"Guaranteed" invited Walk-on"

I would ask around, talk to some prior players in the program, people associated with the team and coaches who can give you some feedback on if he has held up his end of the agreement in the past. If you do your home work and feel like the coach is being honest and up front you should be ok.

Definitely would ask coach about (guarantee) but good luck with this .

quote:

Originally posted by clemsonp:
Son (2012) has received the following "offer" - a guaranteed roster spot. No athletic money but can do quite well at this D1 with academic money. We are VERY skeptical of the word "guarantee." Is it too early to "jump" at something like this? The coach is asking to send a "letter of commitment" to be signed. What are the board's thoughts on this? Would love words of wisdom!

Does the program over recruit? In other words how many show up in the fall? Check out the coaching staff, if they are legit, it most likely is a valid offer. However, some coaches give this opportunity to more than necessary, because they know some will not show up.

D1 coaches are only allowed to award 27 athletic scholarships, how else can they get 6-8 more players on the roster? Academic only is a walk on, there is no other way to work it, guaranteed has to be soemthing between your son and the coaching staff. You rso does not have to sign any commitment, the coach should, but I don'think it is allowed(?).

Good luck!

First, do enough research so that you are satisfied as to what exactly a guaranteed roster spot means at this school. For example, does it mean a spot in the spring, or just through fall practice?

Second, ask (or find out) which currently rostered old players began in the same situation. (In many programs pitchers get the lions share of athletic money and catchers and expectant superstar position players get most of the rest. This leaves some position players who get significant playing time with no athletic money - but, they are playing.) (A corollary to this is if your son is a pitcher or catcher not getting money he is not expected to get much spring playing time.). Look up the players who began their careers as recruited walk-ons; are you satisfied with the course of their careers?

Third, ask (or find out) what happened to the rest of the recruited walk-ons from the previous years who are not now on the roster. For example, are they still at the school or did they transfer.

The answers to these questions will allow your family to weigh the odds and go in with your eyes open to reality.

Everyone has a different priority in baseball - some are fine with being on a team and not playing; others need to start. But if a player has the need to start, getting limited playing time usually does not lead to much improvement. And a lack of improvement cannot move a player into a starting line-up.

If you are still on the fence, ask about th coach placing your son in a summer collegiate league after his first year. Any hesitancy by a coach to commit to placing him somewhere is significant. (You may also ask the coach to place him in a summer league as a rising freshman - several leagues allow limited numbers of rising freshman. The reps will put him the best possible position to earn playing time during fall practice.)

When you get into “guaranteed walk on spots” there are a couple of areas to be concerned about.

1.How secure is the coach. The guarantee is between only you and the coach not the institution like an NLI. Coach goes, so does your spot.

2. Where do I fit in the recruiting class? What position and how do I fit within the new recruits as well as the existing team.

3. Why is no money being offered? Find out the real reason. Sometimes they are under funded, sometimes they did not see you before they gave out their $$, or they may not think you stack up to the other players,

4. Ask other players on the team who have had this option and check out how it worked for them. Some programs do this a lot some do not.

Remember this is only for one year and does not mean he will make the travel squad. He will have to prove his worth in the first year otherwise he may be gone.

.

Even the best walk-on situation is an invitation to a precarious baseball existence where the odds are against his ever making a meaningful contribution to the team.

It takes a special situation and a special player to make it work.

I recommend you assess both very carefully.

Step One: Assess the Situation.
Find out if he will be treated exactly like the scholarship players from the first day he arrives on campus.

At my son's school, there are preferred walk-ons whose status is indistinguishable from that of the scholarship athletes. They are so integrated into all aspects of team life that no one knows they are walk-ons unless they volunteer the information, which no one ever asks them to do.

