to negotiate what they get. Too many restrictive rules only help the weathy programs widening the gap further.

quote:

Less developing guys who are borderline in the coaches opinion.

Maybe schools shouldn't be picking up borderline kids "hoping" they will contribute later. When you don't give a nice scholly no big deal if it doesn't work out.

With a nice scholly coach may see tons of potential in a kid and thinks after 2 years under his coaching this kid can have an impact. Doesn't have to promise the kid tons of playing time early (hey, you are getting a free education to get better at baseball a few years and be a contributor JR SR, maybe earlier). Coach can take at chance on the kid and not worry about him jumping ship.

According to one of the HC he listed about 6 drafted players that he said would not have had an opportunity under these new oppresive rules.

quote:

The schools that don't fully fund are still at a dissadvantage

not fully finding is a mean attitude by the school

as fully funding programs costs NO real $$, it is accomplished by accountants on paper

THATS 6 OUT OF HOW MANY THOUSANDS? AND THEY GIVE 85 FOOTBALL FULL RIDES, COULD THEY SURVIVE WITH 75? AND SINCE THE ANSWER IS YES THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SAY 28 OR 30 50% 4 YEAR SCOLLY'S FOR BASEBALL AND A COUPLE TO OTHER SPORTS. AND IF THEY DON'T FULLY FUND THEN DON'T COMPLAIN AND THEIR % OF SAY SHOULD BE REDUCED.

On this thread and quite a few others...I have heard mention that Football and basketball schollys are guaranteed 4 years. Is this in the rules? If so, could someone please point me in the right direction? OR is it just a "gentlemen's" agreement? If that is the case, there is no way to put it in the rules.
I have always been under the impression, that regardless of sport, schollys are only good for 1 year, and may be renewed annually.

quote:

I have always been under the impression, that regardless of sport, schollys are only good for 1 year, and may be renewed annually

you r correct

RYNO that is 6 out of 1 of almost 300 schools. His point was that under the new rules he would not have signed these guys based on his evaluation of them going into Fresh year.
If you are afull blown stud at entry on Fresh year you have nothing to worry about but BB is an on going evolution. Ask anyone whos son has completed at least 1 year of college ball.

quote:

Originally posted by RYNO:
Now you see my plan above.

Now the bigger promblem as I see it is that academics was a huge issue with the NCAA and the Baseball programs however they have shortened the season which now adds a 5th game to a week. How does this improve academics when the head coach is judged on his wins and loses? Someone please help me understand because it makes no sense to me.

Gee RYNO,

Where have you been?

All of the D-1 Baseball Teams in the East have been playing a 5th game a week since 56 games became the limit.

Time to study!

I know the northeast has been playing 5 games and I also know that it had an effect on why they established the rule. I still don't agree with it and feel that this whole NCAA evaluation to improve academic standards is flawed and perhaps they should limit rosters at 35 and revert back to the original practice format and 4 games weekly if indeed academics is truely a concern. We have had 2 schools tell us that if my son registered for his preferred major that he wouldn't be able to play baseball in the new 5 game format and complete his course studies. That was very disappointing and an eye opener. So I am very aware and have done my studies and if those who have the power wish to fix the problem then they need to overhaul the whole system. Academics should come first especially in a low revenue producing sport. Like the commercial says most student athletes will be going pro in something other then sports.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I agree that some schoold don't see sports as the way they want to allocate their resources.
However forcing schools to give 50% would further widen the gap. I think the schools should have their right to give what they want. It is up to the athlete to negotiate what they get. Too many restrictive rules only help the weathy programs widening the gap further.

I agree with the above. It's hard to understand the concept of not giving the same to everyone, you will understand that as your players move onto college baseball.

First, there is no 4 year guarantee. Second, you've got to leave football,basketball out of the discussion because they are the program money makers and their pro systems are different. BTW, basketball players struggle the most with maintaining GPA.

