Is it now the norm for Coaches to over-recruit knowing they will cut players?

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  Was on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?

I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  But was still on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?

This is a little noted aspect of recruiting. It is widely understood, I think, that most players (and parents) highly value, say, an SEC, ACC, PAC12, or Big 12 program -- it is considered to be objective reality, not snobbishness or anything of the sort, that OF COURSE those are the most highly desirable programs. OF COURSE that is where kids want to go play. #1 Assistant Coach makes the point that for some kids, that is not necessarily the case. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Stanford, Duke, UVa, Vandy, Cal, Notre Dame?), but for the kids/parents referenced by #1 Assistant Coach, the academics are more important than the baseball.  Not "equally important" not "also important" but "more important." I know a kid who turned down UCLA for Harvard; he didn't do it for the baseball or the weather. Last weekend I overheard a coach at a Mountain West program ask an MLB scout about a kid, and the scout said, in essence, and in a nice way, "he's not going to be interested in your school."

As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.

2019Dad posted:

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  But was still on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?

This is a little noted aspect of recruiting. It is widely understood, I think, that most players (and parents) highly value, say, an SEC, ACC, PAC12, or Big 12 program -- it is considered to be objective reality, not snobbishness or anything of the sort, that OF COURSE those are the most highly desirable programs. OF COURSE that is where kids want to go play. #1 Assistant Coach makes the point that for some kids, that is not necessarily the case. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Stanford, Duke, UVa, Vandy, Cal, Notre Dame?), but for the kids/parents referenced by #1 Assistant Coach, the academics are more important than the baseball.  Not "equally important" not "also important" but "more important." I know a kid who turned down UCLA for Harvard; he didn't do it for the baseball or the weather. Last weekend I overheard a coach at a Mountain West program ask an MLB scout about a kid, and the scout said, in essence, and in a nice way, "he's not going to be interested in your school."

As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.

2019 you hit it on the head. So many different types of kids and different types of families (socioeconomic, parental feelings about various schools with different priorities; so many different types of recruiting experiences and situations. 

Gov posted:

I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...

Pretty good: Tanner Nishioka

And also the kid from MIT, Austin Fillere:

JCG posted:

Gov posted:

I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...

Pretty good: Tanner Nishioka

 

TEAM	LG	LEVEL	G	AB	R	H	TB	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	SO	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	GO/AO
2017	LOW	NYP	A(Short)	22	71	6	19	23	2	1	0	4	5	0	20	6	0	.268	.354	.324	.678	1.12

 

And also the kid from MIT, Austin Fillere:

2017	CUB	AZL	ROK	2	8	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	4	0	0	.125	.125	.125	.250	0.00
2017	EUG	NWL	A(Short)	49	176	22	46	78	14	0	6	25	32	1	56	1	2	.261	.392	.443	.835	0.68
2017 [-]	2 teams	-	Minors	51	184	22	47	79	14	0	6	26	32	1	60	1	2	.255	.382	.429	.812	0.64

Thanks JCG...  looks like he has some speed as well...given the SB's....  He wanted to go into medicine and opted for Pomona over a number of D1 opportunities.  Looks like has  options!

Looks like the data got screwed up in pasting. 

I'll try again:

BTW he hit a ton of HR in college but none in A ball, so that may be a  concern.    And chances are he'll be done with pro ball in a few years and go off to  med school or whatever, but you can say that about the vast  majority of draftees.

1. My son was very fortunate as he played with a hell of a lot of unicorns in his four years of college baseball.

2. STEM and D1 baseball are mutually exclusive. (except for Ivy's, and a handful of others)

3. It is a lot more fun to play for a winning and exciting D3 than play for a perpetually losing D1, or one that does not make the post season. There is nothing like championship baseball regardless of level.

4. My son, and a number of other players I know could have signed with a pro team but chose not to as they were smart enough to know that professional baseball grinds up most players so the top 4 rounders have someone to play with.  

there are thousands of stories, thousands of reasons, needs and desires on why kids end up where they are. I think this thread has gotten way more specific and attempting to break down who is or is not a D1/D3 type player.

To some here D2 is a great compromise, to others power 5 is the be all end all, others think D2 is the where the great unwashed go that aren't good enough for D1 and can't afford D3, others thing saving every dollar possible on scholarship is most important, others care about professional networks after school, what type of personality does the kid have and where does he want to be, to some the amount of money is not even relevant to the conversation of where or what level they are playing at...I have seen boys on D1 rosters that can't start on a great D3 team, have seen D3 kids who absolutely be players on D1 rosters. I know freshman right now on campus at a D3 who is being recruited by a D1 to transfer there due to some changes...I know D2 rosters with 12 or more step down transfers from D1...

