JUCO Coaches

@anotherparent posted:

To be honest, when we went to WWBA, we bought the koolaid that it was about playing against the best, we really didn't know how much it might matter for recruiting (which, in the end, it didn't for D3).  I still don't think that was entirely wrong.

My question is, where are all the future D1 transfers supposed to go out of HS?  Do they go to jucos, or to lower-level D1s, and then hope to transfer up?  And, where are all the juco and lower-level D1 coaches recruiting?  Just locally?

And this thread was about juco coaches going to D1s.  But, if you are looking for development, how do you find good coaches at jucos or lower-level schools, if those coaches are moving up?

And, what happens when the NCAA realizes what a disaster the open transfer thing is, and reverses?

The whole system seems to be entirely unstable, and it's hard to see when or how stability will come.

Adbono can speak to this better but at least from what I've seen and heard from coaches at that level - juco schools are almost forced to develop. Kids will go to the ones that place their players the best/gets kids drafted. No players moving on to decent 4 year programs - Why would anybody come?

In my area there are a lot of kids reaching for D1 programs they probably don't belong at and as a result there are a lot of kids who end up at the right level down the road or find themselves out of baseball. They would benefit from a good juco where they would be significantly more prepared to contribute to the original program they committed to. But unfortunately the Jcs around here aren't known to place their players very well and it isn't very appealing.

As for the WWBA - 8 teams in every pool. Bottom 2 were usually below average but there isn't anywhere else we really could have went where we would have seen 85+ arms on a consistent basis. The playoffs at the WWBA are really fun, everybody is good and all the games are exciting. Played in all the big tournaments. Pretty cool seeing the field go from 400 to 64 to 32 to 16 and so on.

@anotherparent posted:

To be honest, when we went to WWBA, we bought the koolaid that it was about playing against the best, we really didn't know how much it might matter for recruiting (which, in the end, it didn't for D3).  I still don't think that was entirely wrong.

My question is, where are all the future D1 transfers supposed to go out of HS?  Do they go to jucos, or to lower-level D1s, and then hope to transfer up?  And, where are all the juco and lower-level D1 coaches recruiting?  Just locally?

And this thread was about juco coaches going to D1s.  But, if you are looking for development, how do you find good coaches at jucos or lower-level schools, if those coaches are moving up?

And, what happens when the NCAA realizes what a disaster the open transfer thing is, and reverses?

The whole system seems to be entirely unstable, and it's hard to see when or how stability will come.

Coaching Changes (NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, CCCAA, NWC, NCCAA, USCAA)

in 2017 - 112

in 2018 - 101

in 2019 - 152

in 2020 - 211

in 2021 -  97

In 2022 - 204

In 2023 -68 to date

If I have time will break down by division.

From a research perspective, similar to your search for 4 yr schools, with the additional step of looking at their pipeline

JUCO Research example:  Cowley

Where they recruit from (quickly search a couple of years to understand their patterns)

Pipeline by Position

If you want to find good coaches at juco level, then you need to look at the JUCO pipeline over the last 3 to 4 yrs.

There are patterns

@anotherparent posted:

To be honest, when we went to WWBA, we bought the koolaid that it was about playing against the best, we really didn't know how much it might matter for recruiting (which, in the end, it didn't for D3).  I still don't think that was entirely wrong.

My question is, where are all the future D1 transfers supposed to go out of HS?  Do they go to jucos, or to lower-level D1s, and then hope to transfer up?  And, where are all the juco and lower-level D1 coaches recruiting?  Just locally?

And this thread was about juco coaches going to D1s.  But, if you are looking for development, how do you find good coaches at jucos or lower-level schools, if those coaches are moving up?

And, what happens when the NCAA realizes what a disaster the open transfer thing is, and reverses?

The whole system seems to be entirely unstable, and it's hard to see when or how stability will come.

Maybe the most accurate post you have ever made. Totally agree. Things are very unstable. And for HS players not much hope in sight. Very sad really.

