Posted on Twitter "From speaking with sources, there's a definite (and expected) split amongst coaches and administrators on if the eligibility waiver should apply to seniors only, or to everyone at Div 1 level. NCAA has a difficult decision on its hands".
Replies sorted oldest to newest
My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
I agree
adbono posted:hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
I agree
I do too, but not necessarily at the same program.
TPM posted:adbono posted:hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
I agree
I do too, but not necessarily at the same program.
Yes, many will have to transfer in order to play the additional year and I suspect will have to go to less competitive programs
I think the consensus here is that a less than overwhelming number of seniors will attend an extra year of college just to get one more season under their belt, right? That’s kind of the vibe I have been seeing posted. That said, wouldn’t it be prudent for the eligibility waiver to apply to those who aren’t going to have to transfer and/or rely on grad school? It just seems to me, and I am from the Forest Gump school of logic here, that if you are going to grant an eligibility waiver at all, to be fair, it must be available to all student athletes, regardless of year. Anything short of that I would anticipate a class action law suit from those excluded.
hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
My money is on the NCAA doing what is best for the NCAA.
Everyone or no one.......
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:I think the consensus here is that a less than overwhelming number of seniors will attend an extra year of college just to get one more season under their belt, right? That’s kind of the vibe I have been seeing posted. That said, wouldn’t it be prudent for the eligibility waiver to apply to those who aren’t going to have to transfer and/or rely on grad school? It just seems to me, and I am from the Forest Gump school of logic here, that if you are going to grant an eligibility waiver at all, to be fair, it must be available to all student athletes, regardless of year. Anything short of that I would anticipate a class action law suit from those excluded.
This could create an unfair advantage to all but the very rich programs. That was discussed in the tweet.
And wouldnt that apply to all spring sports?
They might grant that extra year of eligibility, but it possibly not to include 5 years of scholarship $$.
But Fenway is correct, the NCAA will do what's best for the NCAA.
JMO
fenwaysouth posted:hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
My money is on the NCAA doing what is best for the NCAA.
If Groucho was here the duck would have just fallen from above. You just said the magic phrase.
Agree that the NCAA always does what's best for the NCAA.
I often see posts here and other places that seem to assume that an extra year of eligibility somehow equates to an additional year of scholarship money for players. With the NCAA being the NCAA, I can easily see them allowing more eligibility, probably seniors only, but expanded, additional or matching previous scholarships may not be included in that deal.
For what it's worth, most of the seniors I'm aware of are acting as though they are coming back to their school, assuming the NCAA allows eligibility and they don't get drafted in a position that makes sense to them. Whether the coaching staffs share that vision, and how that meshes with the incoming freshman class, is anyone's guess.
When I saw the topic Kendal Rogers my first thought was that it might be some kind of wine. I think I am stir crazy. It is my opinion that the right thing to do is to give everyone who plays college spring sports an extra year of eligibility. The practical thing to do however is to just give Seniors an extra year if they wish to play one more season. It would be wildly unfair to current Freshman, Sophomores and Juniors but it cleans up a lot of issues that granting everyone a year would cause most specifically expanded rosters for many years or smaller recruiting classes for 2021, 2022 and issues with 2020's. It is my guess that they end up just offering to seniors and fewer Seniors take the extra year than everyone thinks.
TPM posted:collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:I think the consensus here is that a less than overwhelming number of seniors will attend an extra year of college just to get one more season under their belt, right? That’s kind of the vibe I have been seeing posted. That said, wouldn’t it be prudent for the eligibility waiver to apply to those who aren’t going to have to transfer and/or rely on grad school? It just seems to me, and I am from the Forest Gump school of logic here, that if you are going to grant an eligibility waiver at all, to be fair, it must be available to all student athletes, regardless of year. Anything short of that I would anticipate a class action law suit from those excluded.
This could create an unfair advantage to all but the very rich programs. That was discussed in the tweet.
And wouldnt that apply to all spring sports?
They might grant that extra year of eligibility, but it possibly not to include 5 years of scholarship $$.
But Fenway is correct, the NCAA will do what's best for the NCAA.
