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
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.
MLB is telling baseball players something in that there is only slot money for the first ten rounds. 84% of American MLBers come from the first ten rounds. Another 10% come from 11-20. After round 20 it’s a long shot. I’ll bet most MLBers from after round 20 are late bloomer pitchers. Scouting analytics and metrics are so good now there aren’t many surprises.
I’m guessing a lot of college coaches right now are playing the part of Joe Isuzu until they know what’s really going on. They’re telling most players what they want to hear. Some they will just tell their time is up.
Coach, how do you expect to handle next year’s roster issues caused by the virus ... https://youtu.be/TMvFvCvFSVk
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted: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.
A few weeks before this nightmare, we played UF. Sully told me the future of every program, should be the incoming freshman. I believe that to be true, but not necessarily for every program. Many mid D1 programs incoming class are JUCO players that coaches rely upon. Every program is different, the top programs in the country recruit and sign the top HS players in the country so that they are gone before they are seniors. JMO.
My point is, we can guess all day and all night what might happen, but coaches will be given the guidelines, and do what they need to keep their job.
The MLB draft will also determine next year's roster for many programs.
TPM posted:collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted: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.
The MLB draft will also determine next year's roster for many programs.
It always does...
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.
The only problem with this is draft eligible players lose “leverage” with each passing year. So, they probably would not even get $10K the following year.
hshuler posted: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.
The only problem with this is draft eligible players lose “leverage” with each passing year. So, they probably would not even get $10K the following year.
Remember the kid from Mississippi State, believe he was the SEC (perhaps NCAA) all-time hits leader when he graduated as a senior and was drafted in the 4th round, signing bonus basically enough to buy him a truck. This is not a new problem, happens every year.
Going to be a lot of players looking for new schools in July.
hshuler posted: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.
The only problem with this is draft eligible players lose “leverage” with each passing year. So, they probably would not even get $10K the following year.
Again, not the NCAA’s problem.
d-mac posted:Going to be a lot of players looking for new schools in July.
I think so too
I think we can all agree that the following groups should be accounted for, in order of importance: Seniors, remainder of current college players, and finally, to a much lesser extent, incoming NLI-Freshman. Any decision will have a direct impact on all three groups.
However, one group that hasn't been mentioned is the 2021 recruiting class. I believe you will see a MAJOR shakeup and movement in the P5 2021 recruits. If senior's are the only one to get an extra year, then it may be minimal, but if all players are eligible for an extra year, then team needs may change drastically by the time signing day comes around late this year. We may also see football like recruiting come this summer/fall for the 2021 class because of top guys becoming available since teams needs are changing.
JMO, but certainly 2021 may be the most affected once it's all said and done.
Hey, is there any chance that if we're all going to continue to post on this thread, that we can at least get the spelling in the title corrected? :-)
Just looked over a few statistics pages from SEC schools. I will put UT's.
Players must abstain completely from competition to preserve a season of eligibility during a redshirt year. Players who appear in even one inning of one baseball game will lose a season of eligibility, unless they later gain a hardship waiver for injury, illness, family crisis, natural disaster or other calamity. Players in redshirt years are bound by all NCAA rules, including those regulations designed to ensure academic progress toward graduation.
Players who suffer a season-ending injury or illness during the first half of the spring season may be eligible for a hardship waiver if they haven't played in more than 30 percent of their team's games. Playing time missed during fall baseball does not factor into the hardship calculations. Each player must apply to the NCAA for a hardship waiver and document his case. If the NCAA grants the waiver, that player will receive a do-over for that season -- effectively creating a "medical redshirt" year.
So if a player has not played in 30% of the team's games they are eligible to apply for hardship waiver for natural disaster or calamity. this has to fall under that situation.
UT played 17 games this season. Anyone who played 5.1 innings or more is not eligible to fall under the old rule (assuming the NCAA chooses to do nothing different on Monday). But with that the entire freshman class would be eligible to come back other than 1 player who will not need it because he should be drafted after 3 years high. Only 4 total pitchers pitched in more than 5 games so all pitchers would be able to add a year. If they only take top 10 rounds of regular money, then only 2 players would fall in that category by PG rankings and draft projections. So it will still be a logjam. I cannot see why anyone would not apply for the redshirt year even they do not end up using it. You are talking 20 of the 35 not eligible to get redshirt year this year but 15 plus a few over the 35 so about 21 players will get redshirt year. That will still make life interesting and most are similar. Vanderbilt only has 15 players that would not be eligible to apply for redshirt year. My thought is they will apply just to possibly allow for extra year on the back end in case they want to transfer for last year or two.
If many keep pace, they would eligible to graduate after 3 years. If they get this year back, then they would have 4 more years. I know they plan not to use them but would have them. Just thinking outloud.
T_Thomas posted:Hey, is there any chance that if we're all going to continue to post on this thread, that we can at least get the spelling in the title corrected? :-)
Done. My bad.
TPM posted:T_Thomas posted:Hey, is there any chance that if we're all going to continue to post on this thread, that we can at least get the spelling in the title corrected? :-)
Done. My bad.