Based on advice from this board, we realized my son would likely be a D3 prospect early on. Then his academics took off like we expected and are now targeting high academic D3 schools. Last summer out of eight tournaments not one of the schools he was interested in were in attendance. We decided this summer we’d focus on being where those coaches are which is mostly showcases. So as of now his summer travel team wants him to play in the WWBA and we will go, but they know if we have to cancel to go to a prospect camp then that is what we’re going to do. For us the WWBA is not about exposure or trying to lock up a spot on the roster, it’s more about all the things we experience on the road as a family. And of course Dave Poe’s BBQ.

@TerribleBPthrower posted:

Based on advice from this board, we realized my son would likely be a D3 prospect early on. Then his academics took off like we expected and are now targeting high academic D3 schools. Last summer out of eight tournaments not one of the schools he was interested in were in attendance. We decided this summer we’d focus on being where those coaches are which is mostly showcases. So as of now his summer travel team wants him to play in the WWBA and we will go, but they know if we have to cancel to go to a prospect camp then that is what we’re going to do. For us the WWBA is not about exposure or trying to lock up a spot on the roster, it’s more about all the things we experience on the road as a family. And of course Dave Poe’s BBQ.

That is a well thought out and practical approach.

Since @PABaseball called me out I feel obligated to respond. I will preface everything I say that there are vast regional differences. In Texas there are many very good JuCo programs. And good players are at all of them. But some do a much better job of developing their players than others. That’s where you really need to do your homework. Most still do a good job of advancing their players. Especially if the players are realistic about their destination. Too many are still caught up in the D1 or bust mentality. When they could be very productive D2 players. But I have to disagree that JuCos aren’t moving their players on to good 4 year programs. At least in Texas they are.

@adbono posted:

Since @PABaseball called me out I feel obligated to respond. I will preface everything I say that there are vast regional differences. In Texas there are many very good JuCo programs. And good players are at all of them. But some do a much better job of developing their players than others. That’s where you really need to do your homework. Most still do a good job of advancing their players. Especially if the players are realistic about their destination. Too many are still caught up in the D1 or bust mentality. When they could be very productive D2 players. But I have to disagree that JuCos aren’t moving their players on to good 4 year programs. At least in Texas they are.

The ones in my area are not which I believe I mentioned. It's unfortunate because as you've mentioned, it's not that the kids can't play in the programs they're committing to. It's that they can't play right now, need a year or two.

Programs near me just can't get those tweeners or late bloomers to come because they don't have a very good history of getting guys into desirable programs.

@adbono posted:

Since @PABaseball called me out I feel obligated to respond. I will preface everything I say that there are vast regional differences. In Texas there are many very good JuCo programs. And good players are at all of them. But some do a much better job of developing their players than others. That’s where you really need to do your homework. Most still do a good job of advancing their players. Especially if the players are realistic about their destination. Too many are still caught up in the D1 or bust mentality. When they could be very productive D2 players. But I have to disagree that JuCos aren’t moving their players on to good 4 year programs. At least in Texas they are.

My 2015-2016 juco parent experience is a little outdated and pre transfer-portal/covid debacle (thankfully) however I think my observations are still mostly reinvent.

There will be 50 plus kids tying for 30 slots at the start of the school year, if you don’t have a scholarship before the first day, it’s highly unlikely you will get a spot (although there are a few exceptions every year). The coaches are going to put the best players on the field for most of the innings. Lesser players (like my son his freshman year) will get some filler work (my son played 11 innings his first year). If you or your kid complains about it, it will only get much worse…

There will always be some politics it’s human nature, kids can lose opportunities to play and to be recommended if they won’t conform to the coach’s program. The coaches are typically old school – It’s the same as real life, if your boss doesn’t like you, your screwed…

If your numbers are good, or you project you will be highly visible at the D1 and pro levels. My son threw only 11 innings as a freshman with an ERA above 6 but I can now find scout video of him that year on the web – I was at every game and had no clue.

During my two seasons as a juco parent at Hill College in Texas, every kid that was good enough to play at the next level was placed correctly. The kids with pro scout interest went P5 D1, the very talented kids that didn’t project went to non P5 D1’s and everyone else went D2. Out of the 2 seasons I watched, 3 kids were eventually drafted and I think that’s typical unless you’re at San Jac or McLennan in Texas.