JMO
Agree, they will do what is best for them, which is to get back to business as usual, probably in Fall 2020, to start getting that TV revenue from football ringing the cash registers. That said, the eligibility waiver, when you take a step back, is an easy decision. The NCAA really isn’t going to be hamstrung because there are extra players eligible. There are ALWAYS MORE PLAYERS WITH ELIGIBIITY EVERY YEAR THAN THERE ARE ROSTER SPOTS. The onus is going to be on the college programs to decide what names are going to filling out those rosters. In my view, the NCAA could really care less. Take a look at FBS football for instance. Every year you see Australian kickers playing for major FBS programs, these guys are 26+ years old. They have NCAA eligibility and that is all that matters. The NCAA doesn’t care if that old, mini-van driving Aussie is taking a roster spot from a recent HS graduate, all that matters is that they are eligible.
I think college coaches are going to likely go about this one of two ways. First, they will bring on their 2020 recruiting class and tell any returning senior who still has eligibility that they can compete for a roster spot, but there will be no opportunity for scholarship - for the future of the program. Second scenario is they bring on their 2020 class and returning “Corona Seniors,” redshirt the promising scholarship 2020’s unless they stand out in Fall or were a blue chip recruit, and kick the walk on commits to the curb who can’t beat out a Corona Senior for playing time.
Like Adbono said, I think this will be a boon for JUCO ball and should improve the caliber of player starting off in fall 2020 at JUCO programs. It’s not a matter of belonging at a particular level, I think it’s now a matter of numbers and talent. That assessment is going to be on the colleges, not the NCAA.
anecdotally, some of my son’s senior teammates have already been contacted by programs from the opposite coast, but n both cases far better programs from level of play and exposure, testing the waters for their desire to play there.
I hate to keep harping on this point, but it really does seem that most are missing it...
Even if NCAA grants another "Season of Eligibility" to ALL the players, they aren't really giving them anything if they don't also extend the eligibility timeline.
A 2020 freshman who gets another season of eligibility will only have 4 more years (or 8 more semesters in D2) to play those remaining 4 seasons. Exactly the same situation as if he had sat out this 2020 season to take his "red-shirt" year.
Whether it's fair to extend the clock for seniors, but not for ALL underclassmen, is another question...
But it does allow four more years. For a 2019, if they do not get redshirt or extra year they missed an entire year. I think they do all or nothing because of the fear of class action suit which would be doing what is best for NCAA. The scholarship issue does not affect the NCAA but the individual colleges. The NCAA is going to protect themselves and look like the good guys by saying your get another year, you get another year, all of you get another year. Then let the individual schools figure out what they do with the scholarships, players, numbers, incoming freshmen, and corona seniors.
T_Thomas posted:I hate to keep harping on this point, but it really does seem that most are missing it...
Even if NCAA grants another "Season of Eligibility" to ALL the players, they aren't really giving them anything if they don't also extend the eligibility timeline.
A 2020 freshman who gets another season of eligibility will only have 4 more years (or 8 more semesters in D2) to play those remaining 4 seasons. Exactly the same situation as if he had sat out this 2020 season to take his "red-shirt" year.
Whether it's fair to extend the clock for seniors, but not for ALL underclassmen, is another question...
I think the two will go hand in hand.
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:I think the two will go hand in hand.
That's definitely NOT what the D2 committee said last week.
In retrospect, it's going to take sometime, for them to sort out, because a lot depends upon what MLB is going to do and how many they have entering in the fall.
And all coaches run their programs differently.
fenwaysouth posted:hshuler posted:My money is on them only allowing seniors an extra year.
My money is on the NCAA doing what is best for the NCAA.
Well honestly, I was going to say exactly the thing but I’ve committed to thinking the best of others. 😁
D2 is granting the extension of time (2 additional semesters) for the seniors (Extension of Eligibility waiver). Everyone else at D2 level gets back the year of eligibility (basically everyone is a redshirt this year).
