Large Recruiting Classes

CPLZ,
These are not considered, IMO large numbers except for Arizona.

For most schools, these numbers would project what it would take to replace players depending on the schools situation (seniors, those projected for the draft).

Numbers are way down even from a few years ago, I do beleive one school a few years back had 22-23. But that particular school had a habit of cutting in fall or sending you to a junior college to develop or lots of redshirts.

The above also reflects an adjustment period under the new rules for most programs.

TPM,
Large is a relative term. I am comparing these numbers to other schools 2008 freshmen recruiting classes. With roster caps now in place, I doubt comparative numbers from years past, even last year, bear little significance in todays recruiting landscape.

With it being a comparative analyzer, the "large" designator, would seem accurate and appropriate. My intention is only educational, not editorial.

there is another key factor to look at when just listing #'s above. How many seniors on the team they'll lose to graduation or draft, how many juniors on the team they'll lose to the draft, how many draft eligible players on the team other than juniors they may lose and how many of those incoming freshman just recruited will they lose to the draft. In some cases the '08 recruiting classes could appear to be large relatively speaking to many others but then when you factor in all of the above.....it may not be that big after all.

...and also factor in how many JUCO's will come in along with spring freshman commitments...

Wake has 10 incoming recruits, but their roster is already under the cap and they are projecting the loss of 10 players (seniors and juniors expected to go pro). So I don't think their class is overly large under the circumstances.

Az. State has a reputation for over recruiting and then cutting kids' money in their later years. Many ASU players affected by this have transferred in the past. I fear for those kids under the new transfer rule.

CPLZ,

Are those numbers freshmen only, or the entire recruiting class?

I haven't' checked recently, but my experience was that, at those larger schools, the entire recruiting class was about 15-20 including junior transfers.

I would be interested to know your opinion on that same list of schools how many freshmen should be recruited and what the size of the entire recruiting class should be.

roster history is valuable homework on program philosophy -
however rule changes will force SOME philosophy changes so history in some progams could be misleading


G-Tech recent recruiting classes ... fall workouts are NOT expanded roster tryouts

2002 class 10 freshmen; 8 arrived + 2 signed pro - 2002 fall/spring roster 34

2003 class 10 freshmen; 8 arrived + 2 signed pro - 2003 fall/spring roster 33

2004 class 11 freshmen; 9 arrived + 2 signed pro - 2004 fall/spring roster 32

2005 class 11 freshmen + 1 JC; 10 arrived (inc JC) + 1 signed pro - 2005 fall/spring roster 31

2006 class 7 freshmen; 6 arrived + 1 signed pro - 2006 fall/spring roster 34

2007 class 13 freshmen; 11 arrived 2 signed pro - 2007 fall/spring roster 33

quote:

also factor in how many JUCO's will come in along with spring freshman commitments...

juco signees are included in recruiting class #s if they were recruited ...

The ten not sure where that number came from because Texas State early signing is made up of 5 Juco and 6 High School so the number should be 11

quote:

The ten not sure where that number came from because Texas State early signing is made up of 5 Juco and 6 High School so the number should be 11

signing period just ended, the real lists are just now being released by the schools

quote:

Wake has 10 incoming recruits, but their roster is already under the cap and they are projecting the loss of 10 players (seniors and juniors expected to go pro). So I don't think their class is overly large under the circumstances

correct, Wake's Rem/Palmeiri combo have always been smaller roster guys

Thanks I retrieved the 11 from the Texas State website.

quote:

by FO: I would be interested to know your opinion on that same list of schools how many freshmen should be recruited and what the size of the entire recruiting class should be.

for most schools incoming freshmen IS their recruiting class ...

most did not raid summer leagues for transfers

many do not recruit JCs unless they have an occasional hole to plug OR an attractive JC player expresses interest in them and fits academicly

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

Wake has 10 incoming recruits, but their roster is already under the cap and they are projecting the loss of 10 players (seniors and juniors expected to go pro). So I don't think their class is overly large under the circumstances

correct, Wake's Rem/Palmeiri combo have always been smaller roster guys

Rem, Danny Hall, and Strick from Kent State all pretty much have the same philosophy regarding recruiting. Hall and Rem were the HC for the Flashes, Rem worked with Hall, Strick worked with Hall at GT and played for Danny at Kent State.

Rem and I played little league and HS baseball together. Its a small world out there in college baseball land.

quote:

by OS8: Rem, Danny Hall, and Strick from Kent State all pretty much have the same philosophy regarding recruiting.

you are very correct,

their method being to work their azz off identifying and recruiting players that fit their program .. get them to campus and then develop them
fall practice time is to to teach & develop, and get a feel for spring line-up ..
not to run tryouts for spring roster

some players can contribute sooner, some are faced with a mean depth chart, & some require patience

ex Kent St:

VanBenchoten 1B: a 2001 1rst round Pirate's pick - late bloomer & a guy who could absolutly MASH, tho drafted as a pitcher(?)

Sonnenstine rhp: med RS yr, late bloomer - Tampa Bay D'Rays

Wagler rhp: didn't get alot of innings early because too many arms ahead of him - Astro's MiLB

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
TPM,
Large is a relative term. I am comparing these numbers to other schools 2008 freshmen recruiting classes. With roster caps now in place, I doubt comparative numbers from years past, even last year, bear little significance in todays recruiting landscape.

With it being a comparative analyzer, the "large" designator, would seem accurate and appropriate. My intention is only educational, not editorial.

CPLZ,
Maybe I misunderstood your post?

What do you deem large? 12,15,16,22? Most schools that my son was interested never really had large recruiting classes and if they did, it was to replace, not add and drop.
IMO, it's hard to judge, based on progam future needs. What's easy to judge, is to take those that have had significantly large recruiting classes before and compare then to now.

If you identify a program that slways had large classes and will continue, then nothing has changed, they will stock up in the fall and cut and drop end of fall. Personally, unless one gets a solid commitment from those schools, I'd stay away.

As Bee has suggested, many schools have always and will continue to recruit players and work to develop them. JUCO plyaers will fill in the gaps created by the draft or injuries.

quote:

for most schools incoming freshmen IS their recruiting class ...

most did not raid summer leagues for transfers

many do not recruit JCs unless they have an occasional hole to plug OR an attractive JC player expresses interest in them and fits academicly

My son's college has not published a list. However, I've been able to form my own list from several sources that may or may not be complete. There are six '08 players signed plus one possible JUCO player and one '08 who is currently being recruited. This year's roster size is 31 and I would imagine next year's will look much the same. I'm thankful for those coaches who do like Bee says: work hard to identify and recruit players that fit their program, get them to campus and then develop them.

