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.
aah, the life of the bench playerquote: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...)
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
while that IS true, you can expect much the same format in progams like Mt Union, Kent or Washington-Jeffersonquote: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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I do hope doing enough homework will help.
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.
maybe the confusion is mine ...quote:by bbhd: There seems to be confusion about walk ons. Anyone who is registered at a college can walk on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And some of the guys cut at ASU for example would be starters at many D1 programs.
I read this today on Baseball America....more food for thought !
Georgia, Arizona State Win Big While Others Go Small
Rounding up the early signing period
By Aaron Fitt
November 29, 2007
E-mail Print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: High school top 100 prospects with commitments
Prospects Plus subscribers can see the top 300 prospects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message from college baseball's academic reformers is loud and clear: when it comes to recruiting, bigger is bad.
The NCAA believed that over-recruiting was a major problem in college baseball, one that resulted in players being run off and Academic Progress Rates plummeting. So to prevent schools from bringing in huge classes in August and then forcing half the class to transfer after fall ball, the NCAA instituted fall certification and a 35-man roster cap while requiring players to sit out a year when transferring.
The plan is far from flawless, but it has had the desired effect with most recruiters, if the early signing period is any indication. Coaches are already having to be much more judicious when offering scholarships because missing on player evaluation is very costly, now that all scholarship players must receive a minimum aid package of 25 percent. And almost across the board, recruiting classes have gotten smaller.
"The difference now is you've got to be at the scholarship limit at the beginning of school—there's no gray area," said one recruiting coordinator at a major public school. "The people that are going to overload in the summer will have to unload before school starts. Most of us are going to have to go over by a little bit, but how do you sign 10 more kids (than you have roster spots for)?"
Many recruiting coordinators expressed bewilderment that a few schools were still able to sign 20 or more recruits, but there are mitigating factors that can make it wise to cast a wide net.
Aggressive Approach
Georgia and Arizona State brought in two of the larger classes in the country, netting 21 and 24 recruits, respectively. But both schools are loaded with seniors and talented juniors who they expect to lose to the draft in June, meaning both will have plenty of holes to fill.
Of course, neither school expects all of its signees to bypass the draft in favor of college, because both signed a number of high-profile recruits (see our top 100 and top 300 prospects lists). Georgia boasts seven signees among the national top 100 (counting outfielder Xavier Avery, who will sign with the Georgia football team and could play both sports in college), while Arizona State has four, including a pair of top-10 recruits in Florida first baseman Eric Hosmer and California catcher Kyle Skipworth.
The aggressive approach is nothing new for the Sun Devils, who signed 26 recruits (six of them in the top 100) a year ago knowing full well that many of them were unlikely to make it to campus. Indeed, ASU netted just one of its top-100 signees (69th-ranked righthander Seth Blair) while losing its five top-35 recruits to the draft.
But rolling the dice with elite recruits can also pay major dividends, as it did for Arizona State in 2004. That year, the Sun Devils signed seven top-100 recruits and kept four of them—Ike Davis (12), Preston Paramore (26), Matt Hall (41), Brett Wallace (69)—while losing three—righthanders Michael Bowden (24) and Jeff Lyman (44) and lefty Mark Pawelek (74).
So even if Hosmer and Skipworth sign pro contracts—and while there are indications Hosmer wants to go to school, Skipworth seems likely to sign—Arizona State is in good shape to bring in a solid nucleus, potentially including slick middle infielder Riccio Torrez (56), corner bats Zach Wilson (161) and Abe Ruiz (145), athletic outfielder John Ruettiger (210), towering righthander Ray Hanson (208), and two-way players Jordan Swagerty (61), Brad Hand (140) and Jaff Decker (150). Decker is a hitting machine who de-committed from UCLA and opted for conference-rival ASU.
"The top-end guys jump out at you, but the strength (of the recruiting class) is the middle to the end of it," Arizona State recruiting coordinator Josh Holliday said. "Those guys are pretty stinking good ballplayers."
