Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
example of baseball players on a books scholarship–to ask them to make that type of commitment to the institution without the institution making a reciprocal commitment to the baseball player seems very unfair to our committee. We believe it is a student-athlete well-being issue."
What is he talking about. Unfair ? These new rules are unfair.
What is he talking about. Unfair ? These new rules are unfair.
Everyday life is unfair !!!!
.
While I am big fan of "overcome"...
While I believe that as a general rule that most would rather "whine than win"...
With all due respects...
...many things in life are indeed unfair....but that still does not make them right...
...and many things in life are unfair...but that does not make them worth legislating and institutionalizing...
Give them full rides, that's a "fair" reciprocal for a lack of free trade.
44
.
While I am big fan of "overcome"...
While I believe that as a general rule that most would rather "whine than win"...
With all due respects...
...many things in life are indeed unfair....but that still does not make them right...
...and many things in life are unfair...but that does not make them worth legislating and institutionalizing...
Give them full rides, that's a "fair" reciprocal for a lack of free trade.
44.
TR you are right but then again you aren't an aspiring young student athlete.
The rules don't affect me or my son but I can feel for parents and ball players who have or are going to be devasted by needless desined self serving rules.
It is apparent the coaches and colleges are more concerned about their APR than the young men and what it does to them.
I don't think anyone is looking for a free pass but if a coach recruits a player I and cuts him for what ever reason I think they should be able to move on to another D1 without sitting. It is devastating enough to be cut.
The rules don't affect me or my son but I can feel for parents and ball players who have or are going to be devasted by needless desined self serving rules.
It is apparent the coaches and colleges are more concerned about their APR than the young men and what it does to them.
I don't think anyone is looking for a free pass but if a coach recruits a player I and cuts him for what ever reason I think they should be able to move on to another D1 without sitting. It is devastating enough to be cut.
I would like to know why people see this as unfair.
A full ride will never ever come in baseball, athletic departments at most schools can not afford to gives millions to the baseball program, that makes no money for it's school. It would be a losing porposition to have 35 full paid scholarships and get nothing in return.
For those players who used to get some books and maybe 5,10% they now will each have a 1/4 of a full scholarship and if that doesn't work and has good grades or a reason to have academic money.
Good coaches who always had good intentions and worked hard will treat all of their 35 players they took the time and effort to recruit and wanted the same, bb money or academic money. As far as the sit out transfer rule, I am not 100% sold on that, but it does stop the player from seeking the greener pasture and the coach to really do his job, which is to not stock pile and have their players graduate.
How do you know that coaches will cut players? The new APR forces a coach to retain his recruited players for graduation.
A full ride will never ever come in baseball, athletic departments at most schools can not afford to gives millions to the baseball program, that makes no money for it's school. It would be a losing porposition to have 35 full paid scholarships and get nothing in return.
For those players who used to get some books and maybe 5,10% they now will each have a 1/4 of a full scholarship and if that doesn't work and has good grades or a reason to have academic money.
Good coaches who always had good intentions and worked hard will treat all of their 35 players they took the time and effort to recruit and wanted the same, bb money or academic money. As far as the sit out transfer rule, I am not 100% sold on that, but it does stop the player from seeking the greener pasture and the coach to really do his job, which is to not stock pile and have their players graduate.
How do you know that coaches will cut players? The new APR forces a coach to retain his recruited players for graduation.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
How do you know that coaches will cut players? The new APR forces a coach to retain his recruited players for graduation.
Isn't the free pass for measuring APR and the effects of Juniors leaving for the draft now part of the equation?
quote:but it does stop the player from seeking the greener pasture and the coach to really do his job, which is to not stock pile and have their players graduate.
I don't think they should be allowed to transfer if they are looking for greener pastures. They should have an automatic transfer/release if they are cut only. I am 100% behing restricting guys who want to jump ship.
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:quote:Originally posted by TPM:
How do you know that coaches will cut players? The new APR forces a coach to retain his recruited players for graduation.
Isn't the free pass for measuring APR and the effects of Juniors leaving for the draft now part of the equation?
