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.
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.
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'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 transferquote: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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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.
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 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 .
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.
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 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.
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???
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.
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.
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
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
I nominate ya for a gold star on thatquote: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.
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" (
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."
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
.
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.
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!
Please
there should be no comparison, when it comes to cutting players, between pro and college! TripleDad,
Well said
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!