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
What do you deem large? 12,15,16,22?

It is not that "I" deemed them large, their recruiting classes are large simply by the size relative to a majority of other schools. If their recruiting class was 4 players, while most others were 1-3 players, 4 would be large. I did arbitrarily cut my list off at 10 or over.

There could be a great number of reasons for a large class, both honorable and less than that. As a parent, having some history to the size of the incoming classes, is good information to use. It is then up to the parent & student to question those reasons and determine for themselves if the coach and program are worth consideration. Again, the intention, at least from me, is strictly informational.

I am still confused.
I am not sure of what you are asking?

The schools you posted, for many of them, that has always been about the size of their recruiting class, I do not feel 10-12 is large for the schools you listed.

What becomes large when for most it has always been relatively the same?

TPM,
The size of former recruiting classes have nothing to do with it. The term "large" is not relative to what a school has done in the past. The term "large" is relative to the rest of the recruiting world, regardless of its history.

I must be doing a terrible job of explaining this, it seems so simple to me.

With a roster of 35, and given that in the best of all worlds you will have some guys give up the sport, others not make the grade academically, and some go pro after three years, I would think a team would typically need 8-12 recruits in every freshman class just to hold to the 35. I mean, if you recruit 8-12 guys every year, you'll recruit 32-48 every 4 years, and with some attrition you'll end up with your 35.

Show me a class with 5-7 guys coming in and I'll show you a class that'll have to wait its turn behind some heavily laden upper classes.

CP,
No problem I have already been called on the carpet today for not explaining myself well enough today.

With the numbers you gave, I thought you meant them to be large, I just see that as "normal".

One of the schools on the list had 22 recruits (if I remember correctly) a few years back, now that number is cut in less than half. So I guess for them that would be considered 'small".

Midlo,
8-12 incoming players seems as though it would meet the average needs of a sustaining a 35 man roster. However, most schools also add JUCO players and spring signings to their fall signing period numbers. A school with 8-12 in the fall signing period could easily have 12-16 committed by summer and possibly more. The fall signing class is hardly ever the complete list of commitments.

Attrition varies for a number of good and poor reasons. My sons freshman class at West Point was initially 19 recruits. Already it's down to 15, and by the 2009 season, history tells us that more will fall off. Different schools, different attrition rates, different reasons.

Most MLB teams draft about 50 players per year.

Depending on the number of minor league teams, they have between 150-250 players in the pipeline for the 25 man roster.

I bet that really seems like over recruiting.........

CPLZ,
Interesting info, thanks. One would have to do more research if planning to go to those schools to try and find out if those were larger than necessary recruiting classes or not.

I've heard that one of Arizona state or Arizona sends a lot of players to JCs, but I don't know if that is true.

quote:

by cplz: 8-12 incoming players seems as though it would meet the average needs of a sustaining a 35 man roster. However, most schools also add JUCO players and spring signings to their fall signing period numbers. A school with 8-12 in the fall signing period could easily have 12-16 committed by summer and possibly more. The fall signing class is hardly ever the complete list of commitments.

1) agree that 8-12 seems ok

2) consistent 4-5 would be a red flag .. not funded properly

3) of course the fall list could grow if needs exist, the signing class is the total

4) some schools have pipe lines to juco most don't recruit them

CAdad...I'm not sure how this will change moving forward for Arizona State w/ the roster changes and how they'll handle their recruiting in the future, but they have been known for bringing in way more than they need go through the fall work outs, weed out who is not ready, send them to Juco's and in some cases those players would return to ASU later,but in most cases those players simply moved on.

The size of the other classes would be a factor involved wouldn't it ?
I looked at twenty D1 school's roster sizes at the end of September. Pertaining to class here are the average amounts per class. Nine were from Virginia. The rest were ACC & SEC out of state (for me).
.
Senior 5.7
Junior 7.9
Soph 9.1
Fresh 10.1
Total 32.8
.
The rosters were on each schools website. Six were still listed as 2007. Just sharing a little research.

If a school has a roster size of 35 they should have 8.75 players per season in each class.

According to the local paper, ARkansas has 16 verbal commitments. Article says they anticipate some will get drafted.

quote:

Originally posted by cbg:
If a school has a roster size of 35 they should have 8.75 players per season in each class.

The goal is to, or should be to, balance the classes. Even the most carefully recruited and balanced classes can get "unbalanced" in spite of the best intentions of all. Out of nessecity, the classes are and will continue to be "smaller", staying more balanced, with players (hopefully) more game-ready when they get to school.

quote:

by Do4: the goal is to, or should be to, balance the classes

true to a point, but as each class progresses "on field" things will sort out and guys not seeing playing time opportunity will move on ... some jrs & srs are drafted opening up PT opportunity for underclassmen

quote:

Originally posted by cbg:
If a school has a roster size of 35 they should have 8.75 players per season in each class.

In reality they don't.....I am "guessing" the biggest culprit is the MLB draft.

I am amazed at the number of coaches that I run across that say, "we expect you to be here 3 years..."

Someone refresh my memory, does a JR in good academic standing that leaves school due to being drafted affect the school's APR????

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

by Do4: the goal is to, or should be to, balance the classes

true to a point, but as each class progresses "on field" things will sort out and guys not seeing playing time opportunity will move on ... some jrs & srs are drafted opening up PT opportunity for underclassmen

Classes this year are smaller. Fewer will be moving on. Some will, but far fewer will transfer than past years. Coaches and players will basicly be stuck with eachother, imo.

Some of these numbers are way off. Most, if not all, are understated. South Carolina will announce a class of 16 or 17. Clemson, which did not appear on your list, will announce 13.

This SEC program currently has 42 players on its roster, of which 5 will graduate and 9 juniors. If half of the juniors get drafted, then 32 players will remain, and they just signed 20 for next season, and will start Fall of 2008 with 52 players???? And 35 is the MAX !!

They added:

RHP
LHP/1B
OF
RHP
RHP
1B/3B
OF
OF
C
MIF/3B
RHP
OF
3B
OF
OF/RHP
OF/RHP
1B/LHP
RHP
RHP
MIF
RHP

Is this "uncontrolled spending" ? A bad habit?