How much does the draft affect the APR? Clemson has a lot of drafted players year in and year out, but their APR seems to be in good shape. Most likely because there is not a whole lot of transfering going on and many players that start graduate within the alloted time allowed to graduate. Of all the players I know that have been drafted, only a few have not. Most have returned asap to finish up their degree, most likely because they were on track to graduate. If a coach and teh academic advisor so their job they work hard for teh player to maintain his eligibilty and stay on course, 16-18 credit hours a semester.
They also do not cut players. If a player has left, it has been their decision. A coach cuts because he has done a terrible job of recruiting, or takes in more than he needs. JMO.
How many players have you known to be cut, I have known one personally, and that was because a 45 man roster had to be cut down to 35.
Isn't this how it is supposed to be?
BobleheadDoll - you said it is apparent the coaches and colleges are more concerned about their APR than the young men and what it does to them, and I agree 100%.
A clarification on another point in this thread:
Why not allow them to transfer, even if they are seeking "greener pastures"? After all, this seems to be about the APR and not about what is good for the player. Heck, "greener pastures" could be any number of reasons:
I agree with Observer44 that giving them full rides is a "fair" reciprocal for sitting a transfer year. I also agree with TPM that the expense will not allow it. As long as that is true, the player should not be forced to sit out a year.
A clarification on another point in this thread:
quote:BobbleheadDoll wrote: I don't think they should be allowed to transfer if they are looking for greener pastures. They should have an automatic transfer/release if they are cut only. I am 100% behing restricting guys who want to jump ship.
Why not allow them to transfer, even if they are seeking "greener pastures"? After all, this seems to be about the APR and not about what is good for the player. Heck, "greener pastures" could be any number of reasons:
- coach who recruited me left (coaches have no transfer limitation) and I don't fit with the new guy
- I've decided to change my academic major and school "B" has a better program
- My family situatuion has changed and I need to be closer to home
- I just made a bad choice (I am, after all, an 18 year old male) and don't like it at school "A"
- I thought I could make ends meet on the 25% baseball money, but it's too expensive at school "A"
- my playing time was not what I had hoped it to be
I agree with Observer44 that giving them full rides is a "fair" reciprocal for sitting a transfer year. I also agree with TPM that the expense will not allow it. As long as that is true, the player should not be forced to sit out a year.
The greener pastures transfer is a problem. You made a committment to a coach and you should honour it. I actually saw nothing wrong with the old rule which allowed transfers with a release. If you didn't get a release then you had to sit for a year.
Not being totally familiar with what was going on with the old rule, I did notice alot of transfers before. I think players and coaches should honour their committments. I also recognize that sometimes there is no feasible way a student and a BB program can coexist. It is very difficult to make it easy to transfer.
Not being totally familiar with what was going on with the old rule, I did notice alot of transfers before. I think players and coaches should honour their committments. I also recognize that sometimes there is no feasible way a student and a BB program can coexist. It is very difficult to make it easy to transfer.
quote:How many players have you known to be cut, I have known one personally, and that was because a 45 man roster had to be cut down to 35.
TPM I know of several. I have had several poster PM me who have had heavily recruited son's cut.
Do I think the coach did a terrible job ? Not at all. If we all did a better job recruiting a partner there wouldn't be so many divorces. A BB coach can change personallities as thye player can once they have to work together. Player may not perform once he arrives. There are many reasons why things don't work out.
Tantrough,
While I have stated that I do have some issues with the sit out one year transfer year, I think we are forgetting that no ones has stated that you CANNOT transfer, you just cannot transfer to another D1 program.
What's wrong with that?
Things to think about:
If you based your decision on the coach and he leaves, you put all of your eggs in one basket and did not go for the reason you should, get an education and a degree.
If you decided to change your academic major, you most likely can find it at many programs, if you want to transfer for that reason and that is your priority, maybe it's time to hang up the cleats.
If your family situation requires that you need to move closer to home and you have made an impact as a player, you most likely can go play anywhere at a D2,D3, NAIA, etc. which might be closer to your home. Or you can transfer to a D1 and sit out for one year.
If you made a bad choice, it's understandable, you might need to look a little bit harder for a better choice where you can be happy (both school and baseball). I know plenty of players that are at D2 and D3 schools and very happy.