There isn't enough time in the day for all the variables to be considered, just sit back and enjoy the ride. The time goes so fast, the stress is just not worth the pain it causes, the arguments will never be won because there are to many variations of the dream for any one of us to be correct.

Bottom line to the tread topic is - yes it is now the norm for (many but not all) coaches to over recruit - it happens at every level and is inevitable. The other truth is people don't realize how many kids flame out so even though IMO some coaches absolutely over recruit it isn't as bad as the numbers may make it appear and it is at times a moving target on what the proper number for a team is on a given year.

Gov and JCG,

I would not pay too much attention to the numbers  for the 2 D3 kids.

The positives are each played at their clubs short season A level (NWL and NY/PENN.) Each got a decent number of AB's but I am guessing there may be more to the story on Nishioka's games played and AB's.

From the experience of our son, the major adjustment may be  to the velocity they faced at the D3 level contrasted with short season A.  There is also the factor that each probably had not have a live AB for 6 to 8 weeks from their last D3 game until the first game of short season.

Without tracking their progress over the season, our son's experience was he faced big challenges at the start of the season around June 20 because he did not have live AB's and even with having faced a pitcher taken in the 7th round in the Regional, he needed to adjust to regularly facing 88-92.  However, once he did he performed extremely well during the last 1/3 of the season.

ST for each of this kids will be extremely important.  Each needs to earn a spot on a roster at A ball.

infielddad posted:

Gov and JCG,

I would not pay too much attention to the numbers  for the 2 D3 kids.

The positives are each played at their clubs short season A level (NWL and NY/PENN.) Each got a decent number of AB's but I am guessing there may be more to the story on Nishioka's games played and AB's.

From the experience of our son, the major adjustment may be  to the velocity they faced at the D3 level contrasted with short season A.  There is also the factor that each probably had not have a live AB for 6 to 8 weeks from their last D3 game until the first game of short season.

Without tracking their progress over the season, our son's experience was he faced big challenges at the start of the season around June 20 because he did not have live AB's and even with having faced a pitcher taken in the 7th round in the Regional, he needed to adjust to regularly facing 88-92.  However, once he did he performed extremely well during the last 1/3 of the season.

ST for each of this kids will be extremely important.  Each needs to earn a spot on a roster at A ball.

Infield, thanks for that perspective... never been denial in the difference of pitching velocity and depth of pitching between D3 and D1, or which level will better prepare a player for the next level.  Live AB's, adjusting to speeds....

The MIT kid hit Cape Cod league pitching well, it will be interesting to see how he develops..

adbono posted:

Louise posted:

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

 

If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn.  If he chose Amherst over UC-Riverside he is a smart kid that made a really good decision - but not a unicorn.

There are a lot more UC-Riversides in D1 than UCLAs.  If your son is academically inclined, the list of D1 targets can get pretty small.  The NESCAC temptation will be in play.  Unicorn?  Maybe.

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  But was still on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?

If it 's the same unicorn I'm thinking of, he BECAME a unicorn. 

smokeminside posted:

As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.

I don't know if this is an irony, or just a coincidence, but at our son's school the college counselors playfully say  this to senior parents every year : "There are over 2000 colleges in the US (four year, nonprofit), and you're only interested in 35 of them."

The same 35, more than likely!

CaCO3Girl posted:

With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.

Might help to read the  thread "JUCO the good the bad and the ugly". Lots of good insight to that possible route.

smokeminside posted:

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  But was still on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?

If it 's the same unicorn I'm thinking of, he BECAME a unicorn. 

I stand corrected! I went back to Tanner Nishioka's HS stats and the kid was a stud, so I guess he was, is, and always will be a unicorn.

By the way, I am completely sold on the term "unicorn".  When Nishioka was hitting all those dingers last year, I bet his opponents couldn't believe their eyes.

Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.

As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what,  one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.

This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level.  Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond.  They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18.  Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA.  Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role.  Academics plays a big role also.

For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.)  With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.

He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player.  I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body.  Our kids are not unicorns.

I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.

infielddad posted:

Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.

As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what,  one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.

This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level.  Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond.  They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18.  Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA.  Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role.  Academics plays a big role also.

For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.)  With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.

He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player.  I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body.  Our kids are not unicorns.

I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.

