"Guarantees" Am I alone?

quote:

FWIW - My son is far from a "top prospect"! This isn't a parent of a 6'5" kid telling the parent of 5'8" kid height doesn't matter.

LOL!

NP13, I understand and agree with your post for the most part. The thing that bothers me are the restrictions the NCAA places around transfers. It seems to me if scholarships are not guaranteed, player movement shouldn't be restricted either.

Let's say it differently. You take a job and have to commit to stay in it 4 years. After getting there, you find out it's really just pushing papers and they cut your pay 50% after a year. Shouldn't you then be free to change jobs? The NCAA makes you stay "unemployed" for a year before you can go to work for another company.

quote:

Originally posted by NP13:
I would expect my son to earn his roster spot every year. I have had this conversation with him and there is no question he would prefer this also.

As long as they get a fair shot, I think every player would agree with your son. We are the parents. They are the players. To them, it's not about how much scholarship money they got. It's about where they fit in on the team.

If you have two offers from two schools you both really like. One gives you a four year deal and one gives you a one year deal which one do you take?

Each families situations (financially as well) are different so I would expect different answers.

I think we still need to find out how iron-clad that 'guarantee' really is.

D’Oh….. there are guaranteed scholarships available today….they are academic.

Now to reality, these “guarantees” are primarily being offered to fully funded basketball and football programs that generate nearly every cent of an athletic departments budget. Baseball is not a fully funded sport and the only kids who have any hope of getting a “guarantee” are blue chippers, who BTW usually stay for three years and then are drafted. It is also a case of supply and demand. There are more college capable college baseball players than there are slots; these programs (generally) lose money, so I don’t think it is going to happen.

As we all know baseball scouting by nature is a c r ap shoot and no college coach with any brains is going to be offering up “guarantees” to players. The reality is in the high profile programs freshmen come in and get a chance to make a difference. If they make the travel squad they are on thin ice and better improve before the next crop of super duper freshmen come in looking to make a difference.

I also agree with Tx-Husker, that in particular for baseball, the sit out restrictions are onerous for the players. If you don’t fit in a program then you should be able to change.

Why would you want one?

So you can know up front if you can afford to send your son to college there, or not.

Consider this: The cost of a lot of private universities is now north of 50k/year. Your son gets offered 50%, and you figure you can handle 25k/year. However, after his freshman year he's told he'll have only 25% for his sophomore year. Suddenly you face 37.5k/year, a 50% increase over what you were expecting. The year after that, they zero him out, and now you're looking at over 50k per year, or else he has to transfer. But if he transfers, he has to sit out baseball for a year.

The situation is parallel at lower cost schools, the financial exposure is just not as big.

I can tell you this, if a 50+k college's program refused my son a guarantee, that would send us somewhere else. My attitude would be, thanks for the warning.

Academic awards are annual too. But the renewal criteria is clear...normally a minimum GPA. And, if they don't renew it, you know it's because you didn't meet the GPA standard that was set up front. It's not subjective...and if the academic award isn't renewed, you can transfer to an affordable situation without sitting out of school a year.

I understand the NCAA wanting to discourage massive transfer volume. But to me the NCAA should waive the sit out a year rule IF the school cuts the scholarship level. That's a fair balance on both sides of the matter.

You are right on Midlo, from a parent perspective. The reality is that it does not work this way and which is why this website is so important.

College bound HS players parents, in many cases, just don't get it. Programs do not give guarantees, quality programs will give a player a break if he get's injured and I know of several that have continued on schollarships for one year, but beyond this it typically does not happen.

Everyone here keeps thinking about this from a parent perspective. Put yourself in the coaches chair. He is not fully funded, maybe has 10 slots and has 27 kids to spread this around on. He is not going to lock up his scholly's for 4 years, it is just not going to happen. Fully fund a program and then it makes sense. For baseball get real.

This is why I keep harping on academics, there is much more money out there for academics than there is for athletic. This is reality folks!!!

So how does it work...

JR agrees to a 25%, 4 year guaranteed ship. Not only makes the team, starts and makes "All American" his first year. Now what? Does he get more the next year? Do we expect the schools to honor 4 years where the amount can go up and can't go down? Now what do the coaches do? If they have to keep kids who don't deserver to be there, then there are no more scholrships the program can't recruit. Then the program goes down fast. If the teams weren't limited, I would beat the drum for full, guaranteed scholorships, but it just isn't the case.