No one has really addressed the scholarship issue from this standpoint: From what I am seeing, it appears that most people think that with the extra year comes money (same scholarship as they had). Extra eligibility and a continued scholarship are not the same thing or guaranteed (i dont believe). A senior (or anyone) who was on scholarship this year still got his scholarship thru the entire school year right? If they were graduating this year, they wouldn't be guaranteed a scholarship for grad school/grad transfer anyway. P5 kids will still have their 3 years remaining of their 4 year guaranteed scholarship per whatever terms of the agreement they signed. The year to year scholarship guys will still have to compete etc. to keep their scholarship just like any other year. I may be completely wrong here, but the people who potentially will be impacted will be HS and Transfer kids who were scheduled to take the spot of guys leaving. If the guy leaving is better than kids coming in and coach wants him back, that is where I see issues. Just because a kid can come back for another year doesn't mean the coach has to have him back right?
9and7dad posted:Agree that the NCAA always does what's best for the NCAA.
I often see posts here and other places that seem to assume that an extra year of eligibility somehow equates to an additional year of scholarship money for players. With the NCAA being the NCAA, I can easily see them allowing more eligibility, probably seniors only, but expanded, additional or matching previous scholarships may not be included in that deal.
For what it's worth, most of the seniors I'm aware of are acting as though they are coming back to their school, assuming the NCAA allows eligibility and they don't get drafted in a position that makes sense to them. Whether the coaching staffs share that vision, and how that meshes with the incoming freshman class, is anyone's guess.
IMO, getting drafted anywhere or even signing as a FA should make sense for any senior who wants to pursue a professional career.
T_Thomas posted:I hate to keep harping on this point, but it really does seem that most are missing it...
Even if NCAA grants another "Season of Eligibility" to ALL the players, they aren't really giving them anything if they don't also extend the eligibility timeline.
A 2020 freshman who gets another season of eligibility will only have 4 more years (or 8 more semesters in D2) to play those remaining 4 seasons. Exactly the same situation as if he had sat out this 2020 season to take his "red-shirt" year.
Whether it's fair to extend the clock for seniors, but not for ALL underclassmen, is another question...
If you were a starter, all years, and never used a medical RS, getting another year of eligibility without “Extending their timeline” is still helpful. Not ideal, but it will help many of the actual players (guys that played). I wish NCAA would announce their plans already.
FriarFred posted:D2 is granting the extension of time (2 additional semesters) for the seniors (Extension of Eligibility waiver). Everyone else at D2 level gets back the year of eligibility (basically everyone is a redshirt this year).
No one has really addressed the scholarship issue from this standpoint: From what I am seeing, it appears that most people think that with the extra year comes money (same scholarship as they had). Extra eligibility and a continued scholarship are not the same thing or guaranteed (i dont believe). A senior (or anyone) who was on scholarship this year still got his scholarship thru the entire school year right? If they were graduating this year, they wouldn't be guaranteed a scholarship for grad school/grad transfer anyway. P5 kids will still have their 3 years remaining of their 4 year guaranteed scholarship per whatever terms of the agreement they signed. The year to year scholarship guys will still have to compete etc. to keep their scholarship just like any other year. I may be completely wrong here, but the people who potentially will be impacted will be HS and Transfer kids who were scheduled to take the spot of guys leaving. If the guy leaving is better than kids coming in and coach wants him back, that is where I see issues. Just because a kid can come back for another year doesn't mean the coach has to have him back right?
This is exactly my thought.
I agree the NCAA is usually in favor of doing best for the NCAA (and not the student-athletes), but it is the D1 council voting on Monday, which (surprising to me) isn't just a bunch of P5 types but rather a decent representation across all of D1. Which I think is interesting because there are a lot of mid and smaller D1 conferences that cannot afford even a typical season.
So I doubt any direction is coming that would imply any financial commitment to the student-athletes for the extra year of eligibility. I think there may be a strong push to only extend the extra year for seniors (the cure of 4+ years of roster trickle down problems can't exceed the pain of a 1 year elig loss), but the reality is still that all four classes lost a year. To account for the potential for too many returning players with the majority of HS 2020's already having signed NLIs, I would like to see D1 (and D2) grant expanded rosters for next spring (only) equal to the # of returning seniors, ex. if 3 senior Corona-shirts return for spring 2021, then the roster size can be 35+3. And remain silent on scholarships - that is still a school-by-school decision on how to meet the 11.7/27/25% rules.