I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.

I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."  Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1.  A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject.  BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice.  Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.

adbono posted:

infielddad posted:

Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.

As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what,  one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.

This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level.  Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond.  They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18.  Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA.  Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role.  Academics plays a big role also.

For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.)  With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.

He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player.  I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body.  Our kids are not unicorns.

I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.

I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.

I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."  Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1.  A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject.  BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice.  Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.

Your exact words from 2 days ago:

"Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters.  D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players "

That was followed by this one:

"Since you named some schools I will do the same.  Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure.  Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD.  They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play.  So we are back to the point of finding the right fit.  Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."

I think your posts speak for themselves.  Perhaps you meant something different than you posted.. but there is nothing revisionist in my post.

Sorry, I'm not buying anything you are selling.

infielddad posted:

adbono posted:

infielddad posted:

Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.

As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what,  one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.

This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level.  Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond.  They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18.  Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA.  Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role.  Academics plays a big role also.

For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.)  With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.

He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player.  I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body.  Our kids are not unicorns.

I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.

I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.

I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."  Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1.  A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject.  BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice.  Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.

Your exact words from 2 days ago:

"Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters.  D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players "

That was followed by this one:

"Since you named some schools I will do the same.  Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure.  Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD.  They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play.  So we are back to the point of finding the right fit.  Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."

I think your posts speak for themselves.  Perhaps you meant something different than you posted.. but there is nothing revisionist in my post.

Sorry, I'm not buying anything you are selling.

 

Do you work for Donald Trump ?  I just gave you clear definition of what I meant - as it related to the term unicorn, because your last post was focused on your objection to that term. So lets move the target ?  I get it - and guess what ? I'm not buying what you are selling either. 

I have never enjoyed posters who bring "innuendo" through pejorative references.  Yours is no different and  downright ugly in light of the current news.

My screen name is SEC Hopeful, and I have to say that I think it is fair to say 99% of kids would rather "play" D1 baseball than the other flavors. "Play" being the operative word. No kid wants to go to a D1 and redshirt or ride the pine, so when faced with that reality many will take a different route. Whether or not it is better or worse baseball really doesn't matter, they feel it is going to give their kid the best chance to play. I don't know one player who is playing at a D1 who is wishing they had gone D3 instead. But the inverse is likely true. Let's face it, a lot of parents talk about "fit" after the chips have been pushed to the middle of the table and they all say something other than D1. I think saying anything else is really lying to yourselves.

infielddad posted:

I have never enjoyed posters who bring "innuendo" through pejorative references.  Yours is no different and  downright ugly in light of the current news.

 

 

What current news?

infielddad posted:

I have never enjoyed posters who bring "innuendo" through pejorative references.  Yours is no different and  downright ugly in light of the current news.

 

 

You asked in an earlier post what your profession had to do with anything. Well here is the answer - you are overly argumentative and convolute the issue in an effort to sell your point of view. This all boils down to you thinking your son had D1 talent and was overlooked. This is not the forum for you to work that out. 

Where is the unlike button?

1) Let's not make this board a microcosm of of the political environment - I spend more time on here now than FB or TW for a reason

2) Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt in terms of our intentions and try to respect each other

3) Let's understand that there is a very broad variety of opinions, experiences and perspectives and know that there's no right opinion - it's all opinion

4) Let's remember that words don't always convey sentiment effectively and maybe we should stop before we post to make sure they do convey what we really want them to. And if so, then we stand by them but understand others may have a different perspective and then respect that even if you don't agree 

I had no issues with the unicorn concepts. But I did interpret the comments Infielddad pointed out in a similar manner to the way he did.

JMO.

SEC Hopeful posted:

My screen name is SEC Hopeful, and I have to say that I think it is fair to say 99% of kids would rather "play" D1 baseball than the other flavors. "Play" being the operative word. No kid wants to go to a D1 and redshirt or ride the pine, so when faced with that reality many will take a different route. Whether or not it is better or worse baseball really doesn't matter, they feel it is going to give their kid the best chance to play. I don't know one player who is playing at a D1 who is wishing they had gone D3 instead. But the inverse is likely true. Let's face it, a lot of parents talk about "fit" after the chips have been pushed to the middle of the table and they all say something other than D1. I think saying anything else is really lying to yourselves.

SEC hopeful, I hope it works out for your son. I think you may be right for the most part. But I really wish you hadn't written the last two sentences though. Hasn't this thread gotten ugly enough?  