Please don't misunderstand. As a parent I would be thrilled to know my son was getting money for 4 years at a school he liked. I just don't feel they are entitled to it and don't think it is the best way to fuel competition. Don't kids play sports because the want to compete?

I would plan on a ceiling but no floor.

There is nothing in the rules change to alter the current situation under which players can earn raises, if you will. However, raises are infrequent, especially in the new era where the transfer sit-out rule has been extended to baseball (since 2008).

The problem is that if a coach reduces or eliminates a player's money, he has no real recourse. Previously, the player could at least seek to transfer and had that bargaining chip to work with. Since 2008, that has been gone.

Some programs don't cut money unless the player does something untoward. Some evaluate production and will cut if you don't live up to expectations. Some will cut money if an injury leaves you unable to perform. Some will cut money because they are dishonest, they "bait and switch" -- they lured you in with a high initial amount, but then they reduce your money in year 2 so that they can repeat that for the recruits coming in with the following class.

You can ask around to try to ascertain which programs are which, but at this point it's up to players to assert the issue. "Coach, does that offer come with the four-year guarantee?" If one coach offers it to you, and another one does not, then you can either go with the guarantee, or go back to the other one and say that to land you they will need to meet or beat the other offer.

I suspect there are programs who just won't do it. Others will do it only to land a premier recruit. Others already do it, and will gladly commit on paper in an effort to win over a recruit who might otherwise have gone elsewhere.

Midlo Dad - I know everyone is different, but I don't buy cars or houses that I couldn't afford if I lost my job for a year. I am not going to send my kid to a school that we couldn't afford if he lost his scholorship. If he is not good enough at baseball and really wants to stay, loans are available.

Midlo Dad - For the record, I understand that you know much more abouth this stuff then I do and in no way want to debate what is right or what the NCAA should do. I just always feel like I am out on a island when it come to expecting kids to compete to get what they deserve.

When the kids were in LL, I couldn't wait for middle school for the parents to be removed and it became about competing... didn't happen. But I knew when the kids hit high school, it would be all about competing... but it isn't. Now as my son begins to look at colleges, surely it will be all about competing... but all I hear is people wanting guarantees for there kids... these are adults. I want my son to get what he earns! Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry, that rant was not directed at you Midlo, just a rant. I will shut up now and go away.

I appreciate the "tough love" approach, but the reality is that some programs are just not being honest with the players and their families. And many of the reductions players see are not being meted out based on performance of the player. You can blow the doors off and still see your money reduced if the coach decides he needs it to land another recruit coming in. Some coaches would never consider doing such a thing. Others do it and never lose a minute of sleep.

Most coaches want/need to have more winning seasons than losing seasons and will try to put the best team on the field regardless of who has the highest scholarship.

The players that perform the best will play ultimately. Hitters must hit and pitchers have to get the opposing players out. I have personally seen low scholarship players beat out players with bigger scholarships.

So even if a coach guarantees your son a 4 year scholarship that does NOT also guarantee he will be a 4 year starter. Playing time must be earned regardless of scholarship amount.

"The thing that bothers me are the restrictions the NCAA places around transfers. It seems to me if scholarships are not guaranteed, player movement shouldn't be restricted either."


I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that if an institution can decide to not renew a scholarship, an athlete should be able to go elsewhere. It seems like basic fairness to me.

For instance, what if a player is the 2nd best catcher in the country but does not get to play because the best catcher is at the same school? If college can cut him at any time, why can't he go elsewhere to get his due without incurring a 1 year ban?

quote:

"The thing that bothers me are the restrictions the NCAA places around transfers. It seems to me if scholarships are not guaranteed, player movement shouldn't be restricted either."

Guess letting the players move around would be a tacit endorsement of sports over education. Some circles probably still want to push that is about an education.

Where I also like this rule is the new coach factor. Kids are committing earlier and are committing for 4 years. How often have you seen or heard of a coaching change before the kid gets on campus or during his 4 years,which the new coach gets his guys and kids get zeroed out.

Not sure how school's will handle this but if a school were to offer my kid a 4 year guarantee that tells me they want him bad and that is always a good thing.All things being equal I would lean to the school that would be willing to guarantee the scholly. Sure a kid could transfer and play somewhere else however that sometimes is not what kids want to do after developing friendships at their current school. I am all for this rule will be interesting to see how it plays out.

quote:

Guess letting the players move around would be a tacit endorsement of sports over education. Some circles probably still want to push that is about an education.

