Skip to main content

90 replies

"Guarantees" Am I alone?

Midlo DadMidlo Dad10,000+ posts
The thing you do have to notice is that the proposed rules would PERMIT 4-year deals. It would not REQUIRE them, ever.

So you would never have them unless both the head coach and the player agreed.

Of course, the player would always want it. There is no down side.

What we don't know yet is whether head coaches will offer it, and if so, to all or just some of their recruits.

I'm inclined to advise players to ask and then see what kind of answers they get. At least for the highly sought after player, it'll give him one more point to weigh in considering competing offers.
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
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.


Fail!

As a family we understood EXACTLY what the deal was. It was an opportunity. No gurantees. Is it unjust no. Because we knew the deal was based on his performance on the field,in the classroom and being a good citizen. Failure to so was cause for dismissal, nothing more nothing less. Meet the minimum requirements and maybe will renew your scholarship. IMO signing a NLI without due diligence and a complete understanding of the limitations of the contract, would be in a word, ignorant.

Hmmmm...So let me get this straight you contend. The coaches of G.Cole, T.Bauer, S.Strausburg & B.Matusz were jumpng for joy because they were able to leave the program and were anxious to go check behind door #2. Whew, It really must have been a relief for The Utah coach to get C.J Cron out of his hair. The reality is, each one of the programs those guys attended would have LOVED to have them for 10 more years.

I've had this discussion with my wife on numerous occasions. Why stop with injuries. It's incredible how many land mines are planted. Coaches, new coaches, volunteer coaches, mechanical changes, academic issues, time contraints, ridiculous work outs, mind numbing running, volunteer work, mentoring, fund raising, travel, 4-5 games a week, missing class, limited majors and my favorite hosting a recruit who may potenially take your job to name a few. A injury, then being cut might seem downright compasionate compared with what these kids deal with on a daily basis.

You keep referring to this as a 2 way street. It's always been a 1 way street in my mind.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by fanofgame:
The player should be able to transfer without penalty ,If he was in good academic standing and has not been in any sort of trouble.


I agree this is the only reason that the NCAA should allow a player to transfer if he loses his scholarship. That would also include an curcumstance where the coach over recruited and let the player go for lack of spot on the roster.
My gut feeling though is that most players that have scholarships cut do so for lack of effort in the class as well as the field or other questionable issues.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by Eric G:
Having not yet been thru the college experience yet, I can confortably say that if they cut out some of the extensive travel plans some of these colleges have and just give that savings to the players in the form of scholarships I think that would be fantastic.


Some of the comments are fascinating. Travel is part of college baseball. Parents that feel that a program should cut into things such as this to award more athletic money can explore other opportunities like academic scholarships which are better and in more supply than athletic.

The problem is that most don't qualify for that option (academic money).

Encouage your player to do well in school and you will find more dollars to help pay for his education.
lefthookdadlefthookdad5,000+ posts
[


.



Fail!

As a family we understood EXACTLY what the deal was. It was an opportunity. No gurantees. Is it unjust no. Because we knew the deal was based on his performance on the field,in the classroom and being a good citizen. Failure to so was cause for dismissal, nothing more nothing less. Meet the minimum requirements and maybe will renew your scholarship. IMO signing a NLI without due diligence and a complete understanding of the limitations of the contract, would be in a word, ignorant.

Hmmmm...So let me get this straight you contend. The coaches of G.Cole, T.Bauer, S.Strausburg & B.Matusz were jumpng for joy because they were able to leave the program and were anxious to go check behind door #2. Whew, It really must have been a relief for The Utah coach to get C.J Cron out of his hair. The reality is, each one of the programs those guys attended would have LOVED to have them for 10 more years.

I've had this discussion with my wife on numerous occasions. Why stop with injuries. It's incredible how many land mines are planted. Coaches, new coaches, volunteer coaches, mechanical changes, academic issues, time contraints, ridiculous work outs, mind numbing running, volunteer work, mentoring, fund raising, travel, 4-5 games a week, missing class, limited majors and my favorite hosting a recruit who may potenially take your job to name a few. A injury, then being cut might seem downright compasionate compared with what these kids deal with on a daily basis.