Maybe all the facts don't present themselves in this one case, but the program has a reputation as a Fall workout factory. All I see is simple math here. (52-35=17)

It is a little concerning til you dig deeper....the current roster of 42 will not be 42 come spring time and official roster is announced. This SEC team will infact lose several to graduation and draft and the 20 incoming when all said and done will not be 20 incoming as they will also lose several of those to the draft as well. I will admit though it's the largest signing class I've seen thus far from any school in any conference.

that does seem it bit high,
if it were an ACC school a few more would fall off the list from academic ineligibility

quote:

Originally posted by j2h6:
It is a little concerning til you dig deeper....the current roster of 42 will not be 42 come spring time and official roster is announced.

WHY?

Transfers and Cuts?

It's apparent for most SEC programs due to the reasons you stated above, transfers and cuts at the end of this fall sememster could be much larger than normal. It's their last chance w/out penalty and those on the bubble will surely look else where. For years it seems most SEC programs always carried larger rosters than most other conferences but now with the changes we all know about implemented by the NCAA, roster sizes are having to be adjusted and quickly.

You will see alot of changes in the rosters from now and after the fall. The big problem or situation to deal with will be bringing in a certain amount of players to replace graduating players and anticipated draft guys. Plus there will always be some guys that sign that will get drafted as well. Now who gets drafted already in your program? Who stays and who decides to leave? Who gets drafted in your recruiting class? Who decides to sign and who decides to come to school? I would be willing to bet that some schools will try to operate in the 32-33 range to allow some wiggle room. But then again some programs might not worry about it and just cut guys that have not performed well or do not figure in to the equation. Who knows? The new roster limits have changed alot of things. For the coaches and the players. It will take some time for a new way of doing things to become apparent. And different schools will handle it in different ways.

Was just looking at the recruiting class for an SEC school. They had 16 early signees, 37 on the roster last year. They lost 6 to graduation and draft.
37-6+16=47 When the music stops 12 kids won't have a chair. 2 or 3 could get drafted and sign tho.

Didn't look at their roster, but saw that Georgia signed 19! Would be a little worried if my son playeed or signed there. There is no way some kids are not going to get sent packing.

From what I could tell, Ga. had 31 on roster last year, they lost 4 to graduation and draft. So 31-4+19=46. The number is 11

Just looked. Ga signed 20

quote:

Just looked. Ga signed 20

If that's true and the minimum scholly is now 25%, that means Georgia is dedicating 5 full scholarships of its 11.7 allotment to one signing class, right?

Not necessarily. My guess is some are recruited walk-ons. And Ga has the hope program so making scholly $$ less important to instate kids.

Once again these large recruiting class concerns are blown out of proportion. Baseball scholarships are a 1 year deal, nothing more nothing less. If your kid is in the top 25 players at his school he will most likely get to play some. If not he will sit the bench or get cut.

If you want a guarantee that your kid will play, send him to a school with less talent and less competition, plain and simple. Kids that commit to SEC, Big 12, PAC 10 schools need to understand that those schools are looking for the cream of the crop and that if someone better comes along they will play. That's just the way it is.

quote:

by ilvgbb: Once again these large recruiting class concerns are blown out of proportion. Baseball scholarships are a 1 year deal, nothing more nothing less. If your kid is in the top 25 players at his school he will most likely get to play some, If not he will sit the bench or get cut.

you'll notice the change in future classes of programs with xxl rosters ... and, you'll likely see some surprisingly large tranfer numbers at Christmas break on programs with big signing classes - that is to say the coaches have already talked to some guys helping them find a chance somewhere else while they can still freely transfer

Technically you don't SIGN unless you are getting some athletic money. Though, it doesn't have to be 25% if they are getting academic money too. Unless I am mistaken, if you are a walk-on you do not sign a NLI, so the 20 signees would all be getting something. Right?

My son will not be going to an SEC school. I just noticed the Georgia numbers and commented. I am sure kids that go there know that is the way it is, but most probably don't think they will be one of the ones cut. I just feel bad for those kids. Hopefully they go in with their eyes wide open.

quote:

Originally posted by iluvgoodbaseball:
Once again these large recruiting class concerns are blown out of proportion. Baseball scholarships are a 1 year deal, nothing more nothing less. If your kid is in the top 25 players at his school he will most likely get to play some. If not he will sit the bench or get cut.

If you want a guarantee that your kid will play, send him to a school with less talent and less competition, plain and simple. Kids that commit to SEC, Big 12, PAC 10 schools need to understand that those schools are looking for the cream of the crop and that if someone better comes along they will play. That's just the way it is.

You just said we need to understand how it is, which we do, we make posts about how it is. If it's how it is, how is that being blown out of proportion?

From the gist of your post, it would seem that you have no problem with overrecruiting at these schools, which is completely within your rights, but others who might are not neccisarily over reacting, they are simply reacting.

CPLZ,
I am personally against overrecruiting but think parents and players play a roll in that too. If a persons problem with overrecruiting is that their kid might not play then they should choose a different school IMO.

Overrecruiting is a 2 edged sword. If some schools didn't do this it would limit many kids chance to even get into college, much less have a chance to play ball. On the other hand it also means getting cut if the player doesn't perform well enough to be on the roster or a starter if that is his main concern.

Overrecruiting or not though these scholarships are only a one year deal. Still a chance of being cut whether a school overrecruits or not.

Maybe my comment about overreacting was incorrect but I don't think overrecruiting plays much of a roll in whether most kids play or not. Choosing the right school where they can honestly compete for a top 25 spot on the roster is the key.

Sometimes it is difficult for a h.s. player to know whether he can "honestly compete for a top 25 spot on the roster." He may be "the bomb" on his high school and select teams, only to discover that he is in the middle of the pack (or even lower) when he is comparing himself to his college teammates.

On the other hand, a good college recruting coordinator should have a pretty good handle on how the h.s. player will stack up against his future college teammates. I don't believe it is right for college coaches to bring in a bunch of extra players, knowing they will have to cut many after the fall.

H.S. recruits should ask LOTS of questions going in. How many players at my position have you already recruited? How many do you plan to recruit after me? How do I stack up against current college players who play my position?

Even then, some colleges may not be totally honest with their answers. Colleges can and do publish the names of their NLI signees, and recruits can quickly scan that list once it has been published. But the NCAA prohibits college programs from publishing the names of their recruited walk-ons, so it is sometimes difficult to know just how many players are actually being brought on.