Georgia, meanwhile, focused on landing most of the top talent in its own baseball-rich state—16 of its 21 signees are in-state products. The Bulldogs could lose their entire weekend rotation and closer after the spring, and recruiting coordinator Jason Eller said they signed a true Southeastern Conference weekend rotation.
Among the power arms that committed to Georgia were 19th-ranked lefty Brett DeVall (who commands an 88-92 mph fastball and excellent slider); No. 20 Michael Palazzone (a projectable righthander who already reaches 94 and flashes a plus downer curveball); No. 27 Cecil Tanner (a raw righty with an excellent sinking fastball); and No. 44 Zeke Spruill (a competitive righty with a quality three-pitch mix).
"We were blessed this year because our state was loaded with those guys," Eller said. "They were right in our own backyard, and it's our job to take care of our state, and a lot of them wanted to be Bulldogs.
"The odds of us keeping all these guys are very slim. If we get half of them, I think we'd be very happy. We've got a lot of draft-eligible juniors that are hoping to have big seasons and sign, and this (freshman) class that we brought (in August) in is a little smaller; that allowed this class to be a little bigger."
That depth makes Georgia and Arizona State two of the biggest winners from the early signing period.
RECRUITING RATIONS
• Like Avery, Sarasota (Fla.) High shortstop Casey Kelly (15) is a two-sport star who figures to sign with a major football program. But while Avery has made it clear he intends to commit to Georgia, the son of former big leaguer Pat Kelly is one of the few elite recruits who is still up for grabs.
• Florida coach Kevin O'Sullivan continued to work as hard on the recruiting trail as he did when he was an assistant coach at Clemson, and his first class with the Gators looks flush with talented players who have a good chance to reach campus. Florida signed six players in the top 100 but just one in the top 20 (lefthander Nick Maronde). The other five rank in the back third of the top 100—territory that is usually much safer from the draft.
"I feel as good as I guess you can right now," O'Sullivan said. "They're all good students who want to go to school."
• Other big winners, according to coaches surveyed informally, are Vanderbilt, UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Texas and Oregon State.
Vandy's class stood out for its arms, but also for its balance. Electric-armed righthander Sonny Gray (6) will be coveted on draft day thanks to a 94 mph fastball and hard hammer curveball, but scouts are always uneasy about Vanderbilt commitments, which could cause him to drop in the draft and wind up at school. For the same reason, it's tough to bet against the Commodores landing 6-foot-5 lefty Grayson Garvin (55), third baseman Jason Esposito (63) and outfielder Matt Marquis (80). Rival recruiting coordinators also applauded Vanderbilt for landing solid college players like Minnesota corner bat Joseph Loftus. The wild card of the class is righthander Navery Moore (174), who could be drafted in the first five rounds if he recovers from Tommy John surgery that he had during his junior season. Moore flashed a fastball up to 93 mph in August, 2006 before his junior season.
• North Atlanta High outfielder Jay Austin (114) de-committed from Georgia and opted for Southern California, giving the Trojans another very talented signee. One rival recruiting coordinator dubbed Austin the "Cedric Hunter of this draft," based on his quick bat and solid outfield skills. Unlike Hunter, who signed with the Padres in the '06 draft, Austin is a plus runner who can handle center field, which raises his pro stock considerably. Austin, 6-foot-6 righthander Mike Tonkin (53) and raw-but-powerful first baseman Ricky Oropresa (91) are the key to USC's class, because top-10 signees Tim Beckham and Aaron Hicks will be tough to usher through the draft.
"Southern Cal's class sounds good, but Beckham and Hicks aren't coming," the recruiting coordinator said. "Hicks has been up to the 94-96 area and flashed a slider in the mid-to-upper 80s."