You keep referring to this as a 2 way street. It's always been a 1 way street in my mind.[/QUOTE]



Why was Midlo's post a fail? I couldn't agree with him more about the upside for a program when one of their kids get drafted. That player that got drafted opened the recruiting door. If you don't think that the HC will take full advantage and flaunt that player as one of his success stories you are in denial. Drafted players are a resume builder.
Last edited by lefthookdad
infielddadinfielddad10,000+ posts
quote:
I couldn't agree with him more about the upside for a program when one of their kids get drafted. That player that got drafted opened the recruiting door. If you don't think that the HC will take full advantage and flaunt that player as one of his success stories you are in denial. Drafted players are a resume builder.


Geez folks, why does this aspect seem, to me at least, to get looked at from extremes.
Not all drafted/signing players open recruiting doors to a school/coaching staff.
Stanford, for one, battles MLB pretty effectively to keep highly touted players from signing. They cannot replace a player at such a high talent level if he is drafted and signs.
For recruits or players who signed on August 15, such as occurred this recent year at UCLA, those hurt that program for the upcoming year. There is no way UCLA could replace the talent level of 3 recruits who sign just before midnight on August 15.
Even if they had them lined up as is being proposed, they could not get them admitted.
Where our son coaches, they had 2 pitchers sign just before midnight on 8/15. That team and coaching staff is left in a bind because one had the potential to be a major contributor come February of 2012. They could not replace him because the school won't admit any student after August 15.
There may be reasons to argue in favor and against guaranteed 4-5 year baseball scholarships. To my thinking, this isn't one of the reasons.
Last edited by infielddad
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by fanofgame:
The one thing I think that really needs to change is the transfer rule, especially if the scholly is cut or reduced or player is cut.The player should be able to transfer without penalty ,If he was in good academic standing and has not been in any sort of trouble.


Yup. A player should also be able leave without penalty if there's a change in the coaching staff.

I also would like to see a little consistency within the NCAA with respect to sitting out a year. Could someone please explain to me why are women athletes not subjected to the same "sit-out" rule as the men?
Last edited by dswann
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
I was raised believing that there are no guarantees in qany phase of life and if you did not like the rules of the game you are entering you do not play the game if you do play the game you abide by the rules established-- you do not ***** and moan and want the rules changed to suit your whim---it begins to get sickening after awhile
infielddadinfielddad10,000+ posts
CaBB is exactly on the right track here.
The one year sit rule is not favored by most DI college baseball coaches with whom I have spoken. In fact, they don't like it at all and don't feel it is fair.
The rationale behind it, and why it does not exist is women's athletics relates to matriculation/graduation rates.
Before these changes, if I remember right, baseball had the absolute lowest matriculation rates in college athletics. The reason given was the transfer rate.
One identified and major culprit...some coaches were recruiting players out of Summer leagues when those players had proven their talent and some of these were moving in mid to late August. The vast number of college coaches didn't like having their players recruited right out from under them and have it also reflect adversely on graduation/APR/matriculation.
So, the new one year in residence/sit rule resulted.
Seemingly it is resulting, at least in part, for improvement in matriculation rates in baseball.
The college coaches I have talked with do not like the rule. A major reason is the same coaches who did the Summer recruiting that caused the rule then started using the rule to hammer 3rd/4th year players to either sign if drafted or return with no scholarship money when faced with a transfer and sit for one year.
Last edited by infielddad
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
infielddad,
It seems based on your post that there might be some positive aspects of the 1 year transfer rule. It sounds like rather than scrapping the rule it needs to be modified to take more into account players who lose the opportunity to be on the team through no fault of their own. I think fanofgame is on the right track and I do think loss of a scholarship with no behavior issues should be grounds for waiving the 1 year transfer rule. Reducing scholarships is something that probably would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. It may not be fair but I don't have a problem with applying the transfer rule in situations where players who have scholarships leave the program on their own due to lack of playing time, etc.
Last edited by CADad
D dswann100+ posts
Lefthookdad

quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:

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.


IMO his post fails on mulitpule levels,but to your point.