It all comes down to confidence on the part of the player---the talented player who is confident in his talent does not worry about how much competition he has--he will go there and strive to win the job---the problem is that all too many kids have been handed the starting positions all the way thru HS---they have never had to fight for a spot--college ball is a different world---you have to earn it

Over recruiting is not confined to the Big D1s as the same motivation exists at all levels - winning...though less at D3,it does exist there as well.

But there are other motivations -- most notably financial-- as well!

Though seemingly unethical, it serves the obvious purpose of raising a coaches choice pool, thereby raising his prospects for more talented players.

But it also serves a much less obvious objective, more often for the smaller schools (and that's the majority) -- Enrollment! Enrollment equals tuition which equals salaries and solvency!

Face it, there are many colleges and JCs whose academic appeal is much the same as many others. One way to raise the appeal is to offer opportunities not available at other schools, namely the chance to play "college sports." This still has a very strong appeal to kids and to their parents.

If you do some on line research you'll find that many schools -most noteworthy are the small privates in every division -- to include JCs -- have a considerable percentage of their student body as athletes. How many of us know players of questionable ability who found themselves playing "somewhere"?

While all schools are different, few (save Ivy or the Duke and Stanford's) can truly say their degree is going to be so noteworthy to employers that a graduate will be guaranteed to be more desirable than another applicant, with equal grades, from another school! The message here is that competition for enrollment is serious business and promises to be a college athlete can be very enticing and relatively lucrative for small schools!

Average perntage of athletes to total enrollment at schools of 1,500 or less 20-40 percent! That's a very large chunk of tuition revenue!

Over recruiting has one ultimate source and only one potential savior...formally referred to as the NCAA. or more appropriately known as
Notorious Consistent Athletic Aggrevation

It is owned wholely by the brotherhood of high level academicians and is their "non challengeable" subsidiary monopoly on non academic athletic related revenue generation. The second best source a school has (donations from Alumni still best !

Over recruiting is wrong, unethical and could be stopped so easily and quickly...but as a revenue generating tool the Academic mafia needs it!

Who said that "those that can do and those that can't teach"...it's more like those that teach are "making an offer" those that "Can"...can't refuse!

TR, your post doesnt make sense to me. You say a kid needs to be confident (You told me this on the phone and I agree) Yet you also say many kids are handed spots and don't have to fight for them in HS.
Well, there is the conundrum!
If a kid has been handed starting spots through LL, HS and travel ball that kid is probably going to be very confident in his ability. Now because he was "handed" his starting spots his confidence has no foundation. Now what?

TD


From always being handed positions it is false confidence---he thinks it, the position, is his

I think it's important to put this topic into perspective for the HS baseball player looking to be a prospective college recruit: you REALLY need to do your homework on patterns of recruiting practices when evaluating and comparing programs. The impact of over-recruiting will only get worse next year with the imposition of the 35-man roster limit. Kids that today might not play but still be rostered will now face the prospect of being cut.

It's important to know a single large recruting class by itself is not a sign of over-recruiting. There could have been a large number of players lost to graduation, injuries, or the draft that drive a need for a large inbound class to rebuild in any given year. Or, maybe just bad luck as too many kids become academically ineligible or just lose the passion for the game. Like anything else, you have to look for patterns and ignore exceptions. Are there large recruiting classes year over year? Did that pattern emerge or change with any change in the coaching staff or head coach? How often do you see a new recruting class announced, then show up on campus with several not making the official roster? If you exclude grads and draftees, how many frosh/soph/Jrs from one year don't appear on the roster the next year, i.e., they're cut to make room for the fresh recruits? Is there a pattern of a high number of JC transfers while a significant number of frosh never see their sophomore year? In any given recruiting class, how many are still in the program by their Junior year?

Attrition is normal and expected in any program, but you have to look for abnormally high attrition driven by a "survival of the fittest" approach that usually accompanies over-recruiting.

This is a lot of raw research and analysis work, and it takes pouring over historical rosters, press releases for recruiting classes, stats to see who played and who sat, talking with former or current players, etc. Too much work perhaps for every potential school of interest, but you'd certainly want to profile the recruiting practices for your top choices. And, it's good information to have ready when you go on your official visits.

If you visit a school that only averages 50% of their frosh recruits returning their sophomore year, and sees a large number of scholarship Juniors cut to make room for inbound frosh, it's an important question to ask how this reflects the coaches recruiting philosophy. Now, it's fair if the coach says "I try to recruit the best, but every player has to prove his value to the program every day and I only keep the best". At least it's an honest answer and it's the coach's perogative since his job is foremost to win. Over-recruiting and a darwinian approach of annually "culling the herd" isn't evil, it's just an approach. A bit draconian, maybe. Unethical? Only if the coach isn't open and truthful about it. But it is a common model in highly competitive environments, including top academic, financial, business, and professional institutions. My wife started her career years ago in public accounting where every two years a complete "hiring class" was evaluated for promotion to the next grade. Those that didn't make it were let go. Ultra competitive, but everyone knew that's how the system worked before they accepted the job offer.

The prospective recruit just needs a realistic picture of life in that system so he can make an informed choice. If he chooses to try and compete in that type of system, at least it's a conscious choice.

TripleDad,
I think you ask a very good question which deserves a solid explanation.
I certainly won't try and interpret what others mean. I can only describe what I have seen:
When others talk about player being handed a position through high school, I believe that happens. But it happens because, through high school, that player's talents are demonstrably superior. He dominates the competition.
When that player gets to college, for the first time, they don't dominate. In fact, they are surrounded by other players of similar background, skill and talent.
In college, for the first time, he is competing with players of equal or greater talent and playing time is based on performing and producing.
Players, when confronted with these situations respond differently.
Some fluorish.
Some have their confidence crushed.
Some of those work through those mental issues and succeed. Some never do.
The challenge of college baseball isn't necessarily the physical aspect. It is the mental change.
In college baseball and beyond, the daily mental and emotional challenges and responses can be defining in terms of success or failure for a number of players.

I agree with Phonesteels assesment.
A couple years ago no one talked about this subject of over recruitment. I personally feel for a young man going to a college and being cut but this is the sport our sons chose to play. It is important to realize that this happens at most schools and I don't see it as unethical . The only thing I do have a problem with is the transfer rule that affects a good ball player from making a move to another D1. The actual having to compete with many more players than you anticipated is actually a challenge that will always be there. My son was surprised because he didn't have any idea he would be competing against so many good BB players.
BB is about competition so you do what you have to to make the rosters. It makes it even more exciting to make a roster spot but the guys who don't should be allowed to transfer. Many might have turned down other offers and should be allowed to transfer after the 1st semester .