Find out if the "guarantee" means your son will:
--Have the same conditioning and workout opportunities (group conditioning sessions, assigned locker, laundry service, after-hours facility access) as the scholarship players if he attends summer school with them;
--Have the same conditioning and workout opportunities in the weeks between the beginning of school and the beginning of official practice (this matters a lot because the players' concept of who is really on the team is solidified long before practices officially begin based on who is up early and working hard;
--Live in the same housing as the freshman scholarship players (this depends on your school: some coaches have control over a certain number of room assignments in preferred dorms; some coaches have no say in the matter at all);
--Receive the same academic support (services from team academic advisor, registration priority, free tutoring, etc.);
--Be exempted from the open tryout attended by the un-recruited walk-ons.

If all of the above are true, your son may assume he will be given a legitimate opportunity to prove himself.

Step Two: Assess the Suitability of the Player to Succeed as a Walk-on.
If the situation is promising, you can assess the player.

All walk-ons must confront two facts up front. The coach's livelihood depends on his ability to evaluate talent. The coach's initial assessment is that the walk-on has less potential than the scholarship athletes.

These facts are reality, and they will not go away.

For most players, the coach's assessment is correct and will be proven so by hard experience.

For a small minority, the coach's assessment is incorrect; however, recognition of these facts will eventually become a source of discouragement and doubt. These players should not become walk-ons.

For a tiny, tiny minority, the coach's assessment is incorrect, and the player's cast of character is such that the hard facts will become a wellspring of motivation and determination.

To assess your son's suitability for a walk-on spot, ask the following hard questions:
--Does your son have an informed basis for believing the coach's assessment is wrong and he really can compete alongside the scholarship players? Is it plausible?
--How good is your son at walking a hard path by himself?
--Is your son is the sort of young man who is driven to prove doubters wrong? When has he done it in the past? How often in life has he surged from the back of the pack to prevail in the end? Did he glide through youth ball on superior talent, or does he have a track record of outworking the competition and surprising his coaches?
--How hot does the fire burn within him? Does it still burn in the face of adversity? How often have others described your son as relentless, determined, passionate, or persistent?
--What's his track record in the matter of choosing friends? Does he naturally gravitate toward those with high goals and outstanding work habits, or does he choose friends mostly who are fun to hang out with?


If the situation is right and the player is right, it MIGHT not be totally reckless to accept the offer.

Best wishes.

1. Look at archived roster player bio's, i.e Little Johnny, L.J H.S, Johnstown, Miss.

2. Use the information in the player bio and contact the family/player.

3. Interview family/player member.

4. Compare information from family/player with coaches perspective.

5. Repeat.

Swampboy. Golden. Someone copy paste this to the front page under "walk on".

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
Swampboy. Golden. Someone copy paste this to the front page under "walk on".

Wow I agree, fantastic post.

Two years ago I was talking with Jamie Shouppe at FSU about extending my son a spot (he had offered a Recruited Walk On Spot out of HS). He said he would be happy to have my son, but he had no money to offer. I was hoping for 25%. He went on to tell me that the starting 3rd Baseman, 2nd Baseman, an outfielder and one of their starting pitchers were all walk on's. I have no idea who got their money...maybe they were not fully funded that year...
Anyway, it was interesting to me that so many of their starting position players were walk on's.

A lot easier if they qualified for Bright Futures.

That is true, mine had bright futures as well. But it is still curious how the scholarship budget was used, and that so many starters received no athletic money.

Just pointing out that just because a player is not offered money, does not necessarily mean that they are not expected to start.

Thank you for the advice. I'm a little lost on the "Bright Futures" reference?? What would your opinion be if my son were offered D2 spot and money vs. this recruited D1 walk-on spot? I assume the university's reputation would come in to play at that point?

ClemsonP,
Some states have a lot of money from their lotteries or other sources that covers a big chunk of in-state expenses for good students. Bright Futures is the Florida version. It does permit some recruited athletes not to need athletic money, which gives coaches a lot more flexibility. Often they use it to get more in-state recruits cheaper and have more money for a few truly top prospect.