Some players will tell you that 25% is more than they may have gotten without the new rules. How much do you all really think that coaches gave out? Pitchers usually get teh most, it's not uncommon for position players to get less than 25%. If it's too expensive, you might qualify for assistance from the school. What you need to consider is the value of your degree in the end. Was it worth spending all of that money for that crummy Duke degree?
Your playing time most likely could have been the same wherever you went, maybe a D2 or D3 would be a better fit, where you might get more playing time. Most players that I know transfer for two reasons. They showed up and the roster was HUGE (new rules eliminate that), they want to play and be seen at a school where their chances of getting drafted are better.
BHD,
I get a lot of parents here that send pm's for advice who don't want to post, for obvious reasons, I have never gotten one pm that their son was cut, I find that strange. IMO, if it has happened sharing their experiences would be helpful, which is why the HSBBW exists.
While I have stated that I do have some issues with the sit out one year transfer year, I think we are forgetting that no ones has stated that you CANNOT transfer, you just cannot transfer to another D1 program.
What's wrong with that?
Things to think about:
If you based your decision on the coach and he leaves, you put all of your eggs in one basket and did not go for the reason you should, get an education and a degree.
If you decided to change your academic major, you most likely can find it at many programs, if you want to transfer for that reason and that is your priority, maybe it's time to hang up the cleats.
If your family situation requires that you need to move closer to home and you have made an impact as a player, you most likely can go play anywhere at a D2,D3, NAIA, etc. which might be closer to your home. Or you can transfer to a D1 and sit out for one year.
If you made a bad choice, it's understandable, you might need to look a little bit harder for a better choice where you can be happy (both school and baseball). I know plenty of players that are at D2 and D3 schools and very happy.
Some players will tell you that 25% is more than they may have gotten without the new rules. How much do you all really think that coaches gave out? Pitchers usually get teh most, it's not uncommon for position players to get less than 25%. If it's too expensive, you might qualify for assistance from the school. What you need to consider is the value of your degree in the end. Was it worth spending all of that money for that crummy Duke degree?
Your playing time most likely could have been the same wherever you went, maybe a D2 or D3 would be a better fit, where you might get more playing time. Most players that I know transfer for two reasons. They showed up and the roster was HUGE (new rules eliminate that), they want to play and be seen at a school where their chances of getting drafted are better.
BHD,
I get a lot of parents here that send pm's for advice who don't want to post, for obvious reasons, I have never gotten one pm that their son was cut, I find that strange. IMO, if it has happened sharing their experiences would be helpful, which is why the HSBBW exists.
TR,
Yes, everyday life is unfair.
Our responsibility is to make things better where we can, not merely to shrug off injustices.
TPM,
You say the former 5-10% kid will now get 25%. Not necessarily. Some of them now will get ZERO.
At my alma mater, William & Mary, their 11.7 is not close to fully funded. They sell the academics there a lot and spread their money around to a lot of guys. Now they'll have to concentrate what little they have into fewer hands, meaning more and more players will get no financial help at all. They are already at a disadvantage because they play in a conference (CAA) where I believe most of their opponents are fully funded. Now what?
Yes, everyday life is unfair.
Our responsibility is to make things better where we can, not merely to shrug off injustices.
TPM,
You say the former 5-10% kid will now get 25%. Not necessarily. Some of them now will get ZERO.
At my alma mater, William & Mary, their 11.7 is not close to fully funded. They sell the academics there a lot and spread their money around to a lot of guys. Now they'll have to concentrate what little they have into fewer hands, meaning more and more players will get no financial help at all. They are already at a disadvantage because they play in a conference (CAA) where I believe most of their opponents are fully funded. Now what?
MIDLO
I look at it a bit differently--- There are things you cannot change, so why bang your head against the concrete wall ?---I would rather work harder at assisting kids and parents in the recruiting process how to work within the confines of the rules
The NCAA is what it is --they won't change--thus you learn to make the rules work for you and how to exist within the rules
When you say "our resposnsibility" who are you talking about?
I look at it a bit differently--- There are things you cannot change, so why bang your head against the concrete wall ?---I would rather work harder at assisting kids and parents in the recruiting process how to work within the confines of the rules
The NCAA is what it is --they won't change--thus you learn to make the rules work for you and how to exist within the rules
When you say "our resposnsibility" who are you talking about?