I agree with infielddad but would like to add a few more points regarding the competitive aspects.

I believe it is possible in some circumstances for a player to be shielded from having to compete until the player reaches college. Some travel and select teams are hand-picked and although in someone's opinion that player so-picked is a superior talent that might not in fact be the case when that player is exposed to a larger competitive pool. In the high school situation, the talent pool is arbitrarily defined by who happens to attend that school. Thus, although a player may have beaten other kids out along the way in high school, he may in fact have not had to compete at a very high level to attain such status. I agree college and of course the pros is the ultimate eye-opener. As I have said in the past, getting recruited is the easy part.

.
This thread gets better and better...

Phonesteele...

First, I agree with PS...Yes some schools blatantly over recruit and you had better know that going in and be willing to accept that...BUT even with the most honorable programs...there is not an exact numbers science...given a fixed roster of 35 and then considering the additions and subtractions(draft, injuries, transfers, walk on's, recruited walk on's...)that will occur right up until the final spring roster...TR is right, you are simply going to have to earn a spot even in the most honorable of circumstances.

Which leads me to the second point...Would agree with TR, players and parents have to understand the nature of the compeptitive beast and the risks involved at any school. Yes, fine, shoot for that top end DI dreams chool that over-recruits...but if so, you need to understand exactly what you are in for, what the compeptitive aspect is, and what the downside may be. It would seem that far too many players, and particularly far too many parents, overestimate ability, and then cry foul when it was simply a matter of a a poor fit and unrealistic expectations of both program and son.

And I agree with CD...We have all watched as over estimating/stating ability and playing the political games may work for a while...but the vast majority of college programs put at end to that. If not in the recruiting then in getting a roster to 35.

44
.

This "over recruiting" is a good topic, I think it should be explored completely.

I believe that the majority of parents and kids are not aware of "the realities in recruiting". I would bet that most kids that sign at a school are unaware that they are subject to being cut due to over recruiting(If that is the case).

What does it say about a coach that had 36 on the roster last year, loses 5 or 6 to grad. or draft and then goes and recruits 16 to 20 kids? Does it say he wants to win?
Now, there is a school that a few hsbbwebster's are headed to that does things differently. They lost some kids last year and signed some this year. By the looks of it, they still have 1 or 2 spots left for the late signing period. This school was ranked in the top 25 all last year.

To be fair, the coach that appears to be over recruiting maybe isn't. There could be many circumstances other than cuts that necessitates a large recruiting class.
With the new rules, I DO believe over recruiting is wrong, even if the kid is aware of it! How is a kid going to be able to judge where his place is on the team while being recruited? This is the coaches judgement, not the kid!
To me, it is plain and simple, any coach that knowingly over recruits and clearly intends to cut/cull kids every year is wrong. I understand there will always be a kid or two thats total bust. But to intentionally over recruit and cut kids that can't transfer to another D1 ????

I hope that next year when we see the recruiting classes that all of them match up with the teams needs. And that may happen, as this is the last year for transfers.

Everyone makes a valid point. Certainly due diligence is the responsibility of anyone making an investment...and what bigger investment than the future and happiness of our sons, and daughters - they get recruited too!

The part that's not getting enough play - read advice - is how to get the information when it's not available. Some schools are good enough to post rosters from preceeding years, others don't post fall rosters. Still others don't post players "in the program" but not playing that year.

So when you ask a coach the overrecruit question...it's very delicate if the data won't speak for itself and you can't get information on the program you're at their Mercy.

Point in hand, player gets recruited, parent checks spring roster size sees a manageable number under 30... thinks...great! Kid shows up there are 40-50 kids playing in the fall. Coach was asked about recruiting size during process coach said our roster has less than 30...did he lie - no - did he over recruit - yes!

Is coach bringing in Spring transfers -- yes! Coach wants to win - can't blame him because who's going to come to a school where the coach is over recruiting and honest about it -- so he's got to say what you want to hear without technically misleading you!

Yeah! We really want you and we're recruiting 4 other catchers in your class???

Mrmom that is the reality of college ball.
I don't care how much investigation you do the truth is that between walk ons and signed players you just never know who will be there at weigh in. Even the coach may have no idea although they should have a rough one. They talk to alot of guys and say a lot of things and half of what they said they forget.
The bottom line is that you should be aware that there are no guarantees and that over recruiting exists. Nothing like BB money to ensure you wont get cut 1st year.

Unless a kid is a highly rated, highly recruited stud he has to come into a baseball program with the idea there are five more just like him fighting for his position. He's going to have to compete and succeed to survive. It won't be any different at the next level (pro). It wasn't any different at lower levels (high school and below). It was just at the lower levels they were the carefree stud and didn't see how hard some fought to earn a position.

quote:

It would seem that far too many players, and particularly far too many parents, overestimate ability, and then cry foul when it was simply a matter of a a poor fit and unrealistic expectations of both program and son.

Don't coaches understand that parents/players often over estimate their abilities? IF a coach recruits a kid and the kid doesn't work out, Who is to blame?
I say that it is the coach! He either did not do his homework, or doesn't possess the skill to evaluate a recruit. I don't see how you could blame a kid/parent for making the mistake of signing with a program that he is not qualified for! The coach knows his team, knows his needs, knows his conference, knows the level of competition....the kid/parent doesn't. If a coach recruits my kid, he is telling me/kid that based upon HIS EXPERTISE in evaluating talent, that my son fits in his program.

I have been around baseball a long time and I can say that I DO NOT have the ability to judge whether or not my kid can play for any given program. If a coach sees something in my kid he likes, I am at the mercy of the coaches judgement/honor/ability.

I understand and appreciate competition, but if a coach is cutting kids every year because they don't have the goods, isn't there a problem?

I have not been through this recruiting stuff yet(obviously) but I am having trouble grasping how peaple are willing to give a coach a free pass when he makes a mistake on a recruit and cuts him like no big deal. It has been said here on hsbbw that for the majority of kids; you don't choose the coach, the coach chooses you. Think about that!

Keep in mind, I am posting regarding cutting kids, not playing time.

So whats the point of this helpless rant...the point is we are talking about naive kids placing trust in the coach(expert) to do the right thing. And that means sticking with the kids you recruit.
I know it is not always possible to keep every recruit, but cutting kids should be the exception, not the the standard. I think that coaches with class, coaches that believe in themselves, coaches that believe in their recruits, and coaches with the winning spirit to dig in with HIS boys and make it happen are the ones that do it right.
Coaches that have to over recruit and cull to make it happen, well............................

