It can be a business and a tough one

Was this, by any chance, aligned with a recent coaching change?  I saw a similar process take place at a school I follow a year ago one year after a coaching change.

 

Jury is still out as to whether or not that one will work out.

 

But yeah, this type of thing happens.  Not just in baseball, but in college sports in general.  Coach's job is on the line, don't get trapped thinking the coach will do what you consider the 'proper thing,' honoring all scholarships for all 3-4 years with his livelihood on the line.

Sure is.  A 2nd year Head Coach and his first recruiting class.

Seems more and more on the HSBBW I read about committing and  "guaranteed roster spots," even at the D3 level.

I am probably not only an "old timer" but perhaps a bit of a  curmudgeon too. The "high" of "committing" and "roster spot assurances"are, for many, fleeting. While I think changes such as an entire roster are a bit harsh, I also think they  bring home a reality of baseball  beyond HS.

Maybe things will be better now that the coaches CAN offer 4 year scholarships?  Even with a coaching change those would be honored right?

There are always ways...for them to get you out of there.

 

Would you (or your son) stay if coach told you (or your son), 'yeah, you've got your scholarship for 4 years for sure, but if you stay you will never see the field again.'

 

Those conversations do and will continue to happen for as long as coaches get a paycheck...and maybe longer.

Ouch!  I guess that would depend on the players aspirations.

I think the concept of 4 year guaranteed scholarships in baseball are a pipe dream of parents......

 

infieldad, I believe a few years ago the new UNLV coach pulled off the same feat. 

One might argue exactly the opposite.  If each portion of 11.7 is "guaranteed" for 4 years along with the stipend cost, the budget of that school for baseball goes up.

As the article linked here a few days back indicated, those costs as the total cost of attendance go up considerably as fixed costs for football and basketball.

Unless football and basketball continue to grow revenues to more than cover the increasing costs for the total cost of attendance guaranteed for 4 years, non-revenue sports, such as baseball, are at risk.

Looked at in the present, as justbaseball noted, if a college coaches livelihood for his family depends on his salary and pleasing his AD, usually by winning, and a player who is not performing, or worse is a problem, is using part of that 11.7, that college coach is going to want that portion of that 11.7 to use.

Heck, ASU fired their head coach because he only reached a regional and the AD made clear that was not good enough. Pretty much the same at Clemson.

For those on the way up looking for "guarantees" beyond HS, they are few, far between and too often fleeting.

 

I've seen second year coaches bring in recruiting classes in the mid-20's before, but your 35 new players beats that.

 

When a new coach is brought in to turn a program around, the former coach's recruits need to start looking at their other options--even if they are better players than the new coach's recruits.  

 

The new coach will not want any ambiguity as to who deserves credit for the team's success, so he has little incentive to make his predecessor's recruits successful.

I get the point, but I do think this will slow up the trend towards offering 8th and 9th grade players. Once you're looking at a four year scholly, you have entered territory where a kid might actually be willing to come to school anyway. Especially if he has really fallen in stock to the point where a coach makes that kind of threat.

I can certainly understand your perspective.  On the other hand, I think it could also be argued such offers could increase in numbers and then, for some,  the offer won't be there in 4-5 years, before the NLI is signed and anything is guaranteed for 4 years, as the coaches (who may not be the same)  see how that player has matured and progressed. Unless and until the NCAA steps in, which seems doubtful, guarantees, 11.7, winning, and being a non-revenue sport or at least partially dependent on football/basketball make the friction more rather than less likely, in my view. It is just a question of where the friction forces the coach to make decisions.

I can see the entire landscape starting to change to something that resembles football and basketball where, unlike baseball currently, the term "commitment" is a relatively loose term which no one seems to honor.

At my son's school, as best that I can tell, there were approx 29 underclassmen for 2015 season. New recruits total 22.  Total of 51 to start for 2016 season. 5, I know, have left the program before Fall semester. That still leaves 46 fighting for 35 or so spots. (actually 36 on 2015 roster) 

 

Fans & athletic directors want wins; parents want commitment!

I hope the new coach allows the young men he released to transfer to a new school without sitting out a year.

Not to a D1 to D1.  

I am wondering, are these western schools, ummm Pac 12?  And more than likely walk ons? They cant all be NLI players.

Just for some clarity, coaches do this for practice, to make those that are there work a little harder with many walk ons fighting for a spot. In that respect, its a good thing.  

 

New coach doesn't have that power in baseball.  If they were recruited, they have to sit a year at their new D1--even if they got cut from the first school's team.

