Do they lie ?

If he is sitting in your living room, chances are he is real serious. You can be sure of one thing... He is interested! However, "seeing" your son as a starter and him actually being one is not exactly the same. Those things can change depending on what happens on the field.

Yes, money can speak volumes, but it can also be confusing. Is it a **** shoot? Yes, but it's one where the player has a lot to say about the results.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
What's the best way to validate a coaches intentions?

You hear stories where the coach sits in your living room looks you straight in the eye and says I see your son as my tuesday starter. How do you know for sure, or is he just collecting players.

Does athletic money validate his intentions or is it really just a **** shoot?

Nowadays most programs need 5 starters. Lots of coaches like to have talented freshman as the weekday role to prepare for the future, college baseball is a big adjustment for pitchers. At some programs weekday games can be tougher than weekend games, but for some programs winning conference games is more important than winning non conference games.

At some point in time you got to learn to trust.

Just remember, he may see your son in that role, but your son will have to work hard to get it.

quote:

You hear stories where the coach sits in your living room looks you straight in the eye and says I see your son as my tuesday starter. How do you know for sure, or is he just collecting players.

Interesting question and good responses thus far. I think the coach is generally being honest and there is no way to know for sure until he gets out there in fall/spring practice and competes for that position.

Look, no kid is going to come into a program if the coach doesn't put some type of carrot in front of them. He is being honest in that he "projects" your son in that role and he means "IF" he develops accordingly. That IF is an unbelievably huge uncertainty however. No coach in Amercia ever recruits just one kid for a position in college. They recruit multiple kids and let them go toe-to-toe in practice. Mano-y-mano and let the competition decide things. Each kid was told during recruiting that they have a "chance" to compete for a position. The competition at the college level are all-stars, all-league players, all-state players and in some cases all-americans. It is not for the faint of heart and there are no guarantees.

In some cases, the money will "almost" guarantee things however. He offers 100% (or some other high amount) it is a pretty loud signal from the coach that he already believes your son will contribute in that role as specified. He'll still have to earn it however.

If you go around to all the D1 websites right now, you will see that almost all of them have posted a story on their early signees. Read the bio's on all the signess at colleges you might be interested in and read the coach's comments after they introduce each kid's accomplishments. It is a very intimidating experience to read that stuff yet only a small fraction of the kids signed will see significant playing time as a freshman. Often times, it is just too much to overcome for the 18 year old freshman to beat out the 22 year old who has been on a college weight lifting program for four years.

It's not whether they lie but rather how you interpret what they say.
In most cases senior players get more opportunities to fail especially if they are proven players.
Personally I always judged their interest on the size of scholarship they offer.

OS we have 2 players in MLB who were signed after graduating.
College Coaches are interested in winning and tend to rely on proven SRs. Most couldn't care less about the draft and pro signings.

OS thats kind of you.

You can't judge by size of scholarship, there are some players who don't get a dime of baseball money because of their financial situatons or academic reasons and play all of the time. I think that a player on son's team who was the ace for two years got a whopping 15%. Surprisingly enough some schools give out very little money and most coaches wish the 25% min would go away.
Regardless of being a freshman, sophmore, junior or senior, the best player for the position usually plays. Freshman get a chance to ease into roles, but usually after mid season they aren't considered freshman anymore and freshman pitchers who someday are expected to carry a big load will get light duty for a year (relief, close, starts at end of season). This of course is if everyone stays healthy and you don't lose players in the draft.

I agree that there are situations where a small scholarship is not indicative of what happens. From my personal point of view given the cost of a US college, it was an absolute must. My son knew that if we didn't get a great dollsr amount he wasn't going. It assured him a chance but that was all it did. Same in Pro bal, the bigger the bonus the more chances you get.

I think the best resource you have to "validate" a coach is the parents of kids who have played for that coach.

There are of course a bunch of reasons other than a coach lying, why a kid, to who a coach said "I see you as a starter" might not end up starting.

If a coach actually ever GUARANTEED a kid a spot like that, I would be highly suspicious. But a coach saying "I see you in this spot," is not a guarantee. I would judge it to be an honest expression of where he thinks the kid will fit.

Then I would go ask parents of other kids on the team about the coach, the program, etc. No matter what the coach told my son, I always tried to find a parent to talk to.

And this is the best site in the world to find parents of kids in virtually any college program!