Mentioning it was a distraction from your question because there is a big difference between a recruited player who doesn't need athletic money and the usual preferred walk-on.


FloridaFan,
What did you think about the professionalism of a coach who disclosed the usually-confidential scholarship status of his players? Would you have wanted him telling other recruits about your son's status if he had chosen to attend that school? Do you think his telling you what he did tended to make you believe what he was saying or believe he would say anything in order to get your son for free?

Swampboy, good point and one reason why I suggested that FF's son seek a better fit.

Not now that Shouppe is gone, but they would in the past invite many players to walk on, but in reality it was more of a try out walk on for most.

If you made the team, you were treated the same as any player, as most are.

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
Anyway, it was interesting to me that so many of their starting position players were walk on's.

I think it* happens (all over) much more than people let on.

*what I meant was a lot of kids are playing without baseball money.

3FingeredGlove, our resident NCAA rules guru, explained to me in another thread that if you get money, you're a "counter" towards the 27 maximum and also towards the 35-man roster limit.

What that means is, if you're getting money, you're not one of those who's going to get cut, because if the team has more than 35 guys on the field in the fall, cutting a "counter" doesn't help you get under the ceiling at all.

And that in turn means that it's primarily (indeed, almost exclusively) the walk-ons who're at risk. The percentage of walk-ons who start the fall practices but don't make it into spring is pretty high.

I've only known a couple kids who took guaranteed roster spots with no money. One is a senior and still playing. I believe he is on scholarship now. The other was redshirted as a freshman but they sent him to a college summer league where he did pretty well so I'm guessing he's in their plans for this season despite a new coach coming in.

My son was offered admittance to one of the better academic UCs but without a guaranteed roster spot. He would have taken it if they had guaranteed the spot.

That's our experience but every situation is different so do your due diligence as the other posters have recommended.

quote:

What would your opinion be if my son were offered D2 spot and money vs. this recruited D1 walk-on spot? I assume the university's reputation would come in to play at that point?

Exactly the scenario my son faced. After doing our homework he decided that indeed, "a bird in hand is better than two in the bush."

Good points above Swampboy, and yes TPM I appreciated your input back then.

As for the decision that my son made, he felt it was in his best interest to go where the financial commitment to him as a player was demonstrated.

We have been very happy with how things have turned out and love the program. The fact that we have been able to attend virtually every game has been nice as well.

clemsonp,
I posted earlier this fall about my 2012 going through the same situation. He was offered scholarships at a few D1 mid-majors and had interest from others. A tier 1 D1 program saw him in October and offered him a preferred walk-on spot, which he ended up accepting. It is a stretch school for him, but one that he really wanted to attend, it is in-state, and a good academic fit. We sat down with the coach and were able to get comfortable that he had a guaranteed spot on the "Spring" roster and would be treated exactly the same as the scholarship athletes. The team is currently carrying 32 players, and they were below the 35 ceiling last year. The coach also told us that they have had a lot of strong contributors in recent years that started as preferred walk-ons. So all of those things got us more comfortable with the decision. We will have to wait and see how it all plays out, but I think it was a good decision for us. I think it's just a matter of really understand the situation that you are entering into and whether that is a good fit for your son.

Good Luck!

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
Anyway, it was interesting to me that so many of their starting position players were walk on's.

I think it* happens (all over) much more than people let on.

*what I meant was a lot of kids are playing without baseball money.

I agree, I think it is much more common than we think, coaches have tight budgets (always have) and if they can get a player in without giving up athletic dollars, they will do it.

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
Two years ago I was talking with Jamie Shouppe at FSU about extending my son a spot (he had offered a Recruited Walk On Spot out of HS). He said he would be happy to have my son, but he had no money to offer. I was hoping for 25%. He went on to tell me that the starting 3rd Baseman, 2nd Baseman, an outfielder and one of their starting pitchers were all walk on's. I have no idea who got their money...maybe they were not fully funded that year...
Anyway, it was interesting to me that so many of their starting position players were walk on's.