Midlo,
I don't mean to sound flippant here, but...
wouldn't W&M's case fall into the category of willful neglect? They choose to not fund their program to the level of their competition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that be legislating to the lowest common denominator?
I know those are very obvious arguments, (as I am a master of the obvious
), but I have a hard time finding sympathy for the choices that one makes, when the remedy is to change the choice.
I don't mean to sound flippant here, but...
wouldn't W&M's case fall into the category of willful neglect? They choose to not fund their program to the level of their competition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that be legislating to the lowest common denominator?
I know those are very obvious arguments, (as I am a master of the obvious
), but I have a hard time finding sympathy for the choices that one makes, when the remedy is to change the choice.
Midlo,
you maybe have missed my post yesterday and not done your homework. At no time did the new changes provide for NO assistance to the player (bb or academic money).
Recruited walk ons will receive academic money.
CPLZ makes a great point, many schools fell into that category of willful neglect. The way I look at it, if a school has 11.7 schollies to give out, give it out. Schools have to support their baseball programs, the NCAA can't make them do it, if thesenew rules change that, then it's a good thing.
you maybe have missed my post yesterday and not done your homework. At no time did the new changes provide for NO assistance to the player (bb or academic money).
Recruited walk ons will receive academic money.
CPLZ makes a great point, many schools fell into that category of willful neglect. The way I look at it, if a school has 11.7 schollies to give out, give it out. Schools have to support their baseball programs, the NCAA can't make them do it, if thesenew rules change that, then it's a good thing.
quote:The NCAA is what it is --they won't change--thus you learn to make the rules work for you and how to exist within the rules
Unfortunately, it often seems there is a lot of truth in that statement.
However, didn't we just have a rule change? Doesn't that mean that rules do sometimes change? Someone didn't like the way things were and so they worked to change the rules and succeeded!
So in fact, rules can and do change if the cause can be effectively presented to the right people. I think parents are rarely heard when it comes to the NCAA rules process. Maybe its time?
In the meantime TR, it is important to work within the present rules, helping kids to get the most and best opportunities possible. You are right about that.
The rest of us? Just keep blowing that horn as loud as you can!
For the record, I agree with TR. 
Don't beat your head against the wall for something you cannot control, do what you can to help educate, teach those to make the right decisions to fulfill their goals.
Don't beat your head against the wall for something you cannot control, do what you can to help educate, teach those to make the right decisions to fulfill their goals.
If you feel it's our responsibility, maybe as an alumni of W&M, you can make a difference.
Many schools alumni spend lots of time raising money that enhance their programs, provide assistance for scholarships, soliciting for private grants, impoving their facilities. etc.
The NCAA has not overlooked these programs, they overlooked their own programs.
Many schools alumni spend lots of time raising money that enhance their programs, provide assistance for scholarships, soliciting for private grants, impoving their facilities. etc.
The NCAA has not overlooked these programs, they overlooked their own programs.
TPM -
I've been told the transfer sit out rule applies to any 4 year college regardless of division, so even if you go from D1 to D3, must sit.
Does that change your opinion at all?
I've been told the transfer sit out rule applies to any 4 year college regardless of division, so even if you go from D1 to D3, must sit.
Does that change your opinion at all?
Rob,
Where did you hear that? Can you confirm, that is not my impression, nor thatof others.
So if you can find out if that is so, then I can respond.
Where did you hear that? Can you confirm, that is not my impression, nor thatof others.
So if you can find out if that is so, then I can respond.
If this sitting that you refer to involves any one of these then I don't have a problem with it...I would actually look forward to it...now where's the remote?
Rob,
You'll want to check your source on that one as it is contrary to every other opinion out there. The sit rule as is understood applies only D1 to D1
You'll want to check your source on that one as it is contrary to every other opinion out there. The sit rule as is understood applies only D1 to D1
Yes, let us know. I was under the assumption that if a player goes from D1 to another D school his first year ( after signing an NLI) he had to sit as bound by the NLI. Didn't have to sit D1 to d2,D3, JUCO or NAIA.
Also if he goes from a d1 to a Juco there is the 4-2-4 rule he must graduate from the JUCO to return and play D1.