1. They accept that their drafted. And are making lemonade out of lemons.
2. As a coach would you rather have a proven commodity with senior leadership or a prospect.
3. An incoming freshmen that signs out HS absolutely leaves them in a lurch.
4. If being drafted was such a plus for a program I have not seen or heard of any ground swell movement by college bb coaches to
allow players to leave early (currently available to college basketball players) so they can build their resumes.
5. Replacing a top draft pick or a draft pick for that matter will probably be a little more than a 'blink of an eye" proposition.
infielddadinfielddad10,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by CADad:
infielddad,
It seems based on your post that there might be some positive aspects of the 1 year transfer rule. It sounds like rather than scrapping the rule it needs to be modified to take more into account players who lose the opportunity to be on the team through no fault of their own. I think fanofgame is on the right track and I do think loss of a scholarship with no behavior issues should be grounds for waiving the 1 year transfer rule. Reducing scholarships is something that probably would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. It may not be fair but I don't have a problem with applying the transfer rule in situations where players who have scholarships leave the program on their own due to lack of playing time, etc.


There was a thread recently in which an issue of transferring without the one year sit/one year in residence was discussed.
As he always does, 3FG, brought a lot of insight to that discussion. Apparently, there are ways for a school/player/both to apply for a waiver of the rule.
From that facts presented in the transfer of an ACC player to a Pac10 program, a waiver of the rule impliedly occurred since the player is eligible this year at the Pac10 school.
From the discussions I have had with some DI college coaches(none with my son or his school's staff), my impression is the DI college coaches know those who created the transfer atmosphere/APR issues which led to the one year sit rule.
The college coaches also know the identify of many of the same coaches who are now pounding 3rd/4th year players with a loss of scholarship in the face of sitting out one year.
The issue is how to target rules and NCAA legislation to impact the minority.
Not as easy as we might think, unfortunately.
For the benefit of most college players, I do think the majority of college coaches/programs really work hard to do the right things by the players they recruit. When one looks at the efforts/resources and time allocated by a college coaching staff, especially those with limited resources, it only makes sense.
Last edited by infielddad
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by CaBB:
From what I have seen of women's sports they generally have higher graduation rates than FB,BB, and baseball. Probably has something to do with it but I'm sure more knowledgable posters will chime in.


Curious if you provided 35 fully funded scholarships to baseball, would you have similiar graduation rates as in womens sports?
Last edited by dswann
Backstop-17Backstop-17500+ posts
I have to agree with TRhit - there should be no feelings of entitlement here. Like all non-athlete college students our sons have a plethora of options that include entering the work force out of high school, community college, academic scholarships, etc.

Because my son chose to play baseball does not entitle him to anything other than what he earns - both on and off the field, just like the 99% of young people that don't play a sport, music or some other extra-curricular scholarship activity.

Having anxiety about enough funds to attend school is not exclusive to athletes. In the end, there is always another option available - you just might not like it.
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
From three different posters:
quote:
I also would like to see a little consistency within the NCAA with respect to sitting out a year. Could someone please explain to me why are women athletes not subjected to the same "sit-out" rule as the men?

quote:
From what I have seen of women's sports they generally have higher graduation rates than FB,BB, and baseball.

quote:
My guess is the difference may also be related to the NCAA's never ending quest to keep enough women participating in sports to comply with Title IX. A woman can't offset a football scholarship while she's sitting out a year.


Basketball players of both genders have to sit out a year before becoming eligible at a D1 college. So the basic premise here is wrong. Also, the great majority of D1 athletes are permitted a one time exception to the one year sit out rule. The only sports affected are baseball, men's hockey, basketball, and bowl division football. I think you'll find that each of the affected sports have had (at one time) very poor graduation rates coupled with high numbers of transfers. In other words the sit out rule has been selectively applied, and I think it is fair to say that gender, Title IX, or overall graduation rate of each gender haven't played much role. To paraphrase the old commercial, these sports ended up with a sit out rule the old fashioned way: they earned it.