Isn't that what an athletic scholarship is already?

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:

quote:

Originally posted by NP13:
I would expect my son to earn his roster spot every year. I have had this conversation with him and there is no question he would prefer this also.

As long as they get a fair shot, I think every player would agree with your son. We are the parents. They are the players. To them, it's not about how much scholarship money they got. It's about where they fit in on the team.

I think that way as well. These days we all need all the help we can get with scholly dollars, but if the fit isn't right to begin with it isn't going to ever be right. In our situation, we stayed away from programs (especially the private ones) that would cost an arm and a leg if something happened.

Do well on the field and in the classroom and you will have more opportunities to choose from. JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:

quote:

Originally posted by NP13:
I would expect my son to earn his roster spot every year. I have had this conversation with him and there is no question he would prefer this also.

As long as they get a fair shot, I think every player would agree with your son. We are the parents. They are the players. To them, it's not about how much scholarship money they got. It's about where they fit in on the team.

I think that way as well. These days we all need all the help we can get with scholly dollars, but if the fit isn't right to begin with it isn't going to ever be right. In our situation, we stayed away from programs (especially the private ones) that would cost an arm and a leg if something happened.

Do well on the field and in the classroom and you will have more opportunities to choose from. JMO.

+1

I believe that the coaches should honor what they offered for the duration of the players tenure. If a coach is not good enought to recruit good, or at least coachable, players then why should the player suffer. The coach should have to suffer the consequences of (1)not being able to coach the player up of (2) not scouting/recruiting good enough. No player should have their scholly reduced.

One thing that really irks me is the kind of coach that has the "latest, greatest' attitude. Pick your players smart and plan for longevity. I have seen and been the victim of a coach that over-recruits every year. Players/parents should/need to be made aware of these kinds of coaches. Players should definitely do their research on the recruiting class from a few years ago, not just the previous year, to see where those players are now at in the program

Obviously the "x" % guarantee would be great for the parents footing the bill for school. But I can certainly see where coaches would think it would hurt the motivation factor for the players. I also think there are many players out there that have no clue how much work it takes to play at the DI level and simply end up not being the studs the coaches thought they would be. Must you keep these kids on the roster because you guaranteed them 4 years??

Also, with regard to transfer rule. I absolutely think if scholly is cut the player should have the option to transfer without sitting. But honestly, do you expect there to be scholly money available at the transfer school? I would think the $$ for that upcoming season is long accounted for. If it's a playing time decision OK, but that opens a bigger can of worms regarding the waiting period scenario.

quote:

Originally posted by mood for baseball:
Obviously the "x" % guarantee would be great for the parents footing the bill for school. But I can certainly see where coaches would think it would hurt the motivation factor for the players. I also think there are many players out there that have no clue how much work it takes to play at the DI level and simply end up not being the studs the coaches thought they would be. Must you keep these kids on the roster because you guaranteed them 4 years??

Also, with regard to transfer rule. I absolutely think if scholly is cut the player should have the option to transfer without sitting. But honestly, do you expect there to be scholly money available at the transfer school? I would think the $$ for that upcoming season is long accounted for. If it's a playing time decision OK, but that opens a bigger can of worms regarding the waiting period scenario.

I think the coach should have to keep them on the roster and on scholly. He recruited them, asked them to come to his school for not only baseball but for educational purposes. The selection of a school not only effects the player but his family as well, to cut his money after a year is ridiculous. He should keep them on scholly and the roster, that does not mean he has to give them play time.

I keep hearing people say that the coaches wont offer, but I don't think in the long run they'll have much choice.

Any player/parent in their right mind will make a multi year offer part of the package. The coach can set the amount/percent but the players will, over time, start insisting on the longer commits or they'll go somewhere else. Who in the right mind wouldn't?

I am shocked at how naïve both players and parents are about the reality of playing D1, strike that, any college baseball. Before you post that college coaches should do this or do that, think about the level of commitment, the amount of time involved, the risk factors for injury, the fact that many kids are not physically developed when they are recruited, the fact that many programs don’t even fully fund at the 11.7 level, the fact that some kids can not fathom the academic load as well as the athletic demands prior to getting to school, or having to sit on the bench for the first time in their life. Other distractions of being on their own for the first time, just having to deal with day to day stuff of life, missing mom/dad/girlfriends, other distractions of new roommates, girls, alcohol, ect, ect. Add all this up and you are frankly living in a fantasy world if you think college baseball coaches are going to guarantee your little Johnny baseball player a four-year scholarship. Not going to happen. GET REAL!

can we say that LLL thinking is still prevalent among the parents of college players?