I know there are a lot of coaches out there that do it the right way, I sure hope one of them sees something they like in my kid.

TripleDad, couldn't agree with you more...

Tdad,
There is always some degree of uncertainty in recruiting for any college coach and mistakes are going to happen. Even the "experts" can blow it, sometimes through no fault of their own. A coach is always projecting, even with a blue chip player, and projections can go wrong.

Now that doesn't mean there aren't coaches out there who over recruit simply so they can pick the best of them out and dump the rest. Hopefully, those coaches can be avoided.

I know I haven't said anything different than you did, I've just come at if from a little different angle.

Runn Oft

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:

quote:

It would seem that far too many players, and particularly far too many parents, overestimate ability, and then cry foul when it was simply a matter of a a poor fit and unrealistic expectations of both program and son.

***** whoever said that I disagree with 100%

It doesn't matter what a parent thinks in this context. It all comes down to field play

IF a coach recruits a kid and the kid doesn't work out, Who is to blame?
I say that it is the coach! He either did not do his homework, or doesn't possess the skill to evaluate a recruit. I don't see how you could blame a kid/parent for making the mistake of signing with a program that he is not qualified for! The coach knows his team, knows his needs, knows his conference, knows the level of competition....the kid/parent doesn't. If a coach recruits my kid, he is telling me/kid that based upon HIS EXPERTISE in evaluating talent, that my son fits in his program.

I have been around baseball a long time and I can say that I DO NOT have the ability to judge whether or not my kid can play for any given program. If a coach sees something in my kid he likes, I am at the mercy of the coaches judgement/honor/ability.

I understand and appreciate competition, but if a coach is cutting kids every year because they don't have the goods, isn't there a problem?

Keep in mind, I am posting regarding cutting kids, not playing time.

So whats the point of this helpless rant...the point is we are talking about naive kids placing trust in the coach(expert) to do the right thing. And that means sticking with the kids you recruit.

I think that coaches with class, coaches that believe in themselves, coaches that believe in their recruits, and coaches with the winning spirit to dig in with HIS boys and make it happen are the ones that do it right.
Coaches that have to over recruit and cull to make it happen, well............................

**** Now that I agree with 100%

Regarding the talk of kids being handed positions thru high school and having to earn it in college, well...........

all these kids know that their college teammates are all the cream of the crop, and if you ask any of them, they drive each other to be the best with internal competition, even the so-called top ranked studs. And at least from what I hear, also support each other for the good of the team.

Many, if not all have also dominated with their summer teams, their summer competition, and in some cases, on a national level, but they still have to produce daily, regardless of past accomplishments.

A true player/competitor plays hard all the time.

quote:

Even the "experts" can blow it,

Don't the pros over recruit too ? There are more guys in the minor leagues that don't make it than in college percentage wise. elaborite systems to develop guys to go to the show only to discard them affter as much as 3-4 years.
This is BB. It can be a cruel sport and if you acknowledge the bad with the good, you will be more prepared if things go sour. Many very talented guys get cut. Unfortunately there is no exact way of rating a BB player and predicting how things will go in the future. If the transfer rule allowed cut players to move on it would be much more fair. The parents and players believe they have the ability or they wouldn't do what they do.
Coaches are human and do the best they can. They also make mistakes at all levels.

Yes, CaDad, I understand.

These uncertainties exist in almost all sports. A good coach knows how to manage those uncertainties, anticipates them, and reacts accordingly.

A coach that cannot or does not want to manage those uncertainties may be the coach that farms out his weakness to the kids by over recruiting and cutting his mistakes as a matter of policy.


We are in agreement tho

quote:

by TD: if a coach recruits a kid and the kid doesn't work out, Who is to blame?
I say that it is the coach! He either did not do his homework, or doesn't possess the skill to evaluate a recruit.

I nominate ya for a gold star on that

but to clarify a bit ... "if a coach constantly recruits "KIDS" (plural) that don't work out he either did not CARE to do his homework, or doesn't possess the skill to evaluate a recruit" ...
OR he's become lazy at a high profile school who's name makes kids RISK a shot for peanuts"

also great insite from Mrmom -
had a NAIA coach tell me he was "really pumped" ( ) after a meeting with his AD where he was told that the administration wanted to expand the baseball program, inc adding a JV team.

reality sunk in when they gave him YEARLY enrollment/recruiting quotas that he was REQUIRED to meet ... and directed him not to be so fussy about athletic skills IF they met academic AND financial criteria

quote:

reality sunk in when they gave him YEARLY enrollment/recruiting quotas that he was REQUIRED to meet ... and directed him not to be so fussy about athletic skills IF they met academic AND financial criteria

My thoughts in that policy:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/news/265290.html

From a college coach:

• Some coaches expressed concerns that the new minimum scholarship rule could actually provide cover for schools to promise recruits bigger aid packages in order to secure a commitment now, then go back on their word later. "One thing the 25 percent hasn't changed is you can still offer a kid whatever he wants to hear to get him on campus," said one recruiting coordinator. "This would be a great excuse: 'The NCAA is sticking it to us, we've got to take some of your money back.' It can be the truth or not."

.
OK...lets turn this around a little bit....(sorry TD a bad choice of words given the graphic!)...

Scenario...Recruited player has 3 options at the end of October, all good and pretty well equal fits on all counts: academic, $, geography, environment...except baseball...

First Option..."Dream School Option"...High end DI, Dream school, always wanted to go here, room has been decorated in those colors for the sons entire life...coach recruits him, but says "baseball $ is gone, but we like to offer you a recruited walk on"...and..."Look there are no guarantees, but We definitely are looking for hard nosed guys like you we have a spot open at your position and and we believe you have the talent to make our club and compete."...

Second Option..."Show me the money"...Middle end DII...Coach can offer 25%, and does...

Third opion..."Playing Time U" High end DIII...No money but the coach says,..."I can't gaurantee playing time but you are my top two way recruit."

Family and player do their due diligence...know that Dream school may ned to cut a few players...but they can't pass up this Dream option and are sure based upon the coaches comment, and their reading of players ability that the player is ceratinly up to the challenge...

Dream school gets two straight walk on studs...and player gets cut.

Whose fault?

44
.

Observer44,
Obviously it is the coaches fault due to overrecruiting of recruited walkons. He should have just stuck with the first kid if he had any integrity and knew how to coach.