One other misconception which might be inferred from the above-- the sit out rule prevents a player from competing, but the player may receive financial aid while sitting out.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
fanofgamefanofgame5,000+ posts
3Finger,

I have a question a little out of the realm of this discussion.When players leave their junior years and go play a pro sport,if they come back and finish their degrees maybe years later, do those that graduate,doe it help the schools graduation rate.There are several graduate assisstants over the last three years at my sons school that are finished with pro ball and are now finishing their BA,and some their masters.Just curious if it is taken into account if they return?
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by fanofgame:
3Finger,

I have a question a little out of the realm of this discussion.When players leave their junior years and go play a pro sport,if they come back and finish their degrees maybe years later, do those that graduate,doe it help the schools graduation rate.There are several graduate assisstants over the last three years at my sons school that are finished with pro ball and are now finishing their BA,and some their masters.Just curious if it is taken into account if they return?


I do beleive that all programs get credit towards graduation, not sure if it is within a certain amount of years or not.

Infielddad's post was right on, regarding why the transfer rule was taken away for baseball players. The word revolving door more or less describes what was going on at some programs, and there were specific programs that each and every year had more transfers than 5 or 6 schools put together. It was done to protect the program, not the player and personally I have no problem with that or would I if I were in the recruiting process at this time.
For every one person that says its not fair, there is another that would have their player transfer in a heartbeat if they thought it would be a better opoortunity. JMO.
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
fanofgame,
I'm sorry, but I do not know. The NCAA doesn't always do a good job of publishing their criteria, and I have never seen a coherent and complete formula for the Graduation Success Rate calculation. I think I can say that the point of it is largely image related. Here's why: The federal government has mandated that colleges publish a graduation rate which is simply calculated by taking all students who enter a college (the "cohort"), and find the fraction who have graduated within 6 years.

That federal rate does not reflect well on athletes as a group, so the NCAA has a different number which they tout as "more accurate". Roughly speaking, the NCAA allows a college to exclude any student who leaves the college in good academic standing from the cohort. They do include students who transfer in to the college. Anyone who simply leaves without flunking out and doesn't enter a new college isn't included in anybody's GSR. So if I understand the press releases correctly, the GSR calculation really only includes those students who either flunk out or graduate from a 4 year school within 6 years. A reasonable number of D1 baseball players will simply not be accounted for.

Anyway, for your specific example, the graduate assistants, if they do graduate within 6 years of first entering college, will help your son's school's GSR. However, the GSR is just a rating; there are no requirements or penalties associated with it.

By contrast, the Academic Progress Rate does matter and failure to meet the minimum levels can cause a school to lose scholarships. UConn basketball is the highest profile school to have scholarships (2, I think) taken away. Players who sign a professional contract are removed from the retention cohort for their last semester, so going pro doesn't affect the APR. Coming back to school after a pro career doesn't affect the APR either, at least as the calculation was done a couple of years ago. However, the APR calculation seems to be tweaked frequently, and I haven't been able to find a recent formula, so that may have changed.
Midlo DadMidlo Dad10,000+ posts
quote:
Because my son chose to play baseball does not entitle him to anything other than what he earns


What I'm trying to tell you is, there are many, many coaches who will reduce your son's money even if your son did everything right and produced well. There are just a certain number who are cutthroat enough to dangle money to get you there, then reduce you year by year to free up money to repeat the process with the next classes coming in. And they do it for no other reason than that they can do it and get away with it.

My expectation is that many coaches won't offer the 4-year guarantees even if they become available, and still more will offer them only to a select few players. I suspect very few will make them available routinely, to every offered player.

What that means is, you won't get a guarantee unless you build yourself up enough as a prospect to EARN IT. Just as, say, Danny Hultzen earned his pro signing bonus with his performance to this point. He hadn't thrown a pro pitch to the point of that deal, but they gave it to him to be sure to sign him in the first place because they valued him that much.

Please stop confusing this issue with what some kid has earned or not earned. That is not at all involved here.
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
quote:
Because my son chose to play baseball does not entitle him to anything other than what he earns


What I'm trying to tell you is, there are many, many coaches who will reduce your son's money even if your son did everything right and produced well. There are just a certain number who are cutthroat enough to dangle money to get you there, then reduce you year by year to free up money to repeat the process with the next classes coming in. And they do it for no other reason than that they can do it and get away with it.


Excellent. Who are they?