That's awesome! I'm easily amused :-)
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:hshuler posted: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.
The only problem with this is draft eligible players lose “leverage” with each passing year. So, they probably would not even get $10K the following year.
Remember the kid from Mississippi State, believe he was the SEC (perhaps NCAA) all-time hits leader when he graduated as a senior and was drafted in the 4th round, signing bonus basically enough to buy him a truck. This is not a new problem, happens every year.
This was discussed last week, or before. He did not take the slot money. 10k I think?
If the NCAA gives another year and the MLB goes through with payment deferment, you'd have to think that a lot of players would go back to school. You may see players go the Carter Stewart route and head to Japan.
As far as MLB goes, keep in mind that there has been essentially no spring training, so they have to keep whatever draft they will have small
MLB lite edition!
For some reason I cannot get used this new set up here on HSBBW.
Over on D1 baseball, Kendall (That's with 2 lls) wrote a great article discussing what we have been.
Vote is Monday.
TPM posted:Over on D1 baseball, Kendall (That's with 2 lls) wrote a great article discussing what we have been.
Vote is Monday.
Edit You can access through D1baseball or through his twitter page.
TPM posted:collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:hshuler posted: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.
The only problem with this is draft eligible players lose “leverage” with each passing year. So, they probably would not even get $10K the following year.
Remember the kid from Mississippi State, believe he was the SEC (perhaps NCAA) all-time hits leader when he graduated as a senior and was drafted in the 4th round, signing bonus basically enough to buy him a truck. This is not a new problem, happens every year.
This was discussed last week, or before. He did not take the slot money. 10k I think?
Signed for $20K...slot was $487K...that's the value the MLB put on his ability to make the MLB...they knew he had no leverage and took him to the cleaners.
A 10 round draft is the worst thing that could happen to the NCAA. A shortened draft will just create a bigger backlog of players on college rosters - which is already the problem with granting eligibility waivers. Juniors who signed for 125k in rounds 10-40 are just going to go back to school and finish their senior year. Why sign for 10k as a junior when you can sign for 5k with a degree? Why sign for 10k when you could wait until the normal 40 round draft the following year? Unless that is the direction the plan on moving in for the foreseeable future.
What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
The biggest winners are JUCOs and Indy Ball. If Jucos were smart, they would be making calls in advance to scoop up the top released underclassmen. If Indy teams were smart they would be calling local schools and asking for their seniors.
Regardless of the outcome, this hurts the teams at the top way more than the teams at the bottom. Rosters are worked out to a science for schools that have 12+ incoming and 6+ drafted. It's going to be a headache at the top. As you go down the line there will be more drop downs from the higher level programs.
Jake Mangum was the Miss State player who signed for 20K out of the 4th round after senior year. The previous year he received a call from an organization offering 300K if they drafted him. He told them he was returning for senior year.
I don’t believe waiting until being 23 years old to come out is wise from a baseball standpoint. But his family is very well off. His father might have told him if he wanted to stay in school he would cover the loss. Mangum did pass on receiving scholarship money his last two seasons so there would be more money to sign other talent.
A ten round draft would allow more players to be a free agent and pick the organization they would be more likely to rise through. Given 84% of American players come from the top ten rounds the odds of making it are already long not going in the top ten. Increase your odds with free agent options.
PABaseball posted:What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
Not a bad idea, especially because by the time the decision to exercise that additional year of eligibility roles around (for the younger guys), they will have a better understanding of their potential for the next level, whether a scholarship is even an option for them as a grad-transfer, and be able to make a better informed decision to exercise the option.
One thing, depending on how you look at it, is the guys who come back and do a grad year to use that eligibility, and presumably completes a grad degree, will potentially be avoiding an ugly job market.
PABaseball posted:A 10 round draft is the worst thing that could happen to the NCAA. A shortened draft will just create a bigger backlog of players on college rosters - which is already the problem with granting eligibility waivers. Juniors who signed for 125k in rounds 10-40 are just going to go back to school and finish their senior year. Why sign for 10k as a junior when you can sign for 5k with a degree? Why sign for 10k when you could wait until the normal 40 round draft the following year? Unless that is the direction the plan on moving in for the foreseeable future.
What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
The biggest winners are JUCOs and Indy Ball. If Jucos were smart, they would be making calls in advance to scoop up the top released underclassmen. If Indy teams were smart they would be calling local schools and asking for their seniors.
Regardless of the outcome, this hurts the teams at the top way more than the teams at the bottom. Rosters are worked out to a science for schools that have 12+ incoming and 6+ drafted. It's going to be a headache at the top. As you go down the line there will be more drop downs from the higher level programs.