FF...similar FSU situation here (2008 HS grad)...kid was offered invited walk-on..seemed eager to have him...said offered only a few..gave him until very early spring to decide, that way if "better offer" came along, time for school to find another player. "under old rules, easily get 10-15%, books, etc." but didn't have the 25% (studs, pitchers/catchers/ss/cf get the bucks). Dad grad there, close to home (much closer than the 20 hour trek to NY ), girlfriend at time going there, grew up cheering for 'em. Seemed like a decent offer.

In the end, the "precariousness" of the situation, teamed with a little "history" of "next good recruit eases last one out" probably a large factor leading son to determine the "fit" was not there. Worked out good for both as the kid we think got the abandoned walk-on offer has had a great career there..and my kid seemed to make a pretty decent choice, also. The measured success he's had where he's at more than likely would not have happened in Tally..or, at least, would have been very delayed.

There's another consideration. The coach is telling your son he's player 28-35. Most teams use about twenty players. Your son has to give serious consideration to whether or not he can move up the depth chart or will he get bumped off the back end in a year or two?

Boy on my son's HS team was a "Preferred Walk-On" at top 20 D-1 last year. Saw some good playing time and will probably be starting this year. Coach was straight up honest with him and kept his word.

Not necessarily. At many, if not most, schools you only have 4 or 5 players that are "givens" or "locks." Everything else is wide open, whether on scholarship or not. Look at it this way. Under the old rules you might have 5 or 6 kids getting $6000 and another 5 or 6 kids getting $4000. Hard to distinguish between the two groups based on $2000. Under the new rules those same kids may be at $6000 and $0, but they're still the same players. Now if a kid is being recruited to just be a bullpen catcher that's a different situation.

Bottom line, as the other folks have pointed out, is do your homework.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
There's another consideration. The coach is telling your son he's player 28-35....

A way to look at where the recruited walk-on fits into the equation:

There are two groups of players: those receiving baseball money and those who are not.

The freshman who get the athletic money, for the most part, are the one the coach has decided have a greater chance at baseball success at the school (yes, there may be some deviations (e.g., coach out of money by the time the player was recruited); but the deviations are outliers.) Those that don't get the money are evaluated to have a lesser chance of baseball success at the school.

There is always anecdotal evidence of the performance of the two groups being different from the projection. But, you cannot draw a principle from that anecdotal evidence. (If the two groups perfomed the same, the coach would hand out money randomly to the two groups.) Yet, in every program with which I am familiar, the coaching staff agonizes over scholly amounts - usually with a whiteboard which has a depth chart of recruits somewhere in the room. The higher up on the depth chart, the more desirable the recruit. The more desirable the recruit, the more money.

When a coach looks back over years of recruiting, he finds the players who performed better are the ones who got the money. This is not to say that many players who got no money did not perform better than the money players; it is saying that AS A GROUP the moneyed players were better. (Maybe they got the opportunity(s) to fail before the no money players got the chance to succeed.)

I don't disagree with your analysis, except to the extent that it implies that there is a "bright line" difference between the two groups. Under the old system those recruiting boards you refer to might have had players separated by $500 or so. Under the current system, what used to be a $500 or $1000 difference now jumps to $6000 (assuming a 25% and $24,000 in-state publci COA). Is there really any more difference in projectability now than there was under the old system? Not in my humble opinion.

If the difference was that great, and coaches were that confident in their evaluations, they would only recruit 27 players total. But they don't do that. (Other than Duke and a few others). Most carry close to 35.

I look at it more as 3 groups rather than 2. I think you can throw the "givens" (Nos. 1-10 maybe) and the BP catchers (Nos. 34-35) out. In most cases the middle of the pack, 11-33, aren't going to be that far apart, whether on scholarship or not. It all depends on who wants it the most.

