There are coaches who do this as a matter of personal policy already. For them, getting a chance to put it in writing and thereby highlight their policy should be embraced as a great opportunity to help them land kids who might be weighing competing offers.
There are lots of families who believe the scholar part of the scholar-athlete designation. They recognize the real world knowledge that most athletes will make no money playing professional sports. They want their child to finish college.
Believe it or not, there are lots of college coaches who recognize all these facts too and value what they represent.
A four year scholarship guarantee is not a guarantee of starting spot on the team. But it is a guarantee that if there is another player who turns out to be more effective than you, you don't risk losing your financial ability to finish school at the institution your started in with classmates and teachers you developed relationships with.
I've heard that athletes who bounce around have more trouble finishing their degrees too.
Believe it or not, there are lots of college coaches who recognize all these facts too and value what they represent.
A four year scholarship guarantee is not a guarantee of starting spot on the team. But it is a guarantee that if there is another player who turns out to be more effective than you, you don't risk losing your financial ability to finish school at the institution your started in with classmates and teachers you developed relationships with.
I've heard that athletes who bounce around have more trouble finishing their degrees too.
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!)...
Johnj314:
There are schools the offer a four year guarantee, and schools that just get it done. Also key is that you want to look at how many athletes are recruited each year in their recruiting classes. If the number coming in exceeds the expected graduation rate that is a red flag. And look at how many JC transfers there are too. Face it, with a 30 to 35 student roster, a yearly recruiting class of 15 is vastly exceeding the graduation rate...
My comments here are strictly limited to the top tier of Division I; approximately 25-30 programs.
If playing at that level is a realistic goal and all you are doing is evaluating the expected graduation rate when you compare that with the size of the recruiting class, you're being terribly superficial in your analysis. The coaching staffs of the top programs wish that graduation were the only variable responsible for taking recruits and players away from them. If that were the case, it would turn one of the most difficult tasks in college coaching into one of the simplest.
First, there's the draft. The programs that consistently contend for berths at the super-regional level in the NCAA tournament focus their recruiting on academically-capable players who aspire to play professional baseball.
Many of those players are being considered for the draft out of high school; and, at the time they are recruited, many are at best uncertain of their plans for turning professional after high school graduation. Some who seem committed to college at the time of their commitment have their heads turned subsequently by the combination of the dollars and pro baseball's siren song. All of this makes it highly difficult to predict who will turn pro 9 months after the Letter of Intent is signed. Invariably, the entering class of players is diminished as otherwise-committed players choose to become professional players.
That takes care of the Freshmen. The majority of the players who come to school in these programs want to become professional players. As a result, those who have turned 21 (mostly Juniors) are susceptible to the draft, as well. Some are dead-ringers for selection and acceptance; and, they can be counted upon to turn pro. However, it is always the case that the Junior class has some players whose draft position and propensity to turn pro are highly uncertain; making it difficult to predict which ones in that group will stay.
In addition to the draft, there are invariably players who (1) choose to transfer for any one of a variety of reasons, (2) get injured, (3) don't make their grades, (4) leave for disciplinary reasons and (5) decide to leave baseball to concentrate on academics. ...and, oh yes, some graduate (or conclude their eligibility). Most of the time, those who leave for reasons (1) through (5) aren't known to the coaches until just before their exit; despite the fact that the composition of the recruiting class needed to replace them was established more than a year earlier.
When you combine all of these factors, it becomes virtually impossible to predict how many roster positions will come open and how many "committed" recruits will actually matriculate. I believe that the vast majority of top Division I coaches are honorable people who recognize the human impact of their recruiting decisions. However, despite their best efforts, they cannot predict the full effect of all of the factors mentioned above on their roster a year or two in advance.
Before the imposition of the 35-player roster limitation, the coaches were left with some flexibility; and, it wasn't uncommon to see the rosters at the best programs vary between about 35 and 40 players. However, when the roster size was capped at 35, all of this flexibility went away; causing it to become more probable that several of the players at the margin would vie for the last couple of spots.
So, if you think you can simply add the number of committed players and deduct the number of graduating players, have at it; but, you're not going to come close to the eventual numbers. It never works out that way.
Finally, I'm not foolhardy enough to sit here and assert that it's never happened; but, in following major college baseball very closely over the past 10 years, I cannot cite one instance of a player who would "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." If anything, coaches reward players who have done extremely well at both; and, if they routinely cut scholarship percentages for achieving players, they would be hard-pressed to continue recruiting high caliber players.