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I agree that there are situations where a small scholarship is not indicative of what happens. From my personal point of view given the cost of a US college, it was an absolute must. My son knew that if we didn't get a great dollsr amount he wasn't going. It assured him a chance but that was all it did. Same in Pro bal, the bigger the bonus the more chances you get.

I agree with pro ball the bigger the signing bonus the more chances they have since there is a minor league system and winning does not matter as much and a lot is put on development.

But in college baseball, it is all about winning, if the coaches make a mistake on giving a player a lot of money and he does not work out, he will not make a second mistake and forcing the subject and have him play over one who may not be getting more money, if so he will be out without a job.

I also agree with TPM, that there are cases where good players that don't get or need much baseball money that are high impact players. Remember the pitching staff tends to get the bulk of the money since there are so many and are so important to the success of the team.

quote:

Personally I always judged their interest on the size of scholarship they offer.

I would be inclined to follow BHD train of thought.

At one unnivesity in the area 90% of the $ goes to pitching. And if your not on scholarship as a pitcher your not playing. This particular school, had what I thought was incredible depth at pitching. If you did not do your due diligence on this particular school, you would rot on the bench. And with the latest restrictions on transfering only makes a decision on choosing the right school/fit even more difficult.

I understand that coaches need to win and it's going to be up to the player to prove himself. I just can't help but think having the scholarship in place even for a year is a big chip

A kid locally was being recruited. When the dad asked about course work and graduation. The coach said, quite frankly we don't expect your son to graduate, it would be a big disapointmnet

Big schollies are given for two reasons, to lure players from other schools and to keep them out of the draft.
Most big programs do NOT have to give out big $$, some talented players will play for free. Schools with state funds may not give you much. I think what used to be the norm many years ago is not anymore, money is too scarce and needed for those who need it.
At sons former school, very rarely will you see a senior or a 5th year senior unless they had a medical waiver. But if you are a senior, it means that you stayed for reasons other than the draft, perhaps to break a school record or help the team win conference or go to Omaha. Those players are proven players and very rarely have to prove themselves over the younger guys.

How does one know who has a scholarship and how much it is? Players rarely discuss this and coaches don't either?

Every coach has his perception of each player coming in. That changes one way or the other as the fall season and spring season begins. You may come in with the perception of the coaching staff "seeing" you as an impact player your freshman year. Your performance will dictate your role. "Yes I saw you as having the potential to be a weekend starter coming in. But your performance so far as indicated to us you are just not ready right now. Continue to work hard and that can change."

Getting a lot of money indicates how you are percieved to help the program. How you perfrom will determine if that perception was right or wrong. If a kid is getting no money but his performance is outstanding and the perception is he can help the team win , he will be viewed in a total different light. "Boy we got a steal with that kid." Just like the kid that got a lot of money who does not perform well "Boy did we miss on that one."

It all comes down to performance. It all starts with perception. Sometimes it works out like the coaches thought it would. Sometimes it doesnt. I would view this coach has having the perception that your son has a good chance to be an impact player as a freshman. Now it is up to the player to deliver what is expected. If he does great. If he doesnt then he has to accept the role he earns and continue to work hard to change that perception around.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TPM:
Big schollies are given for two reasons, to lure players from other schools and to keep them out of the draft.
Most big programs do NOT have to give out big $$, some talented players will play for free. Schools with state funds may not give you much. I think what used to be the norm many years ago is not anymore, money is too scarce and needed for those who need it.

Interesting... My thought was if you had 3 pitchers of similiar ability, the one recieving the $$ would be afforded more opportunity. A coach will want to see if his investment pans out. If this is the case and pitchers receive the lions share of the $$ I think a player considering a school would be crazy to commit without $$ in place. Any kid putting that much time into a program will want to play. To test his mettle, if he blows up so be it, at least he had the opportunities to fail.

If you were to take a poll on on whether or not a player would rather sit on the bench for a top 20 D1 program for 4 years or be starter on another D1 program, I'm guessing he'd take the later

My point is that players recieving $$ have more leverage than the ones who don't.

One last question. Does a scholarship reflect in state or out of state tuition. Meaning if in state tuition is 20k and out of state tuition is 40k. Does a player out of state recieving a full ride, count as 1 or 2 against the 11.7 available?