Good points but when coaches were planning on guys leaving and have committed the money elsewhere, who pays for them to return?
hshuler posted:PABaseball posted:A 10 round draft is the worst thing that could happen to the NCAA. A shortened draft will just create a bigger backlog of players on college rosters - which is already the problem with granting eligibility waivers. Juniors who signed for 125k in rounds 10-40 are just going to go back to school and finish their senior year. Why sign for 10k as a junior when you can sign for 5k with a degree? Why sign for 10k when you could wait until the normal 40 round draft the following year? Unless that is the direction the plan on moving in for the foreseeable future.
What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
The biggest winners are JUCOs and Indy Ball. If Jucos were smart, they would be making calls in advance to scoop up the top released underclassmen. If Indy teams were smart they would be calling local schools and asking for their seniors.
Regardless of the outcome, this hurts the teams at the top way more than the teams at the bottom. Rosters are worked out to a science for schools that have 12+ incoming and 6+ drafted. It's going to be a headache at the top. As you go down the line there will be more drop downs from the higher level programs.
Good points but when coaches were planning on guys leaving and have committed the money elsewhere, who pays for them to return?
No guarantees in life, why do they think they are entitled to any additional scholarship money? They received their scholarship dollars for their senior year already, nobody took that away. There is no real financial loss and no reason they need to be "made whole." Not sure why the potential of additional eligibility is being confused with scholarship money. They are completely separate issues.
In my view, if they want to play they come in without scholarship money and are essentially walk-ons.
hshuler posted:PABaseball posted:What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
Good points but when coaches were planning on guys leaving and have committed the money elsewhere, who pays for them to return?
I would imagine this is where the coaches get creative. The problem isn't necessarily the 11.7 cap - that has always been an issue to navigate around, it is the 11.7 and more than 27 scholarship players that becomes an issue.
I imagine the pitch to graduating college seniors would be - we didn't expect you to come back and don't have any money. You can come back and pay full boat or you can walk.
I imagine the pitch to HS seniors would be - we have less money because these 4 are coming back. I can't give you anything year one, but year 2,3,4 you will get x,y,z for your loyalty. And when some of them get drafted or transfer the school wins because the deal was backloaded.
2 seniors sticking around doesn't create a huge problem. The 4 juniors and two high schoolers who didn't get drafted do though. Problem isn't that a few want to stay, it's that some who were expected to leave did not show enough in 14 games.
adbono posted: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
A swing and a miss!
collegebaseballrecruitingguide postedNo guarantees in life, why do they think they are entitled to any additional scholarship money? They received their scholarship dollars for their senior year already, nobody took that away. There is no real financial loss and no reason they need to be "made whole." Not sure why the potential of additional eligibility is being confused with scholarship money. They are completely separate issues.
In my view, if they want to play they come in without scholarship money and are essentially walk-ons.
Important point being missed by others. Seniors only will get another year of eligibility, not more $$$$.
PABaseball posted:hshuler posted:PABaseball posted:What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
Good points but when coaches were planning on guys leaving and have committed the money elsewhere, who pays for them to return?
I imagine the pitch to HS seniors would be - we have less money because these 4 are coming back. I can't give you anything year one, but year 2,3,4 you will get x,y,z for your loyalty. And when some of them get drafted or transfer the school wins because the deal was backloaded.
How do they do that with NLIs signed?
We are told the talk, as of later today, was it's likely a 5 round draft. This is going to be a mess.
Go44dad posted:adbono posted: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
A swing and a miss!
I have had swing and miss stuff all my life
PABaseball posted:hshuler posted:PABaseball posted:What I think should happen - college athletes should continue using their eligibility on schedule. When their eligibility runs out they should be able to apply and be granted a redshirt season for the lost time. Many will not choose to use said year, some will be drafted, some will quit baseball altogether. Kids will use 5 years if they know they have it. But kids will use their 4 and start to think about life after baseball if you push it off and make it optional. Between the draft, optional waivers, and attrition it will sort itself out within a year or two. Seniors get nothing out of this but I'm sure an arrangement could be made with the exception that they were enrolled in grad school full time.
Good points but when coaches were planning on guys leaving and have committed the money elsewhere, who pays for them to return?
I would imagine this is where the coaches get creative. The problem isn't necessarily the 11.7 cap - that has always been an issue to navigate around, it is the 11.7 and more than 27 scholarship players that becomes an issue.
I imagine the pitch to graduating college seniors would be - we didn't expect you to come back and don't have any money. You can come back and pay full boat or you can walk.
I imagine the pitch to HS seniors would be - we have less money because these 4 are coming back. I can't give you anything year one, but year 2,3,4 you will get x,y,z for your loyalty. And when some of them get drafted or transfer the school wins because the deal was backloaded.
2 seniors sticking around doesn't create a huge problem. The 4 juniors and two high schoolers who didn't get drafted do though. Problem isn't that a few want to stay, it's that some who were expected to leave did not show enough in 14 games.
High school seniors have already signed their NLI and Athletic Aid agreement. Only “pitch” from coach is your not going to play next year, redshirt or give up scholarship, transfer to JUCO and get better. Then maybe I’ll come get you in 2021.
And with 5 round MLB draft, coach will have lots of roster headaches with many more 2020’s showing up that they thought would get drafted.