• Not to be outdone by in-state rival Arizona State, Arizona landed an impressive group headlined by lefthander Kyle Lobstein (7), who has run his fastball up to 92 to go along with a promising hard cutter in the 80-82 range and a picture-perfect delivery. Lobstein struggled offensively this summer but will play both ways if he chooses to bypass the draft in favor of school; and the Wildcats are optimistic he will do just that, despite his high profile. Anthony Gose (22) is another impact two-way player who has signed with Arizona. In addition to being one of the fastest runners in the nation, Gose has touched 95 mph off the mound.
• 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."
Georgia, Arizona State Win Big While Others Go Small
Rounding up the early signing period
By Aaron Fitt
November 29, 2007
E-mail Print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: High school top 100 prospects with commitments
Prospects Plus subscribers can see the top 300 prospects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message from college baseball's academic reformers is loud and clear: when it comes to recruiting, bigger is bad.
The NCAA believed that over-recruiting was a major problem in college baseball, one that resulted in players being run off and Academic Progress Rates plummeting. So to prevent schools from bringing in huge classes in August and then forcing half the class to transfer after fall ball, the NCAA instituted fall certification and a 35-man roster cap while requiring players to sit out a year when transferring.
The plan is far from flawless, but it has had the desired effect with most recruiters, if the early signing period is any indication. Coaches are already having to be much more judicious when offering scholarships because missing on player evaluation is very costly, now that all scholarship players must receive a minimum aid package of 25 percent. And almost across the board, recruiting classes have gotten smaller.
"The difference now is you've got to be at the scholarship limit at the beginning of school—there's no gray area," said one recruiting coordinator at a major public school. "The people that are going to overload in the summer will have to unload before school starts. Most of us are going to have to go over by a little bit, but how do you sign 10 more kids (than you have roster spots for)?"
Many recruiting coordinators expressed bewilderment that a few schools were still able to sign 20 or more recruits, but there are mitigating factors that can make it wise to cast a wide net.
Aggressive Approach
Georgia and Arizona State brought in two of the larger classes in the country, netting 21 and 24 recruits, respectively. But both schools are loaded with seniors and talented juniors who they expect to lose to the draft in June, meaning both will have plenty of holes to fill.
Of course, neither school expects all of its signees to bypass the draft in favor of college, because both signed a number of high-profile recruits (see our top 100 and top 300 prospects lists). Georgia boasts seven signees among the national top 100 (counting outfielder Xavier Avery, who will sign with the Georgia football team and could play both sports in college), while Arizona State has four, including a pair of top-10 recruits in Florida first baseman Eric Hosmer and California catcher Kyle Skipworth.
The aggressive approach is nothing new for the Sun Devils, who signed 26 recruits (six of them in the top 100) a year ago knowing full well that many of them were unlikely to make it to campus. Indeed, ASU netted just one of its top-100 signees (69th-ranked righthander Seth Blair) while losing its five top-35 recruits to the draft.
But rolling the dice with elite recruits can also pay major dividends, as it did for Arizona State in 2004. That year, the Sun Devils signed seven top-100 recruits and kept four of them—Ike Davis (12), Preston Paramore (26), Matt Hall (41), Brett Wallace (69)—while losing three—righthanders Michael Bowden (24) and Jeff Lyman (44) and lefty Mark Pawelek (74).
So even if Hosmer and Skipworth sign pro contracts—and while there are indications Hosmer wants to go to school, Skipworth seems likely to sign—Arizona State is in good shape to bring in a solid nucleus, potentially including slick middle infielder Riccio Torrez (56), corner bats Zach Wilson (161) and Abe Ruiz (145), athletic outfielder John Ruettiger (210), towering righthander Ray Hanson (208), and two-way players Jordan Swagerty (61), Brad Hand (140) and Jaff Decker (150). Decker is a hitting machine who de-committed from UCLA and opted for conference-rival ASU.