I know a lot of kids who went D2, D3, Juco and NAIA. Are they happy to be playing baseball in college? You bet! Are they all a little disappointed they didn't land at a D1? 100% of them. Many still hope to transfer. The point is, many kids aren't done maturing physically (certainly mentally) before they start college. A boy really does become a man between 18-22 years old. Some just need that time to also fill out physically and that may be a factor in getting to the "promised land"

Midwest Mom posted:

SEC Hopeful posted:

My screen name is SEC Hopeful, and I have to say that I think it is fair to say 99% of kids would rather "play" D1 baseball than the other flavors. "Play" being the operative word. No kid wants to go to a D1 and redshirt or ride the pine, so when faced with that reality many will take a different route. Whether or not it is better or worse baseball really doesn't matter, they feel it is going to give their kid the best chance to play. I don't know one player who is playing at a D1 who is wishing they had gone D3 instead. But the inverse is likely true. Let's face it, a lot of parents talk about "fit" after the chips have been pushed to the middle of the table and they all say something other than D1. I think saying anything else is really lying to yourselves.

SEC hopeful, I hope it works out for your son. I think you may be right for the most part. But I really wish you hadn't written the last two sentences though. Hasn't this thread gotten ugly enough?  

 

How is that ugly? It's honest. You can go to a tournament and face a D1 pitching commit and tell he is better than the rest of the kids. Players know that. The ones who have a hard time accepting it are the parents. My son is Hopeful to end up at an SEC program, he probably won't. I get it. I'm not going to try to spin it. He has the grades and likely test scores to get into most high academic schools. It makes sense to go that route, but it's not his goal. It would be settling. Just own it, that's all

adbono posted:

infielddad posted:

I have never enjoyed posters who bring "innuendo" through pejorative references.  Yours is no different and  downright ugly in light of the current news.

 

 

You asked in an earlier post what your profession had to do with anything. Well here is the answer - you are overly argumentative and convolute the issue in an effort to sell your point of view. This all boils down to you thinking your son had D1 talent and was overlooked. This is not the forum for you to work that out. 

""Never argue with an idiot...they take you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

Fungo's words seem to work here.  You are so wrong. I wouldn't have posted until you dogmatically stated D1 players are on D1 rosters, only and as an absolute. Your lack of awareness was so evident. From ages 18-22 players develop, or not, in very different ways.  Those who may have had D1 talent as an incoming freshman may well not be there by year 2.  The same thing happens at the D3 level in the other direction. 

I have been on this site for a very long time.I don't live through our son and his baseball experiences.  Our son was not overlooked and it isn't my thinking, it was that of his college coach, D1 college coaches, MLB scouts, GM's in Summer Wood bat leagues, etc.  Our son was actually admitted to an ACC program and "chose" to stay at Trinity.

I don't need to advocate for our son. His best baseball days are now coaching our grandson.

What I will advocate for is better information about D3 players and baseball than you are providing on this site through the quotes which you now seem to want to say aren't your words.

With a few exceptions, D1 players are on D1 rosters and D3 players are on D3 rosters.  That is just a fact. You can think it's wrong if you want to. Any MLB scout will set you straight. There is a lot you can learn on this site but you can't learn how to evaluate talent.  I am way more informed than you seem to realize. The standards at a D3 program like Trinity do not hold up across the D3 landscape. Your perspective seems to come from the top end of D3. Mine comes from the top end of D1. However I do coach both D3 and D1 pitchers and I see the difference first hand. The gap is less among position players. But there is a gap. Bottom line is you can think whatever you want and disagree all day long. Matters not. 

This thread seems to have to migrated to a D1 vs D3 thread. People assign WAY to much credit to this mythical "D1" level that everybody wants to play at.  I agree most every baseball kid growing up would like to play in front of big enthusiastic crowds at top tier D1 schools on TV all of the time. Once you get past the top 40-50 D1 schools and the actual recruiting begins I completely disagree. There are plenty of reasons to not want to play at not fully-funded D1 North West Mid-Major State where the baseball coach lets you know you cannot have a major that would have the most bang for your buck coming out of a mid to lower level academic school. 

Not all D1 baseball is great baseball. You can see some very bad D1 teams pop up on TV from time to time, check them out and decide for yourself.  Their level of pitching drops off very similar to "lower" level pitching. There is a reason why "lower" level teams consistently beat these teams. They get roughly the same level of talent and the "lower" level team develops the player better.  At all of these levels it comes down to a coaches perception on the type of player he likes and needs. I really doubt very many of those lower level kids are wishing the were going to the D1 school to pay full tuition and lose a lot just to say they played D1. There are some very nice places to play at all levels you have to find yours. You would be lying to yourself and cheating yourself if you thought otherwise.