What good is a scholarship without a roster spot? Chances are the player will transfer.

I believe that rule should be changed.  If they don't want you, you should be allowed to go ANYWHERE.

It WAS changed - to be this way (the way it is now), about 5 years ago.  However, the Pac12 has proposed reversing it again, for in-conference schools.

A few years ago I was watching a game at Northeastern. I was talking with a scout. He showed me the opposing team's roster and asked if I saw anything odd. Right away I noticed 22 freshmen. Then he added there were also ten transfers (before the rule change) and JuCo players. A new coach came in. He told all the returning players they could stay if they wanted to attempt to make the team like a walk on. Imagine being a two year starter told to get lost for your senior year.

So do I. Maybe they're worried about players deliberately messing up or goofing up in order to get their walking papers. 

There are reasons why one cannot play right away. Think of it like the minor leaguer who is indentured for 6-7 years. No one wants a program that is like a revolving door.  You dont build a winning program like that. Same rule apply to other sports.

 

Now that i know the program, I am not surprised. I dont think i would send my son there for free.

 

But let this be an example that college baseball is very close to any job. If you dont contribute positively,  you are replaced. So make sure you have done your homework and you are confidant that YOU made the right choice, not just because this is your dream school. 

 

BTW, there are many programs that do things the right way. Thats because they have taken their time ro recruit carefully, not just invited the entire graduating class to come try out.

JMO

If I were a coach I wouldnt offer anyone a 4 year deal unless I wanted to keep him out of the draft. I want the freedom to make changes if the player doesnt perform. I need to keep my job!!!!

 

 

I discussed this one night with very good and respected D1 coach.

The previous system was great for the players since they could almost be free agents. Unfortunately, a small population of college coaches used and probably "abused" the system of "free agency" to recruit successful college players away from their teams. The Summer Wood bat leagues were the vehicle for many of those.

So, the NCAA changed the rules. Now a small percentage of college coaches use, and probably abuse, the one year sit rule, by bringing in 35 new recruits and by yanking schollies for some juniors and especially for some seniors.  Those playing on the edge with the current rules probably overlap with those who played on the edge with the prior transfer rules.

The majority don't play on the edge. What is important to know is some do and the consequences are off-putting but condoned by the NCAA.

I think you have pinned down the reason...

       
       

Whoops, there I go thinking about eduction first and baseball second.  I must be having one of my silly days, carry on :-)

Dont forget another reason was because bb players were not keeping up with credit requirements and after 4 years were way behind in graduating. Plus, credits were lost in the transfer.  That was a poor refection in the APR as well as the athletic program. 

Bottom line was baseball players were not graduating.  

but...but....what about education first and baseball second??? 

  !!!!!!!!!

There's a great deal of insight in this thread. 

 

Despite being an inveterate optimist, I've struggled the past year or so with a growing sense of unease about where all of this is heading; and, a couple of times, I've started to sit down and try to put together a post expressing my growing concern. However, I simply didn't feel that I was far enough along in considering the disparate elements to do so.

 

I'm still a little ways off from that; but, some of the observations here are so close to all of this for me that I had to write something.

 

When you roll together (1) the growing revenue dilemma for college athletics from a dwindling number of cable subscribers, (2) earlier and earlier offers and commitments in baseball, (3) 4-year guaranteed scholarships, and (4) increasing pressure for wins from AD's, it makes you wonder how DI college baseball is going to be able to continue as the thriving sport we've known for awhile now.

 

I won't pretend to have a crystal ball that's any clearer than the next person's, but it's increasingly difficult to predict continued health for the sport unless some fairly significant changes are made. Without them, the dynamics alluded to above seem to be on a collision course with one another. Let's hope that the wreck can be avoided. 

       
       
You raise some really valid concerns.  Add to that the mlb fans keep getting older on average and kids overall are just not as much into sports as they used to be...  but on the other hand universities everywhere keep building multi million dollar beautiful baseball facilities.  Will be interesting to see which trend wins out.

Whoops, there I go thinking about eduction first and baseball second.  I must be having one of my silly days, carry on :-)

The reality is, a very large percentage of players and their families value the baseball more in the short term than the school or academics.  While you may be able to fend that off - don't fool yourself too much unless you've faced those choices yourself.  Things can become different when they become reality.

 

I saw players leave Stanford for far lesser schools both academically and athletically so they could play.  No, in those cases I don't think they were forced out, but the reality of being #3 (or even #2) on the depth chart at their position was too much and they gave up one of the best educations available for the chance to play (more) baseball.