"The top-end guys jump out at you, but the strength (of the recruiting class) is the middle to the end of it," Arizona State recruiting coordinator Josh Holliday said. "Those guys are pretty stinking good ballplayers."
Georgia, meanwhile, focused on landing most of the top talent in its own baseball-rich state—16 of its 21 signees are in-state products. The Bulldogs could lose their entire weekend rotation and closer after the spring, and recruiting coordinator Jason Eller said they signed a true Southeastern Conference weekend rotation.
Among the power arms that committed to Georgia were 19th-ranked lefty Brett DeVall (who commands an 88-92 mph fastball and excellent slider); No. 20 Michael Palazzone (a projectable righthander who already reaches 94 and flashes a plus downer curveball); No. 27 Cecil Tanner (a raw righty with an excellent sinking fastball); and No. 44 Zeke Spruill (a competitive righty with a quality three-pitch mix).
"We were blessed this year because our state was loaded with those guys," Eller said. "They were right in our own backyard, and it's our job to take care of our state, and a lot of them wanted to be Bulldogs.
"The odds of us keeping all these guys are very slim. If we get half of them, I think we'd be very happy. We've got a lot of draft-eligible juniors that are hoping to have big seasons and sign, and this (freshman) class that we brought (in August) in is a little smaller; that allowed this class to be a little bigger."
That depth makes Georgia and Arizona State two of the biggest winners from the early signing period.
RECRUITING RATIONS
• Like Avery, Sarasota (Fla.) High shortstop Casey Kelly (15) is a two-sport star who figures to sign with a major football program. But while Avery has made it clear he intends to commit to Georgia, the son of former big leaguer Pat Kelly is one of the few elite recruits who is still up for grabs.
• Florida coach Kevin O'Sullivan continued to work as hard on the recruiting trail as he did when he was an assistant coach at Clemson, and his first class with the Gators looks flush with talented players who have a good chance to reach campus. Florida signed six players in the top 100 but just one in the top 20 (lefthander Nick Maronde). The other five rank in the back third of the top 100—territory that is usually much safer from the draft.
"I feel as good as I guess you can right now," O'Sullivan said. "They're all good students who want to go to school."
• Other big winners, according to coaches surveyed informally, are Vanderbilt, UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Texas and Oregon State.
Vandy's class stood out for its arms, but also for its balance. Electric-armed righthander Sonny Gray (6) will be coveted on draft day thanks to a 94 mph fastball and hard hammer curveball, but scouts are always uneasy about Vanderbilt commitments, which could cause him to drop in the draft and wind up at school. For the same reason, it's tough to bet against the Commodores landing 6-foot-5 lefty Grayson Garvin (55), third baseman Jason Esposito (63) and outfielder Matt Marquis (80). Rival recruiting coordinators also applauded Vanderbilt for landing solid college players like Minnesota corner bat Joseph Loftus. The wild card of the class is righthander Navery Moore (174), who could be drafted in the first five rounds if he recovers from Tommy John surgery that he had during his junior season. Moore flashed a fastball up to 93 mph in August, 2006 before his junior season.
• North Atlanta High outfielder Jay Austin (114) de-committed from Georgia and opted for Southern California, giving the Trojans another very talented signee. One rival recruiting coordinator dubbed Austin the "Cedric Hunter of this draft," based on his quick bat and solid outfield skills. Unlike Hunter, who signed with the Padres in the '06 draft, Austin is a plus runner who can handle center field, which raises his pro stock considerably. Austin, 6-foot-6 righthander Mike Tonkin (53) and raw-but-powerful first baseman Ricky Oropresa (91) are the key to USC's class, because top-10 signees Tim Beckham and Aaron Hicks will be tough to usher through the draft.
"Southern Cal's class sounds good, but Beckham and Hicks aren't coming," the recruiting coordinator said. "Hicks has been up to the 94-96 area and flashed a slider in the mid-to-upper 80s."