Seriously, the coach would most likely take the heat for this even though not his fault. As someone else said in another post on this topic the real problem with todays rules especially the new ones is eliminating the free transfer rule. This is far more damaging to players who might make a bad decision than overrecruiting IMO.

The sad thing is, no matter who the blame lies with, the bottom line is, this young man is still cut. Coach can say "my bad" all day and it doesn't change the situation any. You can do all the "homework" in the world, and still not be able to compensate for the "stud" factor. It's just the way it is. NOt in a perfect world but...

****leHDD,

Please there should be no comparison, when it comes to cutting players, between pro and college!

TripleDad,

Well said , it is the coach, but it is the system that allows it. Unless and until public awareness is raised no changes will be made. But anyone can identify the problem, and it's not just baseball -- all NCAA regulated sports have some form of institutional bias over the individual student athlete because, the institution has banned together to protect its individual members through the NCAA; and the court system has generally upheld the NCAA "independent" of suit (Supreme Court 1988). Any parent that has had a kid has a story or knows someone who does.

The difference here is, usually only dreams are shattered, only trust is broken. Though some physical abuse does occur i.e., kids suggested to take steroids, overuse, playing injured etc. it is fairly rare. You see, the universe of people affiliated with college sports while very large and significant is most importantly - transient. Let me say that another way - most people say well it ain't worth fighting because it'll be over soon anyway...and so you get screwed and chalk it up to experience...kinda like going on a vacation to a resort or a cruise which looked really good on paper but was alot of false advertising. Did you get taken, yes! is it too much trouble to do anything about yes! does the next guy get it sure!...BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

But here is a possible solution, the only one that i can think of anyway. I'm just waiting for the system to screw the wrong Super Rich Maverick who hates "the system"...not that such a hero actually exists!

For the affordable sum of about $25-$50 a year if every student athlete contributed to a union that would generate millions of dollars that could scare the system straight...if only because it wouldn't be transient. The instances where the kid gets screwed at one school I guarantee you are 100 fold across the country. Now a kid calls his union rep, they get enough similar complaints and they drag someone into something that's more bothersome than fixing the problem...But most of all they get what every Institution hates...negative press

That's how our great country works!

Mrmom so what you want is the tail to wag the dog.

People accknow;edging the issues and being aware will help to bring these things to light. A couple years ago no one wanted to talk about over recruiting which I actually have no problem with. I only have a problem with the player not being able to move to another program at D1 without penalty. This has the potential to disrupt a young mans education and his dream of playing BB at D1 level.
O44's exmple is one of many scenarios that could occur that is neither the fault of the player or the coach. The coach is hired to win. If you don't fit his plan he cuts you and you should be able to move. Finish your semester, get your credits and transfer to another D1. If you want to play a game that is full of risks these are the chances you take.
We knew from day 1 that there were risks and we accepted them. We didn't know that there was going to be way more players than roster spots but after the inintial shock we accepted that as a challenge. Every year you play college ball you have to perform or you sit. If you don't perform you can get cut at the end of the year as some do . Each team has an exit meeting and every year some players are told their BB scholaship will be reduced, eliminated or the player is cut. You have to understand the risks.

quote:

I only have a problem with the player not being able to move to another program at D1 without penalty. This has the potential to disrupt a young mans education and his dream of playing BB at D1 level

maybe baseball players and parents are a little spoiled?

it seems like they have it pretty good except for the partial scholarship thing ...
and if it's rainy or cold they cancel their games

football has about 25 guys getting -0- money (hey that's the size of an entire baseball game roster)

a 5 yr plan is the norm in football ... all-state (true) freshmen are routinely recruited to red-shirt

many all-state (rs) sophmores routinely sit the bench

many all-state (rs) juniors are lucky to get ANY game time

many all-state (rs) seniors are doing well if they're platooning ... doing great if starting

some all-state 5th yr seniors get bumped by a "golden boy" sophmore

60 or 70 football players have very little/or no chance of EVER seeing playing time except maybe to give a team-mate a breather for a play or 2 ...
some have NO chance except "senior day"

most all had NFL dreams when they walked on campus

maybe arrogant is a better word than spoiled

I think it would be a lot easier to swallow if you were sitting the bench BUT getting 100% of your school paid for as most football players do. My nephew is a junior and getting letters from schools like Stanford and Duke. If you had the right attitude you could say "hey, you aren't playing much but by golly you are getting a free education at Stanford or Duke or fill in the blank!". I'll take that deal any day (not so sure my son would but...).

quote:

maybe baseball players and parents are a little spoiled?

Perhaps Bee> and I agree about football. They are allowed 85 scholarships yet their rosters routinely hold over 100. The quarterback at Ohio State this year grey shirted one year, red shirted the next year, then sat the next two years behind a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback (who also was a red shirt) before finally getting has chance as a grey shirt/redshirt Junior and he is now 23 years old. You want to play at an elite program? These are often the sacrifices one must make. Extremely high risk and sometimes very high reqwards. That is why I don't fault a young man who might be willing to risk it all and walk on somewhere. You just never know.

Clemson's catcher Doug Hogan was a redshirt player who finally got his shot last year as a redshirt junior. He was also drafted last year and had a fine year for them. Things are not always solved by transferring. Sometimes good things happen to those who wait, continue to improve, and never give up. Some of this comes down to how much risk one is willing to take on. I honestly don't believe coaches recruit bench players. They have an idea who their impact players will be but I don't believe they have the time or the inclination to recruit bench players.

quote:

by hh1: I think it would be a lot easier to swallow if you were sitting the bench BUT getting 100% of your school paid for as most football players do ... I'll take that deal any day (not so sure my son would but...)

aah, the life of the bench player

baseball - shag some fly balls, spit some seeds

football - get the snot beat out of ya daily often in the mud & rain



CD, do agree on not recruiting bench players, but sometimes the difference is an "eyelash" sometimes no difference at all - ie Zwick

quote:

by CD: You want to play at an elite program? These are often the sacrifices one must make. Extremely high risk and sometimes very high reqwards

while that IS true, you can expect much the same format in progams like Mt Union, Kent or Washington-Jefferson

Being cut is not the same. Some RS players may get cut now with 25% money and reduced roster spots.
Transfering is the answer for a cut player if he wants to play ball or sit on a bench. This is not about being unhappy with playing time but about being cut. The coach has determined he doesn't have a spot for the player or the money to carry that player and is releasing him.

BHD - I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this issue. IMHO - this semester will more than likely be the last time that cuts are a significant issue.