If playing at that level is a realistic goal and all you are doing is evaluating the expected graduation rate when you compare that with the size of the recruiting class, you're being terribly superficial in your analysis. The coaching staffs of the top programs wish that graduation were the only variable responsible for taking recruits and players away from them. If that were the case, it would turn one of the most difficult tasks in college coaching into one of the simplest.
First, there's the draft. The programs that consistently contend for berths at the super-regional level in the NCAA tournament focus their recruiting on academically-capable players who aspire to play professional baseball.
Many of those players are being considered for the draft out of high school; and, at the time they are recruited, many are at best uncertain of their plans for turning professional after high school graduation. Some who seem committed to college at the time of their commitment have their heads turned subsequently by the combination of the dollars and pro baseball's siren song. All of this makes it highly difficult to predict who will turn pro 9 months after the Letter of Intent is signed. Invariably, the entering class of players is diminished as otherwise-committed players choose to become professional players.
That takes care of the Freshmen. The majority of the players who come to school in these programs want to become professional players. As a result, those who have turned 21 (mostly Juniors) are susceptible to the draft, as well. Some are dead-ringers for selection and acceptance; and, they can be counted upon to turn pro. However, it is always the case that the Junior class has some players whose draft position and propensity to turn pro are highly uncertain; making it difficult to predict which ones in that group will stay.
In addition to the draft, there are invariably players who (1) choose to transfer for any one of a variety of reasons, (2) get injured, (3) don't make their grades, (4) leave for disciplinary reasons and (5) decide to leave baseball to concentrate on academics. ...and, oh yes, some graduate (or conclude their eligibility). Most of the time, those who leave for reasons (1) through (5) aren't known to the coaches until just before their exit; despite the fact that the composition of the recruiting class needed to replace them was established more than a year earlier.
When you combine all of these factors, it becomes virtually impossible to predict how many roster positions will come open and how many "committed" recruits will actually matriculate. I believe that the vast majority of top Division I coaches are honorable people who recognize the human impact of their recruiting decisions. However, despite their best efforts, they cannot predict the full effect of all of the factors mentioned above on their roster a year or two in advance.
Before the imposition of the 35-player roster limitation, the coaches were left with some flexibility; and, it wasn't uncommon to see the rosters at the best programs vary between about 35 and 40 players. However, when the roster size was capped at 35, all of this flexibility went away; causing it to become more probable that several of the players at the margin would vie for the last couple of spots.
So, if you think you can simply add the number of committed players and deduct the number of graduating players, have at it; but, you're not going to come close to the eventual numbers. It never works out that way.
Finally, I'm not foolhardy enough to sit here and assert that it's never happened; but, in following major college baseball very closely over the past 10 years, I cannot cite one instance of a player who would "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." If anything, coaches reward players who have done extremely well at both; and, if they routinely cut scholarship percentages for achieving players, they would be hard-pressed to continue recruiting high caliber players.
There's a "fit" question often asked on this board that relates to playing. ......
If the game is taken away (inability to compete at that level, injury, etc.) would you be happy at that college?
The same should apply to finances. If aid is taken away can I afford to stay at that college?
Whether it's talent or finances the options are the same:
Yes, No, Transfer
The realities of life start a little sooner for kids in these situations. But what if no one ever took a risk in life? Where would we be as a society.
Sure, the rules seem to be slanted against the player. It would be nice to change the rules.** But life isn't always fair. Sometimes life is challenging. The idea is to come out of situations a stronger person. For our kids it helps them grow.
** I believe players should be able to transfer penalty free if the coach and/or program is punished for violations that don't relate to the player. Player should be able to transfer penalty free due to coaching changes. If a player only receives X amount of playing time through soph year he should be able to transfer penalty free.
If the game is taken away (inability to compete at that level, injury, etc.) would you be happy at that college?
The same should apply to finances. If aid is taken away can I afford to stay at that college?
Whether it's talent or finances the options are the same:
Yes, No, Transfer
The realities of life start a little sooner for kids in these situations. But what if no one ever took a risk in life? Where would we be as a society.
Sure, the rules seem to be slanted against the player. It would be nice to change the rules.** But life isn't always fair. Sometimes life is challenging. The idea is to come out of situations a stronger person. For our kids it helps them grow.
** I believe players should be able to transfer penalty free if the coach and/or program is punished for violations that don't relate to the player. Player should be able to transfer penalty free due to coaching changes. If a player only receives X amount of playing time through soph year he should be able to transfer penalty free.
I cannot remember if I mentioned this story or even commented in this thread, but it is applicable/interesting.