• Not to be outdone by in-state rival Arizona State, Arizona landed an impressive group headlined by lefthander Kyle Lobstein (7), who has run his fastball up to 92 to go along with a promising hard cutter in the 80-82 range and a picture-perfect delivery. Lobstein struggled offensively this summer but will play both ways if he chooses to bypass the draft in favor of school; and the Wildcats are optimistic he will do just that, despite his high profile. Anthony Gose (22) is another impact two-way player who has signed with Arizona. In addition to being one of the fastest runners in the nation, Gose has touched 95 mph off the mound.
• 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."
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
And some of the guys cut at ASU for example would be starters at many D1 programs.
BHD, I agree with you. I think my prior posts about watching games at Sunken Diamond speak volumes about that program.
For me, this isn't a new issue. I first became aware of it, as I recall, in the Fall of 1999. At that point, I had been following a couple of terrific local high schoolers. One committed/NLI to ASU, one to Miami.
Both were at other schools by January.
That is when I did some research and followed articles and information that each player arrived, found out at the end of the Fall they would not be playing, and transfered.
I fully agree the new rule impacts now in a very different way. I feel badly for any player in that situation. Over time, that reality and the actions of these types of programs might work to their detriment. To date it hasn't.
I agree completely. Having just gone through the process with my son,I can see how exceptionally talented young men can get disappointed very quicky, especially after reading the published "2009 early signing" rosters for the schools reporting to(CollegeBaseballInsider.com.) I was "floored" when I saw a few schools with over 20 incoming 2009 signees.
Before my son verbally committed to a Division 1 school in the MAAC, I asked the head coach some questions about the size of the freshman/transfer class was for 2009, among other things, of course. Just as much as the coaches were evaluating my son, we were doing some evaluations, also; of the coaches, academics/campus envirionment/cost/$. Finding the best "fit" has been the objective from the start. This web site can be very valuable in helping parents help their sons/daughters in this regards.
I can now sit back and watch the next chapter in my son's life unfold, knowing his mother and I factored in "life after college baseball" in the overall decision. He's beginning by understanding that playing time will be earned and that his overall college experience will be some of the best times of his life.
Before my son verbally committed to a Division 1 school in the MAAC, I asked the head coach some questions about the size of the freshman/transfer class was for 2009, among other things, of course. Just as much as the coaches were evaluating my son, we were doing some evaluations, also; of the coaches, academics/campus envirionment/cost/$. Finding the best "fit" has been the objective from the start. This web site can be very valuable in helping parents help their sons/daughters in this regards.
I can now sit back and watch the next chapter in my son's life unfold, knowing his mother and I factored in "life after college baseball" in the overall decision. He's beginning by understanding that playing time will be earned and that his overall college experience will be some of the best times of his life.
Infl that is the only issue I see with the new rules.
Before as you know a coach could give a player a relwase if he wasn't going to make the team and I thought that was fair. I have received PM's from parents who's sons have been recently cut and they are still in a state of confusion as to what the next step is. I am thankful we personnaly don't have to deal with these issues.
Before as you know a coach could give a player a relwase if he wasn't going to make the team and I thought that was fair. I have received PM's from parents who's sons have been recently cut and they are still in a state of confusion as to what the next step is. I am thankful we personnaly don't have to deal with these issues.
CREATIVE MATHEMATICS
http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=746895
Either there are a large group of "exception rule academic" players in this group or the coach did a great job on 25% offers, or both.
Thats almost the size of an entire roster. If you assumed all baseball monies, then it equates to 6 of the 11.7 on one recruiting class?
If you also assume a 35 man roster, then this coach expects a near 75% turnover in his current roster, which is way above the average change of personnel.
There are 33 on the current roster, and maybe 19 draft eligibles for 2008, of which maybe 6-8 may be drafted according to historical draft data. This coach may end up with 50 kids a year from now.
If that was possible, what do you think will happen to the draft eligibles that don't get drafted.