I believe they vote no on everybody getting it back but those who are eligible will be able to use a redshirt year. They will leave it up to the schools to decide whether they give an additional year of scholarship money to a player. They come out saying we gave everybody that could get it an additional year and put the pushback on the colleges.
I understand where you are coming from RightScuff but a coach can't play 35 players if he is competitive so no way they can play more than 35. And most schools won't carry more than they could this year because they don't want to pay the expenses for them. The limits didn't really come from the NCAA but from coaches and AD's. We can blame it on the NCAA but the coaches are the ones who want the limits as a whole to keep their costs down and to limit how many they have to have. I think the real answer is to allow more games this fall. Then a coach can get some playing time for new guys and old guys and still redshirt those who are available. I know it will probably mean most freshmen are redshirted but they will be in a locker room full of redshirts so it won't be any different. Everyone will be on the same level. It will even itself out over a few years. But it may mean that some of the top dogs don't recruit as many 2021s, 22s, and 23s. The top 2020's will still play but the mid to lower ones will redshirt for a year. JMO
I’m hearing that the draft is possibly going to be cut down to ten rounds and everyone after that could sign as a free agent with a max of $10K signing bonus.
If this is true, it will greatly impact college baseball over the next couple of years.
I don’t see them expanding rosters like you suggested, why would they allow one team to have 38 players and another 41? That makes zero sense and gives an unfair competitive advantage to senior-heavy programs.
hshuler posted:I’m hearing that the draft is possibly going to be cut down to ten rounds and everyone after that could sign as a free agent with a max of $10K signing bonus.
If this is true, it will greatly impact college baseball over the next couple of years.
This wouldn’t surprise me, and really falls right into the lap of the idea of contraction of the minor leagues for the MLB.
PitchingFan posted:I believe they vote no on everybody getting it back but those who are eligible will be able to use a redshirt year. They will leave it up to the schools to decide whether they give an additional year of scholarship money to a player. They come out saying we gave everybody that could get it an additional year and put the pushback on the colleges.
I understand where you are coming from RightScuff but a coach can't play 35 players if he is competitive so no way they can play more than 35. And most schools won't carry more than they could this year because they don't want to pay the expenses for them. The limits didn't really come from the NCAA but from coaches and AD's. We can blame it on the NCAA but the coaches are the ones who want the limits as a whole to keep their costs down and to limit how many they have to have. I think the real answer is to allow more games this fall. Then a coach can get some playing time for new guys and old guys and still redshirt those who are available. I know it will probably mean most freshmen are redshirted but they will be in a locker room full of redshirts so it won't be any different. Everyone will be on the same level. It will even itself out over a few years. But it may mean that some of the top dogs don't recruit as many 2021s, 22s, and 23s. The top 2020's will still play but the mid to lower ones will redshirt for a year. JMO
Many D1 teams do not field a full 35-player roster for many of the reasons you stated. They don’t have to have 35 guys, it’s a mandated cap.
If one of the unintended consequences of this is a decrease in over-recruiting, is anyone going to complain about that? A mid-major team in my area has about 23 players identifying as recruited players for the 2020 class. My guess is about 1/2 of them are NLI guys...the rest better bring their “A” game to school in Fall if they still plan on attending. A friend has a committed 2020 RHP with an NLI going to this program. He spoke with the head coach to ask what their strategy will be since this has happened and there is a chance his expected senior departures will still have eligibility. The coach replied their emphasis will be on bringing the freshmen into the program over returning “Corona Seniors” because the young guys are the future of the program.
The coach replied their emphasis will be on bringing the freshmen into the program over returning “Corona Seniors” because the young guys are the future of the program.
What did you expect him to say to the father of an incoming freshman?
9and7dad posted:The coach replied their emphasis will be on bringing the freshmen into the program over returning “Corona Seniors” because the young guys are the future of the program.What did you expect him to say to the father of an incoming freshman?
Incoming JuCo transfers are in the same boat and being told the same thing. Can’t be true for everyone and players are gonna get squeezed
As I have stated before, I think most college seniors who are drafted or who can sign as a FA will start their pro careers.
I think NCAA would be wise to wait until MLB makes a definitive decision before announcing a ruling.
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:I don’t see them expanding rosters like you suggested, why would they allow one team to have 38 players and another 41? That makes zero sense and gives an unfair competitive advantage to senior-heavy programs.