The thing is, the coach can now say "guaranteed", but the same strings are still attached. If a coach wants to shed a player - he will.

/// color me cynical

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
many programs don’t even fully fund at the 11.7 level

Is there an accurate list of which schools do? And, how about a list of those who don't, and how many scholarships they have available (last year's number)?

I learned, pretty much after the fact, that just because a school recruits a player, it doesn't mean they will offer athletic aid. They can't, because they simply don't have much baseball money.

quote:

Originally posted by 55mom:
The thing is, the coach can now say "guaranteed", but the same strings are still attached. If a coach wants to shed a player - he will.

/// color me cynical

Ahh... Johnny, your aware of the schools policy on tobacco. We found this can of dip in your locker. Sorry your out!

quote:

Originally posted by lefthookdad:

quote:

Originally posted by mood for baseball:
Obviously the "x" % guarantee would be great for the parents footing the bill for school. But I can certainly see where coaches would think it would hurt the motivation factor for the players. I also think there are many players out there that have no clue how much work it takes to play at the DI level and simply end up not being the studs the coaches thought they would be. Must you keep these kids on the roster because you guaranteed them 4 years??

Also, with regard to transfer rule. I absolutely think if scholly is cut the player should have the option to transfer without sitting. But honestly, do you expect there to be scholly money available at the transfer school? I would think the $$ for that upcoming season is long accounted for. If it's a playing time decision OK, but that opens a bigger can of worms regarding the waiting period scenario.

I think the coach should have to keep them on the roster and on scholly. He recruited them, asked them to come to his school for not only baseball but for educational purposes. The selection of a school not only effects the player but his family as well, to cut his money after a year is ridiculous. He should keep them on scholly and the roster, that does not mean he has to give them play time.

So your premise is "A deals is a deal". If thats the case then Johnny needs to commit for 4 years. None of this entering the draft business after your junior year. Of course if he doesn't complete his degree than Johnny has an obligation to repay the scholarship. After all "A deal is a deal"!

If there's a list out there I've never been able to find it. Kendall Rogers and I had this discussion on another list. My guess was that only around 50% of all D1's were fully funded. As I recall, he felt like it was more like 60%, but we're just guessing.

In SC, S.C., CLemson, Coastal, and C of C are all fully funded. I'm pretty sure Winthrop is. Wofford (SoCon), Presbyterian (Big South), and Furman (SoCon) are not. However, I am told that Furman soon will be. Not sure about Chas. So. and USC Upstate.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
Is there an accurate list of which schools do? And, how about a list of those who don't, and how many scholarships they have available (last year's number)?

I learned, pretty much after the fact, that just because a school recruits a player, it doesn't mean they will offer athletic aid. They can't, because they simply don't have much baseball money.

I was told during the recruting process that a Big West school needed to offer a minimum of 10 slots. I never saw this in writing however so who knows if it is true or not. I know of serveral programs that are at the 10 level. (or were)

Some of the conferences mandate certain minimum standards for their members.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:

quote:

Originally posted by lefthookdad:

quote:

Originally posted by mood for baseball:
Obviously the "x" % guarantee would be great for the parents footing the bill for school. But I can certainly see where coaches would think it would hurt the motivation factor for the players. I also think there are many players out there that have no clue how much work it takes to play at the DI level and simply end up not being the studs the coaches thought they would be. Must you keep these kids on the roster because you guaranteed them 4 years??

Also, with regard to transfer rule. I absolutely think if scholly is cut the player should have the option to transfer without sitting. But honestly, do you expect there to be scholly money available at the transfer school? I would think the $$ for that upcoming season is long accounted for. If it's a playing time decision OK, but that opens a bigger can of worms regarding the waiting period scenario.

I think the coach should have to keep them on the roster and on scholly. He recruited them, asked them to come to his school for not only baseball but for educational purposes. The selection of a school not only effects the player but his family as well, to cut his money after a year is ridiculous. He should keep them on scholly and the roster, that does not mean he has to give them play time.

So your premise is "A deals is a deal". If thats the case then Johnny needs to commit for 4 years. None of this entering the draft business after your junior year. Of course if he doesn't complete his degree than Johnny has an obligation to repay the scholarship. After all "A deal is a deal"!