There are 6 seniors who have to leave, so prior to the draft, the numbers are 27 plus 24 for 51 less the existing eligibles and incoming kids who opt to not attend.
Are they banking on that number being 16 players??
http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=746895
Either there are a large group of "exception rule academic" players in this group or the coach did a great job on 25% offers, or both.
Thats almost the size of an entire roster. If you assumed all baseball monies, then it equates to 6 of the 11.7 on one recruiting class?
If you also assume a 35 man roster, then this coach expects a near 75% turnover in his current roster, which is way above the average change of personnel.
There are 33 on the current roster, and maybe 19 draft eligibles for 2008, of which maybe 6-8 may be drafted according to historical draft data. This coach may end up with 50 kids a year from now.
If that was possible, what do you think will happen to the draft eligibles that don't get drafted.
There are 6 seniors who have to leave, so prior to the draft, the numbers are 27 plus 24 for 51 less the existing eligibles and incoming kids who opt to not attend.
Are they banking on that number being 16 players??
Here is the link to the ASU official site. If you click on the PDF version of the roster, you can see which players are draft eligible. I count 20 out of the 33 rostered players. There is also a breakdown by class, position, state, and handedness of throwing and hitting. There are only 4 sophomores, which I suppose correlates with the departure last year of the recruiting coordinator. There are 10 freshmen. So it seems likely that few of the draft eligibles could expect to receive baseball money next year.
ASU site
ASU site
It is not uncommon for coaches at some programs to sit down with many players in their junior year and tell them if they get drafted, they are considered gone.
My son was told, at both schools offering him a scholarship, unless injured, he was there for 3 years. They expected him to get drafted and leave as a junior.
This is how recruiters plan in advance. I don't know much about the recruits listed, but I would imagine some of them won't set foot on campus. Some current players expected to get drafted, if it doesn't happen, most likely will be asked to move on.
Every once in a while a player that is drafted, one who has made a significant impact for the team, not happy with is draft position, will get the ok to stay. He most likely, with his experience, be more of an asset staying rather than leaving.
I am just relaying our son's experience and others that we know of who knew after 3 years they were gone.
My son was told, at both schools offering him a scholarship, unless injured, he was there for 3 years. They expected him to get drafted and leave as a junior.
This is how recruiters plan in advance. I don't know much about the recruits listed, but I would imagine some of them won't set foot on campus. Some current players expected to get drafted, if it doesn't happen, most likely will be asked to move on.
Every once in a while a player that is drafted, one who has made a significant impact for the team, not happy with is draft position, will get the ok to stay. He most likely, with his experience, be more of an asset staying rather than leaving.
I am just relaying our son's experience and others that we know of who knew after 3 years they were gone.
.
And that 25 does not include any unexpected, or recruited walk on JC transfers...or recruited walk on frosh...
The irony is that this is almost exactly my scenario from earlier in the thread....
I'd be willing to bet that a number of these recruits are simply and perhaps blindly betting on their talent to beat the numbers game and the odds...
At one level it is straight up pure competition, may the best man win...
On the other hand...one can only hope that all these players fully understand the realities...
Question...maybe you trim at the top (seniors)...but what happens to your APR? Between the draft and the upper class trim...does anyone graduate?
44
.
And that 25 does not include any unexpected, or recruited walk on JC transfers...or recruited walk on frosh...
The irony is that this is almost exactly my scenario from earlier in the thread....
I'd be willing to bet that a number of these recruits are simply and perhaps blindly betting on their talent to beat the numbers game and the odds...
At one level it is straight up pure competition, may the best man win...
On the other hand...one can only hope that all these players fully understand the realities...
Question...maybe you trim at the top (seniors)...but what happens to your APR? Between the draft and the upper class trim...does anyone graduate?
44.
Bum, Jr. had one player from his Summer team break a verbal commitment to another Pac-10 school only to commit to ASU. Other than the moral argument was this a wise move? 