It's more than who wants it the most. Players who are on scholarship are guaranteed a roster spot, even if they under perform in the fall, and even if the coaching staff changes and values a different kind of player. In those situations, the scholarship player is assured of a longer look compared to a walk-on who is perceived to have the same ability or utility to the team.

The only look anyone is assured of is one year. A regime change puts everyone at risk, whether on scholarship or not. If the coaching staff changes who is at more risk, the borderline guy eating up scholarship money, or the borderline guy costing you nothing?

If we're talking walkons fighting for a roster spot I agree with you. But the original topic was non-scholarship players who are guaranteed roster spots. Personally, I don't see a significant difference between players 11-33. They're all going to be on the roster. If the coach wants to win he's going to put the best 9 on the field he can, whether on scholarship or not.

But, as always, I respect your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
It's more than who wants it the most. Players who are on scholarship are guaranteed a roster spot, even if they under perform in the fall, and even if the coaching staff changes and values a different kind of player. In those situations, the scholarship player is assured of a longer look compared to a walk-on who is perceived to have the same ability or utility to the team.

Been there, done that. My experience is right in line with what 3finger said.

Ditto. Will vary by coach, but generally the kid with $ gets more chances and the 1st chance to succeed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by masterofnone:
clemsonp,
He was offered scholarships at a few D1 mid-majors and had interest from others. A tier 1 D1 program saw him in October and offered him a preferred walk-on spot, which he ended up accepting.

I have seen others on here reference "tier 1" programs and was just curious what schools exactly (or as close to precisely) are considered "tier 1'? I would have to assume all SEC, ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12 schools or most all but wondered if there was a more definitive understanding of which programs that might include. I know there are "tier 1" schools in college sports overall but they are NOT necessarily thought of to be top baseball schools (several Big 10 schools come to mind). If the term simply is intende to reference the top 50 RPI teams or so or the usual suspects who are ranked in the various polls year in and year out, then I am sure we all know who those "tier 1" baseball teams are but I was just curious to hear others chime in on the thought. Thanks.

Onetimer,
In our case, by mid-majors I was referring to interest from schools in the Southern Conference, Big South, Ohio Valley. I know there are schools within those conferences (i.e. Coastal Carolina) that many would consider Tier 1, but I was using the term loosely. By Tier 1, I was referring to an ACC school... again, not all ACC schools may be considered Tier 1.

We are headed to campus in January armed with all of the suggested questions. Hopefully we will get a "feel" for the honesty of the coach and the program. If not, we will move on with our other options. Thanks for all of the advice!

It's that time of the year in college baseball. Many schools posted Fall rosters with more players than they can carry in D1. Now some spring rosters are being posted with missing names from fall roster.

Unless you know the player personally it's hard to find out why they didn't mark the team. Could be they didn't make grades 1st semester, maybe homesick and decided to play closer to home, maybe cut after being a walk- on. It's been my experience with a few parents that they heard what they wanted to hear from the coach, not what was really being said.

I know 2 players this year that thought they were preferred walk-ons that were cut at the semester. In their case they just didn't make the team, misunderstood that they were NOT guaranteed a spring roster spot.

My point is do your research, ask very specific questions of the coach, and try to research old rosters to see if players are missing. And yet with all the research in the world, all the guarantees from the coach, the player still has to perform on the field, in the classroom, and in the weight room.

What is the board's opinion on a "guaranteed D1 roster spot" with no baseball money vs. a D2 Juco willing to give money and with a good record of sending kids to D1 after the 1st year?

After doing all your research, which option gives you the best chance to get the playing time?

All other things being equal (a huge and possibly unwarranted assumption), IMO, go where the playing time can be had. This assumes that all potential schools are equal when you weigh academics , geography, cost, and the myriad of other variables that distinguish one school from another - without even considering baseball.

Ask around to other players in the program. This is how I got my start in college baseball, and within a year or two the possibility of getting money is there. Depending on other offers, this could be a great route to take.