If those are the terms up front yeah. The player should also state that he may be entering the draft once eligible. You can add as many twists as you like, But, you make an offer you should abide by it.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
I am shocked at how naïve both players and parents are about the reality of playing D1, strike that, any college baseball. Before you post that college coaches should do this or do that, think about the level of commitment, the amount of time involved, the risk factors for injury, the fact that many kids are not physically developed when they are recruited, the fact that many programs don’t even fully fund at the 11.7 level, the fact that some kids can not fathom the academic load as well as the athletic demands prior to getting to school, or having to sit on the bench for the first time in their life. Other distractions of being on their own for the first time, just having to deal with day to day stuff of life, missing mom/dad/girlfriends, other distractions of new roommates, girls, alcohol, ect, ect. Add all this up and you are frankly living in a fantasy world if you think college baseball coaches are going to guarantee your little Johnny baseball player a four-year scholarship. Not going to happen. GET REAL!

I am with you with this, I too am shocked at how some are naive to all of this. Coaches make mistakes in recruiting just as players make mistakes, I get the feeling that for some it's ok for the player to go back on his word but not a coach.
The selection of a school not only effects player and family but teammates as well. If I as a parent am spending money for my son to attend a program and expecting it to be at least an above .500 average in wins per year in and year out, I don't want the coach keeping players that can't contribute on the level of performance they were recruited for. We did our homework, son went to a great program but he had other options, he chose what he could handle on the field as well as in the classroom. People make mistakes in judging each other, things don't always work out in a marriage (which this is essentially similar too), that's why people seperate and get divorced.

I have stated my position, it's ok if people make mistakes, both player and coaches.

I have to agree with dswann, if a deal is a deal than it has to count on both sides. The coach then should immediately let a player go if he is visited by a scout (no leaving before he gives 4 years) and if for some reason he has some off the field issues he should be let go immediately, or he just keeps up with a minimum GPA.

Yes, a deal is a deal.

The problem is that when you negotiate the deal, thanks to the NCAA rules the college coach holds most of the cards. That makes the deal unnaturally tilted in the coach's favor.

If he later thinks he made a mistake with you, if he just plain changes his mind, or if he gets fired and the new guy just wants to bring in "his own guys", he can cut you off completely. He can get another player at any time and you are just SOL.

You, on the other hand, don't have that power. If you find out you made a mistake, you can try to transfer. But you'll have to sit out a year at your new school, probably without scholarship money. And oh yeah, did I mention that there are no WWBA tourneys at the 20u level? It's not like you can just up and go on to some other school. There is no standard recruiting pipeline. You have to hope someone remembers you from a few years back and is still interested. And even if you are that fortunate, good luck negotiating your money now. The other guy is going to know you have few if any other options and that means that if you get anything at all it is likely to mean you're shouldering a lot more costs than you had planned.

Or, you can just deal with the reality that the one college coach you trusted just ended your playing days sooner than you'd hoped would happen. And now you can see if you can come up with the rest of the money you need to pay the bills on your own. If you are at an in-state public school, I guess you could say that at least your exposure isn't the end of the world. But if you were persuaded by the coach to go out of state, or private, you may have to leave your chosen school simply as a matter of finances.

Yes, a deal's a deal, but this deal is rotten. And it's rotten because the NCAA couldn't care less about the player or his family. It serves its member institutions and it tilts the tables in their favor.

As for leaving early for the draft, give me a break. First of all, the teams LOVE to have kids drafted out of their program because it helps them recruit the next kids. To pretend that a kid who signs a pro deal leaves them in the lurch is just plain ignoring reality. They have all sorts of prospects knocking on their doors at all times and can find Bachelor # 2 in the blink of an eye if need be.

And BTW, what do you do about the player who maybe gets hurt while giving the team his all? Are you really OK with the notion that this kid can just be cut adrift with nothing? In the job market, which TR is so fond of comparing this to, you can at least get workers comp. No such luck in the current college sports world. Maybe your coach is a prince. Or just maybe it's, sorry kid, but thanks for the memories.

To me this potential rule change is nothing but a recognition that the NCAA went WAAAAAYY too far when it imposed the transfer sit-out rule and it needed to do SOMETHING to give players some sort of protection in the two-way relationship.

Because it is supposed to be a two-way relationship. And right now, too often it isn't.

I have to agree with Midlo Dad on this. Everything is too one sided toward the school. If the NCAA did away with the one year sitout rule then I would be satisfied that things were on more of a level plane.