Sooo much emphasis placed on "fit" here on HSBBW. Knowing that a coach was likely to reduce $$$ regardless of performance seems like a key componet in the "fit" equation.
J johnj314100+ posts
This thread is extremely interesting to me as I am the parent of (hopeful) D1 RHP for 2013. Over the last couple of weeks I have read every post herein and frankly, some of the stuff I am reading scares the **** out of me. For me to read that my son could start out at a school as a freshman on a 50% baseball scholarship, do extremely well both on the field and in the classroom and then have his baseball scholarship cut to 25% the next year is nothing short of sickening to me. Both financially and ethically. Almost all of the schools contacting my son are out of state which translates to big $$$ in out of state tuition. A cut of 25% could end up costing us $10K a year or more easily. So yeah a four year guaranteee (assuming good grades, citizensip, etc...) sounds real good from the athletes/parents perspective. This is another example of needing to do due dillegence on every school and coach and finding the right "fit" (I hate that descriptor!)...
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by johnj314:
This thread is extremely interesting to me as I am the parent of (hopeful) D1 RHP for 2013. Over the last couple of weeks I have read every post herein and frankly, some of the stuff I am reading scares the **** out of me. For me to read that my son could start out at a school as a freshman on a 50% baseball scholarship, do extremely well both on the field and in the classroom and then have his baseball scholarship cut to 25% the next year is nothing short of sickening to me. Both financially and ethically. Almost all of the schools contacting my son are out of state which translates to big $$$ in out of state tuition. A cut of 25% could end up costing us $10K a year or more easily. So yeah a four year guaranteee (assuming good grades, citizensip, etc...) sounds real good from the athletes/parents perspective. This is another example of needing to do due dillegence on every school and coach and finding the right "fit" (I hate that descriptor!)...


Don't panic, it happens but maybe not as often as we hear. I know of one situation personally where the player had his scholarship cut by a percentage, but that was a 5th year player whose family could afford the tuition. I have heard a lot of things, but not so sure how legit all stories may be.

The positive that comes out of the situation is that this is something that happens and if you feel the need to discuss it before your son commitment than open the door to the discussion with the coaching staff. I also agree that a lot of this is about finding the right fit.

My son got quite a large scholarship and IMO, if he was not able to fulfill the expectations, I would understand them pulling some of it to give to someone more deserving. I don't think it was done as frequently back then because coaches didn't have scholarship minimums, roster minimums, % minimums like the they do now. I think that those with very little just left on their own.

For years parents complained that the programs didn't give enough, now that they give a minimum (25%), I would imagine they will pull a certain amount, whereas years ago with let's say,15,10, 5 or just books,they could afford it. I guess you have to be careful what you wish for.

Despite knowing that it would never happen, we sat down with son to discuss the possibilities if it happened since going out of state was so much more than remaining in state.
Last edited by TPM
D dswann100+ posts
Yup

quote:
Originally posted by johnj314:
This is another example of needing to do due dillegence on every school and coach and finding the right "fit" (I hate that descriptor!)...


After a couple of years of these "right fit" thread/posts, I've come to the conclusion the only way you'll know if it was the " right fit" will be when you leave the program.

It reminds me of the movie City Slicker's when Jack Palance tells Billy Crystal the meaning of life is "1 thing". He could have just as esily said the "right fit".
Last edited by dswann
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by dswann:
After a couple of years of these "right fit" thread/posts, I've come to the conclusion the only way you'll know if it was the " right fit" will be when you leave the program.

It reminds me of the movie City Slicker's when Jack Palance tells Billy Crystal the meaning of life is "1 thing". He could have just as esily said the "right fit".


I don't agree, I think that after the initial adjustment players know or by the end of their first season they do.
I also beleive that most players know and understand where they fall in the scheme of things even after fall practice.

JMO.
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
I believe that many players would know where they fit in if they did an honest assessment of their skillsets, and watched the prospective team play actual games.

I also think that the allure of the big D-1 blinds players to where they actually do fit in.

Who plays at big D-1's, I don't mean who sits the benches or is cut...who plays? Is it the 6'2 first baseman that weighs in at 200 and hits 15 dingers? Or is it the 6' shortstop that runs a 6.5 60? Is it the 6'4" RHP throwing 94+?

If your player does not fit this mold then why knock on this door?

I believe players posess a good understanding of where they will fit in, and a PG assessment is not usually that far off of reality.