I can tell you what my son's former coach said. When my Son saw how many were at weigh in freshman year he asked the coach if he was on the team. The coach said " I paid way too much for you to have you sitting on the bench " Those were his actual words.
For those who perform well in fall and expect that to mean much. My Son in his freshman year pitched scoreless innings all fall and won his WS game. He ended up pitching 13 innings even after pitching scoreless innings against Florida State, USC Gamecocks, College of Charleston and others. We expected what he got to some degree. We even got emails from the coach at his 1st choice college congratulating him and he was puzzled why he didn't get more innings. Every coach is different but the large scholarship to me had 2 purposes. One it paid most of my son's college expenses and the other was it got him some opportunity..
A player who is in the MiLB was at our college and only got 9 innings. He transfered and the college won the D11 WS. He was 13-0 at the D11 and had an outstanding year in the minors. In in fact depends on the coach and his perception. All I know looking back is the scholarship was made everything worthwhile regardless of what happened in BB. BB will be a distant memory but the education and degree will last a lifetime.

I think you will find it depends a lot on the coach and how deep the P staff is. SRs and JRs tend to get the heavier work load. The P Coach quit because he wasn't allowed enough say in who pitched.

dswann,
I think that a lot depends upon the coaches and how they run their program.

My son received a very good scholarship and as a freshman or sopohmore I do beleive, IMO, he was just as good maybe better than other older players who put in more time on the mound, actually most of his work came in his third year. Did they expect a lot from him, you bet, but he wasn't over used or over worked because he got lots of bb $$. If you have 3 pitchers of similar ability, the one that is right for that particular game or inning is chosen, not because he gets more $$. In some programs, proven older players with more innings get the ball first until they prove they can't get it done, despite their scholarship, as the younger pitchers are the programs future and need to be worked in gradually.

Many programs go by MLB starter development, 30 inning rule, no more than 30 innings more per season.

Now I will admit because of his $$, if he couldn't get it done in a game, he got the ball handed to him more often to try it again until he proved he couldn't while others on minimal $$ lost their chance quicker.

It is an investment, but as in most investments made, the object is not to destroy or ruin that investment. I would consider sending my pitcher to a program that has depth in it's pitching staff over anything else, especailly now that 5 games a week is the norm. That depth means that coach will use his pitchers wisely. Some coaches might even take a loss over pitcher abuse.

I would be very leary, as a pitcher's parent, if given a lot of $$ and see a future in son's ability and told he would be their work horse.

Here, you can get advice based on others experience, we are not coaches and all coaches do things differently. You might see a top prospect who recieved lots of $$ sit the bench at first more often than the walk on who can eat up late innings, you all really have no idea what each coach has in store for each individual player and how they fit into that programs immediate or future plans. This is something that is best to be discussed during the recruting process, not to always assume. Based on response, you might learn that good coaches who run good programs in general do not lie. It's our misunderstanding that often leads us to thining they do.
Mine was told right from the beginning he would not start weekend games, he had to learn the game through relief, possible close, inning by inning until he was ready to start a midweek game. Maybe at another program he would have been the friday guy. I am ever so grateful that he was used wisely, some of you may not understand that wathcing your son sit, but in the end, things do work out for most.

My concerns are probably moot with the reduction of the size of a roster. And since the roster reduction it will probably limit the collecting of players. Maybe the question should have been " do they over recruit".

We do look how a PS has been used in the past, as an indicator of a coaches tendencies, that alone would probably be enough to make a decision on the baseball end. Ideally something between the work horse and zero looks would be great. He's good with competing for a spot,always has been.

My guy is a junior in HS and my greatest fear is, well, probably pretty obvious.

Dswann they can run well with less than 35 players, they just have to use them more wisely especially the pitchers. I can see with the economics that teams might even lower that number to around 30. Some coaches I have talked to have mentioned they have to use their funds more wisely.
Most coaches are trying to be honest but they use words that are designed to encourage. It is rare a coach will make a promise that he knows he may not be able to keep. I know people say do your homework but I say it is very difficult to get it right. That is why BB was low on the priority list for us. We talked to 4-5 former players and they loved the college. They all said they would have stayed in Charleston after graduating if they could.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
Maybe the question should have been " do they over recruit"....

My guy is a junior in HS and my greatest fear is, well, probably pretty obvious.

I honestly think the question you are asking is can they guarantee and the answer is no. The only way that you would have "no fears" is if the coach guaranteed things beforehand and that does not happen. They will tell you what they "honestly envison" your role to be. The rest is up to the player, his competition, and the coach's evaluation of things after practice begins.