Also if he goes from a d1 to a Juco there is the 4-2-4 rule he must graduate from the JUCO to return and play D1.
Rule only applies D1 to D1
It applies only D-1 to D-1.
Hypothetical Question-
Player was recruited in 2006 or 2007 and is on BB scholarship for the 2008 spring season.
With the new rules, and I know that scholarships are year to year, can that player be demoted (for a lack of a better word) to a recruited walk-on and receive academic money only to free up BB money for an incoming player they want as a 30/27 scholarship player, and can it be less than 25%.
Hope I didn't confuse.
Player was recruited in 2006 or 2007 and is on BB scholarship for the 2008 spring season.
With the new rules, and I know that scholarships are year to year, can that player be demoted (for a lack of a better word) to a recruited walk-on and receive academic money only to free up BB money for an incoming player they want as a 30/27 scholarship player, and can it be less than 25%.
Hope I didn't confuse.
That is exactly what will be going on. But if they recieve one penny it has to be 25%.
Coach,
So any player that is on the team, walk-on or recruited, and receives any money, academic or BB, it has to be 25% of COA?
So any player that is on the team, walk-on or recruited, and receives any money, academic or BB, it has to be 25% of COA?
Well at least we all know what the rules are. Now what is the travel team limits for all the divisions and how does that effect a red shirt player?
Someone will correct me if I am wrong but this is the way I understand it.
If you recieve any amount of baseball money it has to be at least 25%.
I do know of players that were asked to transfer already in preparation of the new roster limits and tranfer rules.
If you recieve any amount of baseball money it has to be at least 25%.
I do know of players that were asked to transfer already in preparation of the new roster limits and tranfer rules.
quote:Originally posted by RYNO:
Well at least we all know what the rules are. Now what is the travel team limits for all the divisions and how does that effect a red shirt player?
I don't know all the rules, that's why I'm still asking.
quote:Someone will correct me if I am wrong but this is the way I understand it.
If you recieve any amount of baseball money it has to be at least 25%.
I thought they could blend baseball with academic to make the 25%
D-1 35 max roster limit - 25 man travel.
Redshirts count against your 35 roster limit. So if you have three guys reshirting you will still have 35 roster limit counting those three redshirts but in reality you only have 32 active players.
Redshirts count against your 35 roster limit. So if you have three guys reshirting you will still have 35 roster limit counting those three redshirts but in reality you only have 32 active players.
quote:Originally posted by thats-a-balk!:
Hypothetical Question-
Player was recruited in 2006 or 2007 and is on BB scholarship for the 2008 spring season.
With the new rules, and I know that scholarships are year to year, can that player be demoted (for a lack of a better word) to a recruited walk-on and receive academic money only to free up BB money for an incoming player they want as a 30/27 scholarship player, and can it be less than 25%.
Hope I didn't confuse.
Not sure if I understand the word demoted, a roster player is a roster player regardless of where his funds come from. There are some folks here whose players do not receive bb money, so let's not make them feel their players are less worthy.
I do beleive a recruited walk on (which only denotes that player has not gotten baseball funds but was recruited by the coach) can receive any amount of academic money.
I would imagine a coach might have to do whatever he needs to manage his numbers. If a player begins as a 25% bb money player and has an opportunity to recieve 50% academic instead, what would you do? Now if
Again someone else can chime in and set me straight I surely dont mind. But my understanding is that is not the case. If you recieve one penny of baseball money you must recieve a minimum 25% baseball money.
CM,
Minimum on bb money is 25% you are correct.
Minimum on bb money is 25% you are correct.
I don't mean to sound dumb but can someone clarify...25% of what?...thanks
quote:Not sure if I understand the word demoted, a roster player is a roster player regardless of where his funds come from. There are some folks here whose players do not receive bb money, so let's not make them feel their players are less worthy.
TPM-
I use the word demoted as I stated, for a lack of a better word. Did not mean anything negative by it.
Exactly where did I say or imply that someone receiving no BB was less worthy?
BY TPM-
If a player begins as a 25% bb money player and has an opportunity to recieve 50% academic instead, what would you do? Now if it was lower than the 25%, I see that as a sign I have been demoted.
I believe I would take the 50%, how about you?
Now is your demoted scenario make them less worthy?