You have to be 19 to be drafted for basketball. You do not have a huge staff to choose from, you must get your best players from the beginning and pray that they stay healthy. That's why they give out full scholarships. Both of these sports are the money makers for the programs.
This is about graduation rates. This is about taking the minimum credits per semester. At some schools you cannot take the minimum, you have to take 15-18 credits per semester to graduate in 4 years. Some schools don't do that, then after 4 years the player has not earned his degree. Going to school and playing baseball is a full time commitment if your players can't do that, then maybe they didn't belong there is in the first place. Look for schools academic support given, if it's not there, don go. If you want to take one of teh more difficult majors offered and will miss much of important classes, well then maybe priorities have to be set if you can't handle both. Again this goes back to why the working group does not like baseball players, they prefer baseball students. Do not use 5 games a week as an excuse to fail, most don't. If you are short classes or poor GPA, you give up summer ball and go to summer school. Not playing in a summer league will not make a difference if you get drafted or not, but will if make a difference in getting your degree.
Know your player well, his strengths and weaknesses. If he doesn't manage his time well, maybe a top 25 program is not in his favor, despite his talent, if you don't like school, go play pro ball. If you are a homebody, don't go across the country to play baseball. Parents and player should partical responsibility as well, not always the NCAA. I am not a big fan, but in essence theri job is to make sure student athletes get an education first.

The working group has admitted that they do not like the baseball draft. They are sending a message to you, either come to get your degree (what going to college is all about ) or go play baseball. IMO, the NCAA should recognize and compromise that this sport has its own set of circumstances and own set of recruiting student athletes.

Most coaches recruit well and keep their rosters down to liveable limits. The frown upon the coaches that load up. I have seen a change in roster sizes (lower) since mine was being recruited. 35 roster size I have no problem with. The problem is jusgging your roster for those who will leave if drafted and those who won't come at all if drafted. That's why coaches like the flexibility.

Many schools do not fully fund, and I agree that is cheating the program. You can allow 14 full and many won't fund them anyway. Why? Because most coaches are honest and live up to commitments but don't want to award the mediocre player (as someone suggested) unless they prove themselves OR if they don't produce they have the ability to find a replacement. Most players that come to play on the college level are NOT 50% players. Most are not even 25% players. That is something else you will understand, I never did. Some programs don't want to tie up a commitment for 4-5 years to even teh best players in teh country, so why would they want to give out 50% for 4-5 years. In most cases, if you enter with a small scholarship and produced, it increases. Very seldom do moral coaches take away.
And what I have seen, some really good HS players, because of the nature of the sport, don't produce as expected or the coach never really bothered to really pay attention.

The only problem I have is with the transfer rule. Without creating a revolving door, transfers could be awarded on an individual basis, considering circumstances (GPA, on track, special personal hardships) The sit out transfer rule, IMO, makes coaches recruit better and players think harder on their choices.

BTW, they could if they choose to change the number of games per seasons but most coaches don't want that and neither do the players.

The condensed time has nothing to do with the APR.

TripleDad,
Ilike the way you think.

quote:

Less developing guys who are borderline in the coaches opinion.

Maybe schools shouldn't be picking up borderline kids "hoping" they will contribute later. When you don't give a nice scholly no big deal if it doesn't work out.

With a nice scholly coach may see tons of potential in a kid and thinks after 2 years under his coaching this kid can have an impact. Doesn't have to promise the kid tons of playing time early (hey, you are getting a free education to get better at baseball a few years and be a contributor JR SR, maybe earlier). Coach can take at chance on the kid and not worry about him jumping ship.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by 3up-3down:

Maybe schools shouldn't be picking up borderline kids "hoping" they will contribute later.

[/QUOTE

Are you all under the assumption that all HS players come ready to play? Only a handful are ready their first year. Some not ready as sophmores or juniors. Coaches don't need or want 35 starters.

High transfer rate, re: kids want more playing time, money or no money.

You all have to understand, college coaches prefer to give you AS LITTLE as they can get away with. That won't ever change.

quote:

Are you all under the assumption that all HS players come ready to play?

No, I don't think that.

quote:

You all have to understand, college coaches prefer to give you AS LITTLE as they can get away with. That won't ever change

I believe you that this is true, however the market for players will determine what the coach has to give in scholly. If 30 schollys were available, but coach only wants to give 15, and the other schools in the conference are giving 25-30 what's going to happen to his program? I know there are many other variables for a family, but money talks IN A BIG WAY.

quote:

Many schools do not fully fund, and I agree that is cheating the program. You can allow 14 full and many won't fund them anyway. Why? Because most coaches are honest and live up to commitments but don't want to award the mediocre player (as someone suggested) unless they prove themselves OR if they don't produce they have the ability to find a replacement. Most players that come to play on the college level are NOT 50% players. Most are not even 25% players. That is something else you will understand, I never did. Some programs don't want to tie up a commitment for 4-5 years to even teh best players in teh country, so why would they want to give out 50% for 4-5 years

Than why do football coaches do it? Revenue producing or not has nothing to do with how a coach distributes schollys. Isn't it a function of how many schollys are availble to him.? How do you think that would change if baseball was allowed 30?