I have not heard this discussed; it's simply my idea. I think it is better than either (a) an across-the-board roster increase to 38- or 40- or 45-man rosters because teams could abuse it beyond the intended reason for it, which is to carry those extra expiring players, and (b) won't force a school to inordinantly redshirt more underclassmen than normal due to carrying said extra players.
PitchingFan made a great point about some schools being unwilling to pay the added expenses of the additional rostered players, which seems quite possible to me. In those cases, I think it would be up to the individual programs to determine whether to carry up to the roster max, same as it would be otherwise for those underfunded programs who roster less than 35.
A friend has a committed 2020 RHP with an NLI going to this program. He spoke with the head coach to ask what their strategy will be since this has happened and there is a chance his expected senior departures will still have eligibility. The coach replied their emphasis will be on bringing the freshmen into the program over returning “Corona Seniors” because the young guys are the future of the program.
Thanks for sharing, good insight. I think though each coach will emphasize whatever keeps him employed. Some maybe have longer-term contracts where they can be forward-looking like this, but I imagine there are many others that feel the need to win now, too, which maybe would favor them keeping Corona Seniors.
I think coaches will keep the top incoming guys and redshirt the others. I don't know how many seniors will come back but if they don't have the draft or limit the draft then some will come back to try to get an extra year to be drafted. And I think in D1 most guys want a chance to get drafted so they will try to stay and get that chance especially in a tough economic setting. I do think that if most coaches have a choice between an incoming freshman other than top guys or keep a returning starting senior, they will choose the older experienced senior who has already been there. The freshman will get experience in the fall against the returnees and slowly understand what it means to be a college player. They would be a year older, more mature, bigger, faster and stronger.
9and7dad posted:The coach replied their emphasis will be on bringing the freshmen into the program over returning “Corona Seniors” because the young guys are the future of the program.What did you expect him to say to the father of an incoming freshman?
Agree, and the father took it with a grain of salt. Just passing story along.
Sources: MLB & the MLB Players Association have the framework of an agreement that could be finalized as soon as today. Discussed terms on the draft: - A draft sometime in July - Likely 10 rounds, possibly 5 - Bonus deferment: 10% upfront, 45% in July '21, 45% in July (@kileymcd)
Could see this increasing the # of players desiring a return to their college careers if they were mid- to late-round targets expecting more than $10k signing bonuses. Increasing D1 roster size a little would help. Of course, hard enough as it is to play even 35 players, much less any more than that, but I'd like to see the D1 council offer that flexibility to the schools.
hshuler posted:As I have stated before, I think most college seniors who are drafted or who can sign as a FA will start their pro careers.
I think NCAA would be wise to wait until MLB makes a definitive decision before announcing a ruling.
Disagree. NCAA decision can and should be independent of anything that comes from MLB. While MLB provides a pipeline to playing professionally, so few ball players are affected by that overall that making it a part of the decision making process is not smart. Figure about 600 NCAA players a year are drafted in an average year. Several programs provide a majority of those players, most programs provide maybe 1-3 per team. This is not a big enough impact for the entire body of teams, on a per-team basis, to be a problem that everyone needs to bear the burden for. Just my opinion.
TheRightScuff posted:Sources: MLB & the MLB Players Association have the framework of an agreement that could be finalized as soon as today. Discussed terms on the draft: - A draft sometime in July - Likely 10 rounds, possibly 5 - Bonus deferment: 10% upfront, 45% in July '21, 45% in July (@kileymcd)
Could see this increasing the # of players desiring a return to their college careers if they were mid- to late-round targets expecting more than $10k signing bonuses. Increasing D1 roster size a little would help. Of course, hard enough as it is to play even 35 players, much less any more than that, but I'd like to see the D1 council offer that flexibility to the schools.
It’s not the NCAA’s problem.
hshuler posted:As I have stated before, I think most college seniors who are drafted or who can sign as a FA will start their pro careers.
I think NCAA would be wise to wait until MLB makes a definitive decision before announcing a ruling.
Agree, but MLB is smarter than the NCAA and I think they are waiting for NCAA to announce their decision first so they can figure out how to take advantage of it - if possible