BHD - said his son pitched 13 innings as a freshman. My question is would he still have attended that college if the coach told him during recruiting "We see your role as pitching 13 innings or less as a freshman" I frankly doubt that would have enticed them to go there but BHD might still disagree.

I remember sitting in the dugout of a top 10 D1 school during an official visit my son had his junior year. The head coach was talking about the game they had just won. A parent asked a question designed to get just the sort of answer dswann is looking for here. The coach's reply?

"Let me put it this way, 20% of our scholarship money was on the field today. 80% was sitting on the bench because they haven't been getting the job done."

Made a BIG impression on my son.

I don't think he lied to those kids and their parents when he recruited them, but there are no guarantees when it comes to playing time other than that you have to keep working your fanny off if you want a spot on the field instead of on the bench.

CD the location was most important. If he said that he would only get 13 innings that would have little impact on my decision. He had a larger scholarship offer from a D11 that did guarantee a starting role. He was the only coach who ever saw him pitch .He also guaranteed the scholarship for 4 years and brought that up when we told him we were accepting an offer at a D1. The college was in Conneticut and was the only college in cold weather that I liked. If BB was the priority he probably would have gone to Indian Hills in Iowa. A great BB program and an outstanding P coach.

quote:

I remember sitting in the dugout of a top 10 D1 school during an official visit my son had his junior year. The head coach was talking about the game they had just won. A parent asked a question designed to get just the sort of answer dswann is looking for here. The coach's reply?

"Let me put it this way, 20% of our scholarship money was on the field today. 80% was sitting on the bench because they haven't been getting the job done."

Made a BIG impression on my son.

Baseball Buzz, great story -- and one that perfectly illustrates the point.

quote:

If he said that he would only get 13 innings that would have little impact on my decision.

Fair enough BHD.

Let me ask the question to dswann - if the coach told you and your son 13 innings or less, would that impact your decision?

As a follow-up, don't you think it would make more sense to tell the same kid during recruiting "We see your role as out of the bullpen initially with a chance to compete for a starting spot"

Its been talked about before but why would coaches recruit bench players? What advantage would there be to that? Competition between players who have a chance to play is the best way to build a winning team imho. Some players have more risk associated with them but I believe coaches recruit players who they "honestly" believe can contribute.

my answer would be "yep"

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:

My guy is a junior in HS and my greatest fear is, well, probably pretty obvious.

I am not sure of your greatest fear. I can't say it is impossible for a coach to over recruit, because there are no set limits for fall, so 45-50 can and might show up. However, most coaches don't do that, they have reputations and very concerned about their reputations. Many programs do not even fill full 35 roster.
It is your responsibility during the process to do your homework. No coach who recruited my son lied, they all told him the same thing. We expect you to contribute, you have to make it happen. Baseball's buzz post is spot on, even the bigg scholley guys do bench time if they are not getting the job done.

Playing time, IMO, is only a small part of searching for the right fit. Some will sacrifice playing time for better weather location, college social life, difficulty in classes, degree sought. Others just want to play every game,nothing else matters. This is something that needs to be discussed beforehand, way before that coach comes into your home.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Its been talked about before but why would coaches recruit bench players? What advantage would there be to that? Competition between players who have a chance to play is the best way to build a winning team imho. Some players have more risk associated with them but I believe coaches recruit players who they "honestly" believe can contribute.

This topic is always of interest to me. I check rosters aplenty for several reasons, including player PT analysis and starter stats.

Isn't it amazing that in about any starting lineup, most each have hitters with "iffy" batting averages?

Is it also coincidence that when you look at a player history from the guys who are upperclassmen with minimal at bats, you see that from day 1, they appear to have NEVER started or played a major role?

Utility player from freshman year? Freshman player waiting his turn but gets leapfrogged by an incoming stud freshman the following season? Maybe some of both?

Roster analysis can indicate plenty about a program, and how they recruit. Some just run the pipeline from JUCO's. That may not be good for newbies, but good for JUCO kids.

Anyway, performance when given the opportunity is a players way of any "guarantee"

They do recruit players that they see as being able to contribute. Some recruit based on "immediate Impact". It is not unusual to sign players that they see as development over 1 or 2 years. With the new roster limits and scholarship rules this may be less prevalent.
You have to remember my emphasis on large scholarship is a personal view based on my criteria. We pay out of state tuition and don't receive any financial aid. We are expensive to a college program compared to instate players. I do feel it provides more opportunity if they spend money on you but it still doesn't guarantee playing time if you don't produce most of the time.
The coaches comment of 80% scholarship money on the bench shows he is thinking about it. Didn't even have to pull his calculator out.