It's a great option for kids with a baseball first mentality or who'd like to get half their education without being in debt. They've got to love the grind, or they won't last - If they do run the gauntlet, they'll have a bunch of lifelong brothers.

Well said @JucoDad. You described the JuCo experience perfectly. There are a few things that have changed a bit IMO. It’s not as easy to advance now as it was then. The differences are that fewer advance to D1 P5, fewer advance to D1 overall, more advance to D2, and fewer get drafted (due to draft being reduced from 40 to 20 rounds). The overall level of play is also up a tick since 2019 as more players have stayed for a third year and more freshmen have been bounced down from D1/D2 programs. With extra years of Covid eligibility the average age of a JuCo player has gone up. Players are more mature and more physical than they were in 2015-2016 and many programs are bringing in more like 80 kids in the fall to fight for 40 spots. Odds still heavily favor those on money in the programs that are fully funded. But many are not. At those programs it’s a lot more wide open and who is & who is not on money is not as significant. The best player will be on the field in the end regardless of scholarship standing. These are the only differences since your son played. All else holds true.

@PABaseball posted:

The ones in my area are not which I believe I mentioned. It's unfortunate because as you've mentioned, it's not that the kids can't play in the programs they're committing to. It's that they can't play right now, need a year or two.

Programs near me just can't get those tweeners or late bloomers to come because they don't have a very good history of getting guys into desirable programs.

@PABaseball @adbono

Fellas, you are both spot on, we've been doing a strategic campaigns on Twitter "JUCO of the Day" to get the word out

PA is very light, D2 and D3

Note, I don't know if they are strategically aligning with the messaging from PSAC, it would seem to a wise path, as for PSAC (West Chester, Millersville, Seton Hill, etc) are always very competitive in NCAA-D2 College world series

Most successful is Lackawanna

Then Northampton

I have seen Lackawanna at the D2 JuCo World Series. While they are very good in their region, they don’t compete well against regional winners from Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Florida, and Illinois. An outlier program is Madison WI. They have been consistently good over the past 5 years.

@adbono posted:

I have seen Lackawanna at the D2 JuCo World Series. While they are very good in their region, they don’t compete well against regional winners from Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Florida, and Illinois. An outlier program is Madison WI. They have been consistently good over the past 5 years.

Agree.

Mercer County (NJ) who also plays in Region19, has better results.

They pull from a broader scope of players (South Jersey and Central).  Plus they are a close to NJCAA-D3 Schools (Gloucester County College aka (Rowan SJ) and Cumberland)

Also, for the last couple of years, the 6 group of NJ HS State Championships are held within a close vicinity.

I have a recruiting story about Harford, Mercer County and Lackawanna, but that is for another day.

@baseballhs posted:

The success of Schlossnagle with the portal in one year will only make this worse.  Really makes me sick. Might as well be another pro league. And if you can get drafted out of hs, go!

The transfer portal is just another element that makes college baseball more of a business model than an amateur sport. Exactly what MLB wants. They want college baseball turned into milb w/o MLB having to fund it. I have my suspicions that the extra years of Covid eligibility and the reduction of the MLB draft was a coordinated effort between MLB and the NCAA. If so the consequences we are seeing now were not unintended at all.

Adbono;

when will the MLB "demand" that the Colleges use wood bats?

Bob

@Consultant posted:

Adbono;

when will the MLB "demand" that the Colleges use wood bats?

Bob

Good question Bob. I’m sure they would like to do that. However there would be heavy resistance from the manufacturers of metal bats. And those are big companies that have a lot of power and influence. Each metal bat costs 3x to 4x compared to wood. That’s an awful lot of money at stake. Not to mention the sunk cost in the technology to make metal bats. So I don’t see it happening.

@Consultant posted:

Adbono

question, why have the qualified JC Coaches not entered the rank of Division one?  Mitch Assisted in our Area Code tryouts at Baylor. He was a true Professional.
He appreciated my need for “time management”

Bob

Interestingly we are seeing a wave of that right now.