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the APR is based on academic progress at the time the student is an athlete (meeting academic eligibility during that time). It is not based on graduation rates.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
Bum, Jr. had one player from his Summer team break a verbal commitment to another Pac-10 school only to commit to ASU. Other than the moral argument was this a wise move?
There maybe more to the story than just breaking verbal agreement, such as grades, SAT scores, school not being able to get him into the school, or finances.
Short of that, if he just broke the verbal, as coaches talk, if he does not make it at ASU due to over recruiting, he may be hard pressed to find another good home, if he happens to get cut.
TPM,
Good question. I am interested in the answer to your question also.
I thought that a major reason for the recent changes to the transfer and scholarship rules was to increase APR and graduation rates.
Good question. I am interested in the answer to your question also.
I thought that a major reason for the recent changes to the transfer and scholarship rules was to increase APR and graduation rates.
As far as I know, graduation rates are based on a rolling period, 4-6 years maybe? That's why schools that have a lot of drafted players aren't penalized. I know most of son's teammates, even the drafted ones, have graduated.
A transfer out of the school is a strike on the program that player will never graduate from that school. I remember being told that son HAD to return to graduate at Clemson to be counted. I am pretty sure that transfer in players are NOT counted in the APR. However, that may mean one less player to count in the equation, that's why many coaches don't encourage transfering out, that's what hurts most. Also, IMO, the sit out transfer rule, may have been put in place to prevent a player (let's say a senior)from leaving that school.
And without looking, pretty sure the APR is only based on current rosters. The student must be on track to graduate, in other words a junior MUST be a true academic junior. Basically my son at this point, I guess, is considered a "drop out" and not sure how that affects the APR. He does have an opportunity to come back to graduate.
It's hard ot make assumptions regarding large recruiting classes, we don't know what the players were told when they were recruited. How about, "you have an opportunity to be an impact player, but if that doesn't happen in 3 years, you will no longer be here". Or "we'll give you 3 years here to play". 3 years of college ball at a top 10 program with the capability of going to Omaha each year, might just work for some.
A transfer out of the school is a strike on the program that player will never graduate from that school. I remember being told that son HAD to return to graduate at Clemson to be counted. I am pretty sure that transfer in players are NOT counted in the APR. However, that may mean one less player to count in the equation, that's why many coaches don't encourage transfering out, that's what hurts most. Also, IMO, the sit out transfer rule, may have been put in place to prevent a player (let's say a senior)from leaving that school.
And without looking, pretty sure the APR is only based on current rosters. The student must be on track to graduate, in other words a junior MUST be a true academic junior. Basically my son at this point, I guess, is considered a "drop out" and not sure how that affects the APR. He does have an opportunity to come back to graduate.
It's hard ot make assumptions regarding large recruiting classes, we don't know what the players were told when they were recruited. How about, "you have an opportunity to be an impact player, but if that doesn't happen in 3 years, you will no longer be here". Or "we'll give you 3 years here to play". 3 years of college ball at a top 10 program with the capability of going to Omaha each year, might just work for some.
TPM,
I know your posts are always meant to be helpful and honest...but if what I understand you to be saying is true I'm surprised you or any parent for that matter would sign with a program that says...we don't fund senior years if you get drafted? I understand the reality of good players signing after their junior year and I would understand if coaches said they were ready for that contingency...but you said
"It is not uncommon for coaches at some programs to sit down with many players in their junior year and tell them if they get drafted, they are considered gone."
My son was told, at both schools offering him a scholarship, unless injured, he was there for 3 years. They expected him to get drafted and leave as a junior."
What I hear you saying is they told him he wouldn't be offered a scholarship if he decided not to sign???? Is this what you are saying?
I know your posts are always meant to be helpful and honest...but if what I understand you to be saying is true I'm surprised you or any parent for that matter would sign with a program that says...we don't fund senior years if you get drafted? I understand the reality of good players signing after their junior year and I would understand if coaches said they were ready for that contingency...but you said
"It is not uncommon for coaches at some programs to sit down with many players in their junior year and tell them if they get drafted, they are considered gone."