For a lot of posters here the Major that their son will be studying takes front seat, and the fit is academic, but the baseball fit may not follow suit...
Last edited by floridafan
G Goosegg10,000+ posts
Devining the right fit during the recruiting process is especially difficult because many coaches are jekyl/hyde. During recruiting all sweetness and vanilla ice cream; once you begin the program, quite the opposite. The jekyl/hyde coach is very difficult to identify before you begin in the program - most of the time the players a recruit has talked to are all too reticent to open up their heart-of-hearts; all too often they're good company men. (I know, my son is a good company man.)

The best you can do is research, research, and research. And then work your butt off when you get there.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by dswann:
Right fit for academics plausible. Baseball impossible. Way to many variables.

Sorry TPM, IMO if I had to transfer or sit out a year that certainly wouldn't fall under the right fit category! Really there's no way to know unless you experience it.


So your freshman son signs at a pretty good D1 program after being recruited by other possibilities (but he wanted to go play at that D1), and sits a year on the bench (maybe a few at bats or innings on the mound) wasting his eligibility, you can't tell me that the player sees himself playing more the following year and should be seeking playing time elsewhere?

I was disageeing that you don't know if the program was a good fit until after you leave, you can know even before that happens. JMO.
Last edited by TPM
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
quote:
Originally posted by dswann:
Right fit for academics plausible. Baseball impossible. Way to many variables.

Sorry TPM, IMO if I had to transfer or sit out a year that certainly wouldn't fall under the right fit category! Really there's no way to know unless you experience it.


So your freshman son signs at a pretty good D1 program after being recruited by other possibilities (but he wanted to go play at that D1), and sits a year on the bench (maybe a few at bats or innings on the mound) wasting his eligibility, you can't tell me that the player sees himself playing more the following year and should be seeking playing time elsewhere?

I was disageeing that you don't know if the program was a good fit until after you leave, you can know even before that happens. JMO.


LOL. Citing your example. The player may think he knows, however, until the baseball gods make a decision,or his eligibility has run out, it's really just a guess. Similiar to a hand of Blackjack. Where your sitting with "12" and the dealer showing "17".You don't know until it plays out, jmo.

To Gooseggs point of "research,research,research", I might add, research. It definetly puts the odds in your favor. So now it becomes(oh-boy)merely a cr*pshoot. The HSBBW site is a wonderful resource and could be better. Midlo recent post about programs routinely reducing scholarship $$$("by many,many coaches") would be better with some stats on who and where. Without backing up his claim potentially puts all programs under a cloud of suspicion,regardless of a programs policies. Would knowing that a particular program(s)reduced scholarship $$$ 25% each year have an impact on your decision. For all those parents of rhp & lhp check out Boyds World Pitch Count Watch and tell me you'd send your kid to Cal State Bakersfield.
Midlo DadMidlo Dad10,000+ posts
I share what info I have on a "need to know" basis with players who are considering certain schools, to make sure they, at the very least, go in with their eyes wide open. I don't want to open up multiple cans of worms here by naming specific programs publicly.

But see Hitithard's separate thread, which is pretty timely.
D dswann100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I share what info I have on a "need to know" basis with players who are considering certain schools, to make sure they, at the very least, go in with their eyes wide open. I don't want to open up multiple cans of worms here by naming specific programs publicly.

But see Hitithard's separate thread, which is pretty timely.


I was toying with an idea on how to rate colleges for baseball, not rpi or rankings. You know "can of worms" stuff. The boy walked by and asked me what I was doing. I explained to him how great it would for a family to be able to access data, on avg. recruits per year at a given school, annual % of scholarship reductions, pitcher abuse,upper classmen that were cut etc... before making a decision on a school. After sharing my brainstorm. He looked at me and asked "why would you tamper with the natural selection process".Nuff said.
Last edited by dswann
D 2013 Dad100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:


My expectation is that many coaches won't offer the 4-year guarantees even if they become available, and still more will offer them only to a select few players. I suspect very few will make them available routinely, to every offered player.



I think this could help lesser programs. For instance, if in fact elite programs do not offer the 4 year guarantee, a player may decide to play for a slightly lesser program who will provide the 4 yr scholarship.

Just a thought.
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×