When we were going through the recruitment stage I listened closely to what the coaches said regarding scholarships and guaranteed positions on the team. One school that was not high on our list told the story of a player who was officially given a full ride for one year, but unofficially given a verbal commitment for a free ride all 4 years. As it turns out the kid hurt himself and needed surgery prior to ever playing a game. He was never the same, but the coach honored his commitment to the kid. As it turns out the kid needed a few extra credits to graduate that he would need to take in a 5th year, and the coach covered that as well. He volunteered information to be able to verify the story, and sure enough it was true.
So to me, that school instantly jumped up a few rungs on the ladder because I knew that aspect of the "right fit" was present in their program. Ultimately that was not the school my son chose, but it was in the running.
The players will certainly need to earn their playing time, but just as coaches need commitments from the players, parents and kids need a solid foundation to plan on as well.
When we were going through the recruitment stage I listened closely to what the coaches said regarding scholarships and guaranteed positions on the team. One school that was not high on our list told the story of a player who was officially given a full ride for one year, but unofficially given a verbal commitment for a free ride all 4 years. As it turns out the kid hurt himself and needed surgery prior to ever playing a game. He was never the same, but the coach honored his commitment to the kid. As it turns out the kid needed a few extra credits to graduate that he would need to take in a 5th year, and the coach covered that as well. He volunteered information to be able to verify the story, and sure enough it was true.
So to me, that school instantly jumped up a few rungs on the ladder because I knew that aspect of the "right fit" was present in their program. Ultimately that was not the school my son chose, but it was in the running.
The players will certainly need to earn their playing time, but just as coaches need commitments from the players, parents and kids need a solid foundation to plan on as well.
Some college coaches may offer a 4 year scholarship guarantee and stick to their word regardless of how that player performs but that doesn't mean that player will start and be in the line-up all the time. Coaches want to win so they'll play the best players that give them the best chance to win despite the schooly amount of any player.
So typically the best players play (best in the coaches eyes- not the parents eyes).
So typically the best players play (best in the coaches eyes- not the parents eyes).
A guaranteed full ride for 4 years?! When 27 of the 35 players on the roster have to receive at least 25%, and the total scholarship pool is 11.7 scholarships?!
The first thing I would do is seek out the player or his parents and corroborate that story.
Folks who are on the front end of the recruiting process: Do not think that this is anything but highly exceptional...and that is an understatement.
The first thing I would do is seek out the player or his parents and corroborate that story.
Folks who are on the front end of the recruiting process: Do not think that this is anything but highly exceptional...and that is an understatement.
This website educates all different levels of players and parents and info is put out there for all levels of colleges, not just the top in the nation.
From my point of view on the west coast I personally know several players that did not live up to the coaches expectations and their schollies were not taken away.
OTOH, I also know of several programs that routinely pull a scholarship after a year if player doesn't perform.
And personally I don't think the coaches should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I think the players should earn it every year. Some players aren't as motivated, don't work as hard as others. Why should they be guaranteed a 4 yr ride if they dont earn it?
From my point of view on the west coast I personally know several players that did not live up to the coaches expectations and their schollies were not taken away.
OTOH, I also know of several programs that routinely pull a scholarship after a year if player doesn't perform.
And personally I don't think the coaches should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I think the players should earn it every year. Some players aren't as motivated, don't work as hard as others. Why should they be guaranteed a 4 yr ride if they dont earn it?
Prepster,
Is it possible the player in question in Vector's post receive a medical hardship scholarship. In football if a player is hurt and can't play again he gets his money all 4 or 5 years and that does not count towards the 85 limit. Does baseball do the same so it doesn't count towards the 11.7?
Is it possible the player in question in Vector's post receive a medical hardship scholarship. In football if a player is hurt and can't play again he gets his money all 4 or 5 years and that does not count towards the 85 limit. Does baseball do the same so it doesn't count towards the 11.7?
quote:Originally posted by Mark B:
Is it possible the player in question in Vector's post receive a medical hardship scholarship. In football if a player is hurt and can't play again he gets his money all 4 or 5 years and that does not count towards the 85 limit. Does baseball do the same so it doesn't count towards the 11.7?
Great question, Mark!
I had to do some digging for the answer to that one; but, the answer is "yes." Once the medical hardship is granted, the university removes the scholarship from the baseball program's allotment and assumes responsibility for the remaining obligation. If the scholarship was less than a full one when provided by the baseball program, it continues at its most recent level.
This differs, of course, from the instance when a player is granted a "medical redshirt" for a year. In that case, the player's scholarship counts against the 11.7 allotment, but not against the 35-man roster limit.
Regardless, this still doesn't speak to the highly exceptional nature of the full athletic scholarship. That's a separate matter that I'd want confirmed by the player or his family.