 

I have also seen many a parent come to this site, ready to find any school they can so that their sons can continue their baseball playing career.  Even in the face of a complete mismatch academically.  I'm not judging them, just stating what I see as the reality

 

Our sons never faced this decision, but if they had I wanna think we (parents) would have insisted they  stay where they were...for the education.  They were both at great schools.  But I cannot guarantee it wouldn't have been one heck of a debate on the subject.  And coaches know this dirty little secret I am stating...and will use it to get players out.

 

Yes, it does happen.

 

Bottom line, when push comes to shove on playing time, the player (and often the parents) seem to pick playing baseball over picking/sticking with the best school.

Consider that the schools that have agreed to the guarantee and cost of attendance stipends are the power 5 and they've already found a (relatively) new revenue source that is more than covering the increased cost.  The conference television contracts are bringing in millions for these schools.  On a campus tour at one of these schools, the coach was giddy sharing all the new resources that athletic department is receiving from the TV revenue they're now receiving.

 

In these conferences, I don't believe baseball is or will be at risk.  As you further alluded, the jobs of those who are to get results in those sports (coaches) will always be at risk if they don't perform, but that's nothing new.

Great post jbb.  I agree and have seen it many times with players my sons have played with.  Many of these kids are very good players, but realistically don't have much shot at playing at the professional level, or likely not at a high professional level.  The kids end up at schools that are often below their academic profile just so they can play, or play at a "name" school.  It makes little sense to me.  They are likely going to be done playing organized baseball in less than 5 years - shouldn't they attend the right academic school?  To use your example - if you're down the depth chart at Stanford - what is the realistic chance you are a legit pro prospect?  I'd say it's pretty small.  Yet kids leave Stanford just to get a chance to play.  I'd have a hard time with my son leaving the educational opportunity at Stanford to get a few more innings somewhere else.

I just don't get that.  While it would be nice for my son to play baseball in college, since he loves the game, I just don't see the logic in giving up a decent scholarship to attempt to go to another school where it is likely he will loose at least 25% of his earned credits, just to play baseball. 

 

I understand what kind of site I am on here, I understand everyone on here has a child who LOVES baseball.  But, surely there are other ways to get a baseball fix while in college.  I would hope if given the situation ALL parents would council their children to stay and get their education at a discounted price.  The only exception I can think of is if the player was top round material in the draft, but that's about as rare as throwing 95+mph.

if you are leaving Stanford, or Duke or something along those lines you might be making a mistake. From a bigger picture if you are leaving a "solid" type school and transferring to a similar type of school where you can play what are you losing?

 

Generally speaking I don't believe enough conversation is being had about what you want to major in, what is the earning potential of that major and how does the school you are looking at help. An education major is probably spending a tremendous amount more money at some private then they would at some state school, if you want to trade bonds Princeton may be worth every dime but maybe not to another major...at the end of it damn few players from even the most elite are going to make living playing ball so...you had better consider it. It is just another reason IMO that Freshman and Soph commits are wrong.

 

One other comment is money is not the same to everyone, 50k a year might be hardship for some and not even noticed by others. I think people tend to view others moves based on their own perspective and can be misleading.

Exactly... 

 

You ever have a passion before...? Some people do... It's what THEY deeply desire to do... You should never deny that.

 

Good luck.

If the choice for my child was to get a decent education that would secure his future or have the possibility to play baseball for a couple more years, assuming he had no real shot at going high in the draft, I would very much counsel him to deny it.

 

Even though this is a baseball site isn't that what some of the older members have counseled?  Education should be considered first, baseball second.

You have a crystal-ball...?

 

A good education is wonderful, but I could NEVER extinguish someone's passion in the process... Players have a limited window to play, and besides, you can always get a 'decent education' until the day you die... 

 

Again, good luck...

If the choice for my child was to get a decent education that would secure his future or have the possibility to play baseball for a couple more years, assuming he had no real shot at going high in the draft, I would very much counsel him to deny it.

 

Even though this is a baseball site isn't that what some of the older members have counseled?  Education should be considered first, baseball second.

Of course!!

 

But what we are trying to convey to you is that it doesn't always work the way you think it will.  And don't be so certain you will feel the same way if/when this scenario stares your son (and you too!!) in the face.

 

There are many...many things in my life that seemed so clear...until they were there right in front of me.  I have seen enough firsthand to know that baseball will be chosen far more often than I would have thought.  While I do think it is wise to establish your goals and guidelines upfront (it creates a self-made hurdle you would have to clear if the decision comes), I do not feel 100% confident that I would have acted any different had I/we been forced into that position.