@JucoDad posted:

My 2015-2016 juco parent experience is a little outdated and pre transfer-portal/covid debacle (thankfully) however I think my observations are still mostly reinvent.

There will be 50 plus kids tying for 30 slots at the start of the school year, if you don’t have a scholarship before the first day, it’s highly unlikely you will get a spot (although there are a few exceptions every year). The coaches are going to put the best players on the field for most of the innings. Lesser players (like my son his freshman year) will get some filler work (my son played 11 innings his first year). If you or your kid complains about it, it will only get much worse…

There will always be some politics it’s human nature, kids can lose opportunities to play and to be recommended if they won’t conform to the coach’s program. The coaches are typically old school – It’s the same as real life, if your boss doesn’t like you, your screwed…

If your numbers are good, or you project you will be highly visible at the D1 and pro levels. My son threw only 11 innings as a freshman with an ERA above 6 but I can now find scout video of him that year on the web – I was at every game and had no clue.

During my two seasons as a juco parent at Hill College in Texas, every kid that was good enough to play at the next level was placed correctly. The kids with pro scout interest went P5 D1, the very talented kids that didn’t project went to non P5 D1’s and everyone else went D2. Out of the 2 seasons I watched, 3 kids were eventually drafted and I think that’s typical unless you’re at San Jac or McLennan in Texas.

It's a great option for kids with a baseball first mentality or who'd like to get half their education without being in debt. They've got to love the grind, or they won't last - If they do run the gauntlet, they'll have a bunch of lifelong brothers.

This is exactly what I was talking about before.  There are so many kids who believe they are DI players or maybe don't have the grades to get them in a 4-year school and are "advised" to go JUCO only to find out they are NOT DI players, never (or hardly ever) get any playing time because they are surrounded by better players and then are done with their 2 years with no options to play anywhere.  It used to be that kids who were more like DII or DIII players could go JUCO, develop and get stronger, and have a chance at a DI school or a stronger DII, but this has changed dramatically.  Kids leaving P5's, going JUCO for a year and then transferring are taking more and more of those roster spots as well.   I totally get, as it has been said here multiple times, that this varies from regions and different parts of the country, but I am just talking about what I have seen in the upper midwest and the personal experience from kids up here.  We only have a few "strong" JUCO's up here so every kid from this area goes to the 1-2 strong ones that are close to home which creates even more competition and those borderline DI/DII kids are not hardly ever seeing the field for playing time.   

JUCO is not the JUCO it was years ago. 

@adbono posted:

The transfer portal is just another element that makes college baseball more of a business model than an amateur sport. Exactly what MLB wants. They want college baseball turned into milb w/o MLB having to fund it. I have my suspicions that the extra years of Covid eligibility and the reduction of the MLB draft was a coordinated effort between MLB and the NCAA. If so the consequences we are seeing now were not unintended at all.

IMHO, these were mutual independent actions, whereas each party is looking out for their best interests, with certain overlaps.

Eligibility was a no-brainer, should a player lose their eligibility if they are not able to play?  You can't say, a player used up a year when they didn't play a full year.

Note, due to weather conditions and population density, some areas were impacted earlier than others. This is the price for starting college baseball in February

So in 2020/21 do you have a policy where players south of the mason dixon would have exhausted their eligibility because they could have played  vs the northeast/midwest / California that had total shutdown.

Understanding this was debatable, I tend not to do monday morning quarterbacking on the governing bodies decision.

Yeah HS Families can complain, oh it not fair.  Life is not fair,  Get in the Lab, the world has changed

btw, you've done your own gaming,  e.g. 8th grade reclassification, post grad schools.  whatever process you acted upon to create a better situation for your player.

Whereas the MLB, IMHO was pure leverage of greed between (mlb and mlbpa)

• elimination of 40 minor leagues teams (were these team profitable?)
• Draft from 40 to 5 (2020), 20 rounds in 2021 free agency capped at 20k?  I think it might be 25k.
• Creation of MLB summer league, thus impacting talent distribution to the top leagues
  • What will be the long term impact to the top leagues, e.g Cape Code

Here is my basic question,

Should a player be able to transfer freely? Should there be penalties, ie. you must sit out.