My son was told, at both schools offering him a scholarship, unless injured, he was there for 3 years. They expected him to get drafted and leave as a junior."
What I hear you saying is they told him he wouldn't be offered a scholarship if he decided not to sign???? Is this what you are saying?
mrmom,
yup, basically that is what I am saying. I do beleive that Fungo has posted something about that a while back.
My son was considered a prospect in HS and could have been drafted out of HS. It was understood from the beginning that his large scholarship (in lieu of going pro) wasn't going to be around come 4th year. I am sure that if he was drafted and did not sign, he would return with significantly lower scholarship $$$, maybe almost nothing. We were prepared if we had to pay his last year but we knew he would be ready to leave as a junior. My son gave them 3 years as discussed and they prepared him for the draft. Both sides lived up to their commitments.
Remember, scholarships are given out for ONE year only.
How do you think coaches work their future figures? Why do you think that some programs recruit players that most likely will not be around for 4 years? Why do you think players get cut? Why do you see so very few seniors in many programs?
At another school recruiting my son, they showed us a chart and the current junior players who were expected to be drafted were not even figured into the next years equation. The money they were giving son belonged to a current player. By the way, that player was drafted and left.
Don't let this be a shock to you. I don't think it's discussed much here because, what is discussed at recruiting time is private and personal and should be respected while you are attending that program. Many here know that to be true. That should not put any stain on any program, but one should understand these things happen and part of the recruiting process.
Some coaches are honest and up front from the beginning, which they should be, others don't say anything until the time arrives. Others see a player progress farther than they expected and if they need his scholarship money, most likely they will have a discussion on what teh players intends to do.
yup, basically that is what I am saying. I do beleive that Fungo has posted something about that a while back.
My son was considered a prospect in HS and could have been drafted out of HS. It was understood from the beginning that his large scholarship (in lieu of going pro) wasn't going to be around come 4th year. I am sure that if he was drafted and did not sign, he would return with significantly lower scholarship $$$, maybe almost nothing. We were prepared if we had to pay his last year but we knew he would be ready to leave as a junior. My son gave them 3 years as discussed and they prepared him for the draft. Both sides lived up to their commitments.
Remember, scholarships are given out for ONE year only.
How do you think coaches work their future figures? Why do you think that some programs recruit players that most likely will not be around for 4 years? Why do you think players get cut? Why do you see so very few seniors in many programs?
At another school recruiting my son, they showed us a chart and the current junior players who were expected to be drafted were not even figured into the next years equation. The money they were giving son belonged to a current player. By the way, that player was drafted and left.
Don't let this be a shock to you. I don't think it's discussed much here because, what is discussed at recruiting time is private and personal and should be respected while you are attending that program. Many here know that to be true. That should not put any stain on any program, but one should understand these things happen and part of the recruiting process.
Some coaches are honest and up front from the beginning, which they should be, others don't say anything until the time arrives. Others see a player progress farther than they expected and if they need his scholarship money, most likely they will have a discussion on what teh players intends to do.
TPM- I think your son would have had his scholarship continued had he stayed for his senior year, as the coach ultimately wants winning players. Clem. lost alot of players and your son's return, IMHO whould have been welcomed.
quote:Originally posted by puma1:
TPM- I think your son would have had his scholarship continued had he stayed for his senior year, as the coach ultimately wants winning players. Clem. lost alot of players and your son's return, IMHO whould have been welcomed.
Puma,
Maybe but most likely not as he was one of the ones expected to go. What hurts programs is when a recruited player that you don't expect to get drafted does in later rounds then decides not to come.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that this is generally the norm there, not every player given an opportunity to play is expected to leave after 3 years. I gave my son as an exmaple as to what does occur in many programs.