Two reasons:

1) Most coaches don't operate the way you are suggesting. The roster at my son's school is now at exactly 35 and they have 6 2008 signees. The best that I can tell, that perfectly aligns with their expected roster losses next year.

2) Word gets around on the nefarious programs. If a program routinely over recruits and then cuts, I believe they will "cut" themselves out of business. We can disagree on that however. If people still choose to go to a program like that then buyer beware.

Finally, it is misleading to suggest a player who transfers is without option. Transfer to another D1 and sit a year. Transfer to another divsion or Juco or NAIA and play if one is in fact good enough to play after transfer. I still don't get why playing at D1 seems to be the only option for some. Playing is the issue and not the division imho.

44 Your example I understand clearly. It is also a reality. I'm glad you posted it.

It is the dream schools coaches fault! Coaches should recruit the kids they want, not the kids they might want. Whether they offer $$ or not, recruit the kids you want and stick with them.
I know you can't keep every single recruit, like I said before, cuts should be the exception, else the coach isn't doing his job.
It has been posted here many times by the "Dog eat Dog" folks that "the coach is hired to win" as if to give the coach a free pass to over recruit and cut. I do not believe in that attitude, nor do I believe that is the approach of a winner. Any coach that stoops to those tactics in an attempt to put
a winning program together is stomping on the dreams of naive starry eyed kids. It ain't right, you can paint it and dress it up all you want, IT STILL SMELLS LIKE A TURD!

Something else that I have been thinking about.
For those recruits that are being offered preferred walk-on status with the possibility for $$ later...Think about it.
If a coach is able to get you on campus without $$,
why on earth would the coach give you $$ the next year? Hey, you ain't going anywhere!!!!!! If you become an everyday starter, I'm sure most coaches will reward you with something, but everybody else?

As has been posted here before...GO where they want ya! Not might want ya!

There seems to be confusion about walk ons. Anyone who is registered at a college can walk on. Not all are invited. I know a few who decided at the last moment to walk on once they were on campus. Some are guys the coach talked to but some have never talked to the coach.
CD some of those are not options that every one would consider options. Who am I or you to say what a player should accept as an option. In a perfect world I would agree that a cut player made a bad choice and should be punished. Maybe a few lashes while you are at it.

quote:

2) Word gets around on the nefarious programs. If a program routinely over recruits and then cuts, I believe they will "cut" themselves out of business.

Cdad, as mentioned in the article posted earlier, over recruiting apparently was a problem and programs were able to get away with it year after year. However, I do think the new rule will better expose the coaches that do it. It is easy now to just do the math. Before, you might think, hey, bigger roster this year. Not now!

quote:

Something else that I have been thinking about.
For those recruits that are being offered preferred walk-on status with the possibility for $$ later...Think about it.
If a coach is able to get you on campus without $$,
why on earth would the coach give you $$ the next year? Hey, you ain't going anywhere!!!!!! If you become an everyday starter, I'm sure most coaches will reward you with something, but everybody else?

TripleDad I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts but I have to disagree with your take strongly on blaming coaches these past few days. Maybe no one is to blame!

If they promise money the following years and they do not follow up then shame on them. Somewhere our society has to trust the other guy or our society breaks down. There are bad-actors in every pofession. Most are honorable however. Do your homework and you can find out who the good ones are and who the bad ones are.

Again, I don't believe coaches recruit bench players. They may recruit developmental players but bench players would not be recrutird imho. I would not recruit them if I were a coach. I don't see the grand conspiracies that some are posting in this thread.

CD,

I kind of thought the post about the money may give the impression that I have a hair up my azz for these evil coaches. I don't, I believe that most coaches are in fact men of integrity, and truly have the best interest of the kids in mind.

quote:

Do your homework and you can find out who the good ones are and who the bad ones are.

I do hope doing enough homework will help.

quote:

by bbhd: There seems to be confusion about walk ons. Anyone who is registered at a college can walk on.

maybe the confusion is mine ...
a "walk-on" is a team member receiving no athletic aid

"tryout candidates" come from the student body ... their tryout typicaly lasts from a few hours to a couple days

as tripledad suggests, if you've studied the program you are interested in you should know what to expect ... if it doesn't work out, well .. you understood your options going in.

without the "free DI transfer" that SHOULD mean edcucated prospects will be less likely to choose programs using their xxl fall roster as a tryout

with internet access so much info is at your fingertips that would have required real digging a few yrs back

A recruited walkon to me is supposed to be on the spring roster.
A walk on is a kid walking on and taking a shot.

One thing I am having trouble figuring out is the fall roster. We have all seen that these rosters can be very large. How does one figure out how many kids are just walk ons or recruited walk ons?
If someone was considering being a recruited walkon, it would be good information to have, as you could evaluate your risk associated with being a recruited walkon.

Many schools do not even post a "fall" roster and then it will be tagged "2007/2008" or "2008" roster.

Yes, TR

the 2007/2008 thing is confusing too. I have seen it a lot. Makes roster research more difficult. And some times it is hard tell if a kid is a FR/SO, until you see the spring roster.

Many will give your the year of graduation---then you can do the simple math

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
Yes, TR

the 2007/2008 thing is confusing too. I have seen it a lot. Makes roster research more difficult. And some times it is hard tell if a kid is a FR/SO, until you see the spring roster.

When it confuses me, I go the archived season stats, that will tell me the players actual year usually.

Yeah, If they have them, many do not

I am on board with CD on this issue and agree fully with him.
Most college coaches recruit players with the expectation they are coachable, will work hard, and they can and will play in the program.
Seems to me college coaches tell plenty of kids "no" along the way and that "no" is usually ability based, for the skill level required in that program.Since they say "no" likely more often than "yes" or "maybe," absent blatant mistakes, they have to believe what they see.
I think it is also true that many tend to hear that they "can play" in that program and fail to listen carefully to the disclaimers that might be included in the discussion.
All in all, the college coaches we met through our son's experience are darn fine people. Four and five years later, many still say hello when I see them and spend time to catch up.
I speak with conviction when I say our son's former coach, and I believe most coaches, put every ounce, and untold hours, of effort and enthusiasm into providing an environment of making players better, and providing the instruction and opportunities where success, even in the face of intense competition, yields positive individual and team rewards.
Nothing is more disappointing to them than when there is a realization those efforts haven't been successful for a player they recruited.
I recognize there are exceptions but the current ability to research programs should help future college players far beyond what has been available in the past.