If I work for a company, and move to another company, I'm I required to sit out 1 year?

What I find interesting, for the most part the United States is governed by free market principles, but collegiate athletics wants a model consistent with Indentured Servitude.

This seems unconstitutional, but a carve out to control individual rights.

Help me understand

I'm just a humble D3 parent, where things seem more purely what the NCAA's ideal is:  you are a student who plays baseball.  You are doing two things at once:  practicing/playing baseball, and taking classes.  It's not easy.  Some players focus more on baseball, some on classes, it shows in the performance of each.  You are playing because you love it, not because you are getting money.

In theory this is how it is supposed to be at all levels, the difference being that you are playing for scholarship money so you can be a student and play baseball.  Everyone knows that is not the case, but it's the ideal.  Changing the NIL rule at the same time as shortening the draft and changing the transfer rule - was it coincidence, due to covid?  Must have been, because the NIL rule and covid/transfer is for all sports, the draft just impacted baseball.  Clearly, though, the convergence of those 3 things gave MLB the idea that they can now rely on college baseball to be a minor league.

Watching summer league baseball makes me realize the huge difference between playing baseball while taking classes, and playing baseball when all you have to do is focus on baseball.  Even MLB is not going to get the NCAA to do away with the requirement that student-athletes be students too, regardless of how much of a joke some of the "classes" must be.

The sit-out rule was to discourage transfers, and to encourage players to actually get their degrees.  It's not like business and changing jobs.  If you change jobs voluntarily, you presumably don't go backward the way you do if you transfer schools.

So, indentured servitude - yes, in the money sports it is.  Baseball is not money-making at the vast majority of schools.  That's why the NIL is corrupt.  If they had made it so that popular players could be in advertisements or selling autographs or jerseys, or making money from social media, that would be fine.  Setting it up so rich alumni can "pay" them is just rotten.  Maybe it gets away from the taint of everyone making money except the athletes, but that doesn't make it better.

@anotherparent posted:

I'm just a humble D3 parent, where things seem more purely what the NCAA's ideal is:  you are a student who plays baseball.  You are doing two things at once:  practicing/playing baseball, and taking classes.  It's not easy.  Some players focus more on baseball, some on classes, it shows in the performance of each.  You are playing because you love it, not because you are getting money.

In theory this is how it is supposed to be at all levels, the difference being that you are playing for scholarship money so you can be a student and play baseball.  Everyone knows that is not the case, but it's the ideal.  Changing the NLI rule at the same time as shortening the draft and changing the transfer rule - was it coincidence, due to covid?  Must have been, because the NLI rule and covid/transfer is for all sports, the draft just impacted baseball.  Clearly, though, the convergence of those 3 things gave MLB the idea that they can now rely on college baseball to be a minor league.

Watching summer league baseball makes me realize the huge difference between playing baseball while taking classes, and playing baseball when all you have to do is focus on baseball.  Even MLB is not going to get the NCAA to do away with the requirement that student-athletes be students too, regardless of how much of a joke some of the "classes" must be.

The sit-out rule was to discourage transfers, and to encourage players to actually get their degrees.  It's not like business and changing jobs.  If you change jobs voluntarily, you presumably don't go backward the way you do if you transfer schools.

So, indentured servitude - yes, in the money sports it is.  Baseball is not money-making at the vast majority of schools.  That's why the NLI is corrupt.  If they had made it so that popular players could be in advertisements or selling autographs or jerseys, or making money from social media, that would be fine.  Setting it up so rich alumni can "pay" them is just rotten.  Maybe it gets away from the taint of everyone making money except the athletes, but that doesn't make it better.

I agree with most, we've never lived in an ideal world. Money and Collegiate sports (especially football and basketball) has always been the game, e.g Lloyd Daniels (UNLV from queens) read at 4th grade level.

John Wooden looked away as players were getting payments

Transfer penalties had nothing to do with getting a degree, some might think it did.

Indenture Servitude has nothing to do with how much money a school makes, it is about controlling an individual's ability to move freely without penalties.

As for NLI being corrupt with respect to donors funneling money, even if the NCAA were to implement those restrictions, the United States Supreme Court would strike it down.