At the college level you cannot expect a promise or gaurantee with regard to playing time--- be careful if any coach gives you such promises

My guys situations were simple
you are on the team and we have a uniform with your number on it
you have to earn the right to start
you have to earn the right to travel


Just like the real world---you earn what you get and better work hard for it---all a player should want is the opportunity, right Dads and Moms !

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I can see with the economics that teams might even lower that number to around 30. Some coaches I have talked to have mentioned they have to use their funds more wisely.

Sounds like the days of 20 pitchers on the staff has run it's course. Maybe a real opportunity for the guys who can pitch and play a position. Especially playing 4-5 games a week.

No crying , No guarantees, No panacea in baseball. I get it.

With so much time required 30-40 hours a week. The smart money would be on focusing on school 100%. We have had a few kids in our area who did just that, even though they were recruited. Future economics majors cost/benefit stuff.

In expanding upon CD's comments, I recently read that a coach stated (not sure if it is football or baseball) that the more talented the players, the more competitive they are, which leads to a more competitive team.

quote:

Anyway, performance when given the opportunity is a players way of any "guarantee"

Who carried 20 pitchers?

Regardless of economics, pitching and pitching depth wins games, the bulk of the players recruited will always be pitchers (which might be half of staff or less).
A position player who has put in some time on the mound in HS, might be a consideration to give the pitching staff a rest in case of any injuries

CD... 13 innings would be fine, a role as a reliever would be fine,100 innings no bueno. BB's post is spot on. To me if 2 schools met the needs academically and were a good fit for baseball. I think the player with the baseball $$ will have a chance to fail. Maybe not the first chance, but he will certainly get a chance. I think that's all you can ask for. A chance.

quote:

13 innings would be fine

Interesting answer! I don't think you will find coaches recruiting that way any time soon

There are recruiting code words that come up that also indicates what they think. Immediate impact player means they expect you to start as a freshman. Friday starter is the best pitcher on the team and typically not a freshman. Saturday starter and then Sunday starter are other designations. At a pitching-rich program like Clemson, their Sunday starter is often better than most Friday starters at other programs. Chance to be a Tuesday starter or bullpen guy probably would be a typical thing a new recruit might hear during recruiting. Closer is another designation that does not often go to freshmen. There are freshman closers out there however. Like everyone said, you have to earn it. Everything depends on how talented an individual is. There are exceptions to every rule. Sometimes, freshman become the Friday starter for reasons other than just talent (injury, poor performance by the upperclassmen, grades etc.)

My son's college had 15 freshman year, 17 soph and 10 JR. These are the guys who pitched. There were some who didn't get any innings. It will be interesting with the new coaches.

I'm having a hard time envisioning a college coaching staff of a good program sitting in their post Fall/preseason meetings with meaningful discussions including "this kid is getting $$$$ so he needs to be playing/pitching."
College coaches, by and large, get paid to win. They know mistakes get made in recruiting and scholarship allocation. Some with larger $$$$ don't produce and some with little or no $$$$ produce.
They also know they can take action on those $$$$ at the end of the year, if they choose to do so.
I don't doubt that an incoming freshman with bigger $$$$ gets more looks in the Fall than the $ or walk on.
By February, the $$$$ or $ mean nothing.
To me this is like envisioning "9" from Stanford walking to the mound in the 7th with two relievers in the bullpen and imagining the $$$$ or $ enters his mind in which to bring into the situation. Successful college coaches make decisions based on performance and productivity or they are not successful, not a college coach, or both.
I am just not in agreement this is the way college coaches make decisions during the period from February to June of each year. It seems to me that is why there used to be so many mid year transfers. Coaches made decisions based on the performance in the Fall. If the performance and the $$$$ were not a good match, they were removed and not a factor come February.

Daniel Moskos (4th pick in 2007)put in 16 innings as a freshman in relief. He was not a happy camper.

However, because of that, he was able to go to the cape that summer, put in innings against wood, be successful, used again his sophmore year (53 innings only), as closer and spot relief and head off to play USA with a fresh arm and have a great summer and return his final year for 76 innings only. Mine put in a total of 223 plus summer (99 his last season), and I will tell you he was eexhausted playoffs and draft time.

Of course being a power lefty for Moskos didn't hurt, but he pitched less than most Clemson pitchers do in their careers and very happy with his signing bonus of 2.4M.