There are a lot of generalizations that get thrown out around here from time to time. You have to play travel ball at 9u or your are going to be left behind playing crappy rec ball with no way to develop. Everybody wants to play D1 so you better throw 90+, run a sub 7 60, or have 90+ mph exit velo by HS Sophomore year or you have no shot at D1. If you end up playing D3 you will be playing with and against average HS talent. The one absolute you must do is keep developing the best you can in strength, speed, and baseball skill set. I know when you are in the middle of it with your son it seems like the time is flying by and you have to keep up or you are done. Take a deep breath. The reality is the gap from 9u to HS Freshman is huge you have time to develop and catch up. The gap from HS Freshman to College Freshman is huge, this speeds up a little more because of recruiting but you still have time to work hard and develop. Take all advice with a grain of salt and use your brain nothing is an absolute.

SEC Hopeful posted:

Midwest Mom posted:

SEC Hopeful posted:

My screen name is SEC Hopeful, and I have to say that I think it is fair to say 99% of kids would rather "play" D1 baseball than the other flavors. "Play" being the operative word. No kid wants to go to a D1 and redshirt or ride the pine, so when faced with that reality many will take a different route. Whether or not it is better or worse baseball really doesn't matter, they feel it is going to give their kid the best chance to play. I don't know one player who is playing at a D1 who is wishing they had gone D3 instead. But the inverse is likely true. Let's face it, a lot of parents talk about "fit" after the chips have been pushed to the middle of the table and they all say something other than D1. I think saying anything else is really lying to yourselves.

SEC hopeful, I hope it works out for your son. I think you may be right for the most part. But I really wish you hadn't written the last two sentences though. Hasn't this thread gotten ugly enough?  

 

How is that ugly? It's honest. You can go to a tournament and face a D1 pitching commit and tell he is better than the rest of the kids. Players know that. The ones who have a hard time accepting it are the parents. My son is Hopeful to end up at an SEC program, he probably won't. I get it. I'm not going to try to spin it. He has the grades and likely test scores to get into most high academic schools. It makes sense to go that route, but it's not his goal. It would be settling. Just own it, that's all

"Ugly" is pretty harsh, but it's a bit unfair to say that choosing a D3 because it's a good fit is dishonest and somehow implies disappointment, especially when you are referring to the bottom 100 or 200 D1s.  Lot's of kids are on a 40 year plan, not just a 4 year plan and have the foresight to include academics prominently in the equation.  Sure there's initial disappointment at not getting what you wanted at the time, but most of these kids move on without regret and have a great college experience and get a great education elsewhere.

Midwest Mom posted:

SEC Hopeful posted:

My screen name is SEC Hopeful, and I have to say that I think it is fair to say 99% of kids would rather "play" D1 baseball than the other flavors. "Play" being the operative word. No kid wants to go to a D1 and redshirt or ride the pine, so when faced with that reality many will take a different route. Whether or not it is better or worse baseball really doesn't matter, they feel it is going to give their kid the best chance to play. I don't know one player who is playing at a D1 who is wishing they had gone D3 instead. But the inverse is likely true. Let's face it, a lot of parents talk about "fit" after the chips have been pushed to the middle of the table and they all say something other than D1. I think saying anything else is really lying to yourselves.

SEC hopeful, I hope it works out for your son. I think you may be right for the most part. But I really wish you hadn't written the last two sentences though. Hasn't this thread gotten ugly enough?  

 

Concur Midwest, SEC, the fire was dying, you're stoking it.  We weren't talking about a kid dreaming D1, receiving zero D1 offers, then the player or parents conceding D3 is the right "fit".  In fact, in this case, it's the only option for the player.  In the D1 coaches eyes, D3 was the right "fit" only "fit" for the kid all along. 

We were talking about a kid having D1 offers and opting to go to a top D3 for the stronger academic pursuits combined with the ability to play right away.  And these D1 offers were not stated to be from a top 30 D1 baseball school or  top power conference school, but from mid to lower level D1's (i.e., MAC, Mountain conferences).  

Our thread got off track when I said there were:  “Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.”.

I was misquoted, I did not say:  "there were a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters".  I was very specific.... it went downhill from there and then a legendary creature of some sort appeared.