@anotherparent - I agree with you 100%!!!

College sports has sure changed since 1852 when some Harvards guys told Yale guys they could row faster.

My grandfather graduated from college in 1892. College sports were so demanding he played three … football, indoor track, baseball.

I found a letter addressed to him from the captain of the football team. We have a game in two weeks. It’s one week after we return to campus. Cut back on smoking and run a mile each night for the next week before returning to campus.

@adbono posted:

Good question Bob. I’m sure they would like to do that. However there would be heavy resistance from the manufacturers of metal bats. And those are big companies that have a lot of power and influence. Each metal bat costs 3x to 4x compared to wood. That’s an awful lot of money at stake. Not to mention the sunk cost in the technology to make metal bats. So I don’t see it happening.

It really just comes down to bat makers are willing to pay NCAA programs to use their metal bats but wouldn't be willing to do that for wood bats. NCAA programs using their metal bats is advertising to the much larger population of players at the lower levels of amateur baseball who are paying full retail for metal bats.

But by the back of the napkin math, MLB could fully equip P5 teams with wood bats for less than $5 million/year, so not very much at MLB scale. And MLB owns Rawlings/Easton so could get them on board if needed.

Your cost estimate is not correct. When I created the Area Code games in 1986, I insisted on wood bats for all players. When a player purchases his personal wood bat, he will treat it like his glove.       He will Learn the art of hitting.

“Metal bats allow for false impressions”. Scouts deduct 40’ on HR.

Bob

@anotherparent posted:

I'm just a humble D3 parent, where things seem more purely what the NCAA's ideal is:  you are a student who plays baseball.  You are doing two things at once:  practicing/playing baseball, and taking classes.  It's not easy.  Some players focus more on baseball, some on classes, it shows in the performance of each.  You are playing because you love it, not because you are getting money.

In theory this is how it is supposed to be at all levels, the difference being that you are playing for scholarship money so you can be a student and play baseball.  Everyone knows that is not the case, but it's the ideal.  Changing the NLI rule at the same time as shortening the draft and changing the transfer rule - was it coincidence, due to covid?  Must have been, because the NLI rule and covid/transfer is for all sports, the draft just impacted baseball.  Clearly, though, the convergence of those 3 things gave MLB the idea that they can now rely on college baseball to be a minor league.

Watching summer league baseball makes me realize the huge difference between playing baseball while taking classes, and playing baseball when all you have to do is focus on baseball.  Even MLB is not going to get the NCAA to do away with the requirement that student-athletes be students too, regardless of how much of a joke some of the "classes" must be.

The sit-out rule was to discourage transfers, and to encourage players to actually get their degrees.  It's not like business and changing jobs.  If you change jobs voluntarily, you presumably don't go backward the way you do if you transfer schools.

So, indentured servitude - yes, in the money sports it is.  Baseball is not money-making at the vast majority of schools.  That's why the NLI is corrupt.  If they had made it so that popular players could be in advertisements or selling autographs or jerseys, or making money from social media, that would be fine.  Setting it up so rich alumni can "pay" them is just rotten.  Maybe it gets away from the taint of everyone making money except the athletes, but that doesn't make it better.

Seems the Supreme court ruled 9-0

"Kavanaugh attacked the circular nature of the NCAA’s argument that athletes’ not being paid is a defining feature of college sports and drew stark analogies to how preposterous the NCAA’s business model would look in other industries: highly violative of antitrust law. Here is one of his many savaging remarks: “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. … The NCAA is not above the law."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/06...urt-unanimous-ruling

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Seems the Supreme court ruled 9-0

"Kavanaugh attacked the circular nature of the NCAA’s argument that athletes’ not being paid is a defining feature of college sports and drew stark analogies to how preposterous the NCAA’s business model would look in other industries: highly violative of antitrust law. Here is one of his many savaging remarks: “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. … The NCAA is not above the law."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/06...urt-unanimous-ruling

Here is the next case schedule Sept 2024, which will potentially have deeper ramifications than NLI

House v. NCAA

https://www.sportico.com/law/a...l-primer-1234632887/