You know, not to change the subject or anything, but in light of all the recent comments on the site about Fungo, I decided to look up the word because, well, it's a fun word. IMO.  And he sounds like a fun guy.

So my sources (merriam webster on the internet) tell me nobody really knows where the word came from, but its first known usage was 1867.  Other words from the same year: grounder, batting average, softball, infielder, double play, and wild pitch.  It was a good year for baseball words.  Other cool words that year: oodles and swoosh.  As in, I have oodles of fun in my swoosh-striped tennies.

It's interesting to me that fungo seems to have more in common with swoosh and oodles than it does with its kindred baseball terms.  The baseball terms are somewhat logical; you can figure out what they mean once you have a context.  But fungo, oodles, and swoosh, well, they're just charming (though I do understand that swoosh is echomimetic--another fun word! Crack, as in crack  of the bat, is echomimetic, too).

I obviously have too much time on my hands.

adbono posted:

infielddad posted:

I have never enjoyed posters who bring "innuendo" through pejorative references.  Yours is no different and  downright ugly in light of the current news.

 

 

You asked in an earlier post what your profession had to do with anything. Well here is the answer - you are overly argumentative and convolute the issue in an effort to sell your point of view. This all boils down to you thinking your son had D1 talent and was overlooked. This is not the forum for you to work that out. 

I don’t believe Infield has anything to work out. He’s been clear what his son was. I know from remembering when his son played. His kid was an undersized, marginal D1 prospect. At a D3 he grew, developed and was recruited to transfer to major D1’s. He stayed where he was. He was drafted and made it to AA before an injury ended the journey. I don’t believe anyone whose kid makes it to AA looks back and second guesses college.

The college recruiting process works against late bloomers. A friend’s son didn’t become a high end D3 potential pitcher until his senior year of high school. He was 5’10” throwing 84. He grew four inches and filled out in college. He added 10 mph to high fastball. He was throwing 94 when he was drafted.

adbono posted:

With a few exceptions, D1 players are on D1 rosters and D3 players are on D3 rosters.  That is just a fact. You can think it's wrong if you want to. Any MLB scout will set you straight. There is a lot you can learn on this site but you can't learn how to evaluate talent.  I am way more informed than you seem to realize. The standards at a D3 program like Trinity do not hold up across the D3 landscape. Your perspective seems to come from the top end of D3. Mine comes from the top end of D1. However I do coach both D3 and D1 pitchers and I see the difference first hand. The gap is less among position players. But there is a gap. Bottom line is you can think whatever you want and disagree all day long. Matters not. 

Well, thank you. You finally actually seem to start getting it. Everyone of my posts in this thread starting with the first one has referenced this:

"As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those."

So you know, I can tell you know how "informed" you think you are.  It didn't need to be stated what you think of your opinions.

Suffice it to say, ALL levels of college baseball recruiters are trying to get the best available players. They cannot see every single player in the country. Do some get overlooked? Sure, in the end, it probably won't matter............take advantage of opportunities that are given to you!

FYI, D2 schools approached my son a year and a half before any D1 schools surfaced. They stated, they knew D1's were coming, but wanted to extend an offer that would remain open until he decided what was best for him. They were VERY generous offers that we eventually declined.

SEC hopeful, "Be careful what you wish for, most don't have any idea what they're in for and when they get there, they think, what have I gotten myself into" was a statement made to me by a longtime associate and SEC baseball coach in regard to my 2018. He went on to say he'd love to have him, but he won't be happy here in F______ville. He was being honest with my son, as he knew the skill set was there, he also knew he wanted to contribute immediately as a freshman............very difficult to do. ---------SEC, just don't limit your sons options, there's a lot of good opportunities that exist outside the SEC.

At the risk of being perceived as a jerk, "Hope"ful also implies lack of control and planning. Cultivate plans, not hope. A task that many on HSBBW are here to help you with.  Seriously, good luck to your son, wherever his endeavors take him.

Coincidentally, 2018 is a 90+ arm with plus speed and bat. He went on a couple SEC visits but chose a mid major program, he felt fit him and the goals he wanted to accomplish. 

In addition, the program plays against SEC programs midweek. He seen that as a win/win as he will get to play against one of his childhood buddies from youth ball.

smokeminside posted:

You know, not to change the subject or anything, but in light of all the recent comments on the site about Fungo, I decided to look up the word because, well, it's a fun word. IMO.  And he sounds like a fun guy.

Thanks, this thread could use some fun.

"The college recruiting process works against late bloomers." -RJM

This.