Skip to main content

From LA Times. I bet a lot of HS players who were headed to D1 programs will be switching to D2/3 forcing talent out at the lower levels. Just a thought.

Shortened MLB draft will create a roster logjam for college teams

UCLA head coach John Savage talks to his team during an NCAA college baseball tournament super regional game in Los Angeles.
UCLA head coach John Savage talks to his team during an NCAA college baseball tournament super regional game in Los Angeles, Friday, June 7, 2019. Michigan won 3-2. .
(Ringo Chiu / Associated Press)

Their sport won’t return to action until next February, but repercussions from the coronavirus crisis already have college baseball coaches bracing for a potentially seismic impact.

Usually, college baseball serves as a river connecting the amateur and professional ranks, ferrying players to MLB clubs in a strong and steady stream. But when the league, in an unprecedented cost-saving move, downsized the 2020 MLB draft from 40 rounds to five, it was as if a hastily built dam had suddenly clogged the whole system.

By the time the two-day event ends June 11, only a fraction of draft-eligible college and high school prospects will be offered professional contracts. The rest will be backlogged in a reservoir of talent, threatening to flood college baseball with more players than it is designed to handle.

“In the big picture, it’s something that we’ve never calculated or prepared for,” UCLA coach John Savage said: “It’s so fluid, we’re changing our roster and the looks of it literally day to day. It could lead to mass confusion here in a month or so.”

 

The problem is unique to baseball, the only NCAA sport whose major pro league drastically altered its amateur draft this summer. Even under normal circumstances, managing college rosters is “a shell game,” USC coach Jason Gill said, forcing coaches to sign recruiting classes months before knowing how many of their draft-eligible players (juniors and 21-year-old sophomores) might be drafted and signed.

Add in a 2020 draft one-eighth its normal length and a meager $20,000 signing bonus cap for undrafted players, and “all those predictions are getting fouled up across the country,” Gill said. “There’s a lot of layers.” The logjam will swell even larger because the NCAA will allow 2020 seniors in spring sports to return in 2021.

 

Ballooning college rosters could stretch programs’ resources thin. The limit of 11.7 scholarships per team is not expected to change even though scholarship money earmarked for incoming freshmen may instead go to returning players. An overcrowded transfer market could exceed demand, potentially leaving some players with nowhere to go.

 

 

 

And if the NCAA doesn’t adjust its strict roster rules, which currently cap baseball teams at 35 players and allow only 27 to receive scholarship money, many coaches could be forced to cut players just to remain roster-compliant.

“There’s no way a majority of us can get under 35,” Gill said. “There’s going to be some phone calls that have to be made to families that are going to be unfortunate.”

Gill and Savage believe their programs will exceed the 35-man roster max by only a handful of players, depending on how the draft shakes out. But they know other schools could face rosters as large as 45 or 50 next year.

“That’s what we’re trying to get the NCAA, as a coaches group, to understand. If you don’t make some relief legislatively, there are going to be kids run off of rosters through no fault of their own.”
TRACY SMITH, ARIZONA STATE BASEBALL COACH
 

“Can you imagine your son getting a call in July — after they’ve been committed to a school for three years and signed a national letter of intent back in November — that not only do they not have a scholarship but they don’t have a spot on that team?” said Craig Keilitz, executive director of the American Baseball Coaches Assn., which issued recommendations that the NCAA temporarily waive the 35-man roster cap and increase the maximum number of scholarship-eligible players from 27 to 32.

Keilitz continued: “I mean, that’s reality unless we make this change.”

Arizona State coach Tracy Smith echoed similarly dire predictions.

“If [the NCAA] says, ‘We’re not going to do anything,’ you’re going to see a massive amount of kids enter the NCAA [transfer] portal on the suggestion of coaches,” Smith said. “That’s what we’re trying to get the NCAA, as a coaches group, to understand. If you don’t make some relief legislatively, there are going to be kids run off of rosters through no fault of their own.”

 

The expectation within the sport is that the NCAA will approve the ABCA’s baseline proposals. But after the NCAA Division I Council failed to address any baseball management issues during its latest meeting May 20, the earliest that rule changes can be considered is at the council’s next meeting, June 17 — six days after the draft is completed.

“College baseball needs clarity,” said Kendall Rogers, co-managing editor of D1Baseball.com. “You can get away with not voting on it last week. But if you’re not voting on roster issues by June 17, you’re going to have a lot of kids and a lot of coaches in limbo leading up to school.”

Rule changes won’t erase all complications, either. Rogers expects the transfer portal, which he said had already seen 1,000 entrants since January, to “explode when the draft is over” — especially if more schools eliminate their baseball programs, as Bowling Green and Furman did this month.

 

Junior colleges stand to be a big benefactor from the shortened draft and Division 1 logjam. High school players who expected to be drafted, and signed, after the fifth round could play at a junior college and be draft-eligible in 2021. If they attend a four-year school, they wouldn’t be draft-eligible until 2023.

Yet, Rogers said, “there are going to be a lot of kids that will end up having to hang up their cleats and not play baseball. There’s going to be a lot of careers ended.”

Loyal upperclassmen role players will have few options because they are too old to transfer to junior college and unlikely to be desired by other programs.

“Running juniors off and seniors off, it’s just — boy oh boy,” Savage said, at a loss for words. “That’s what I fear.”

 

College baseball could benefit in the long run from a reduced draft and expected minor league contraction. But there will be a short-term cost first, one that will affect almost every player, coach and program.

“The silver lining to this whole craziness [is that it] could change things for the better for college baseball, who knows?” Keilitz said. “But I wish we didn’t have to go through it.”

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

BOF,

That has been the 800-lbs gorilla in the room that everybody has been talking around for months....thanks for finally letting it out!      I've been talking to some folks offline about this cause and effect in their recruiting efforts.  Hopefully they see this article.  I think you are spot on.  JUCO, D2 and D3 and possibly NAIA schools are going to be getting a quantity of studs like they never seen.

Even if a recruit has MLB draftable talent, folks are going to be faced with this "talent cascade".   Because that potential MLB draftee doesn't know if he is going in the top 5 rounds or signed to a contract.  Let's say he doesn't.  Now he is looking to sign at P5 schools or possibly JUCO..   Another P5/JUCO recruit is now being pushed down to D1 mid-major level...and so on.... and so on.    The talent cascade is going to effect everyone at every level.   There will be more talent at the lowest collegiate levels that has not been there before.  Playing time will be at an all time premium.   Those that love the game will adjust or find other options.

As always, JMO.  I hope you and the family are doing well.

PitchingFan & adbono,

You guys may be "geniuses in the know", but many others don't understand or think this is going to effect them.  They don't have your experience here. 

I've had at least 10-12 side conversations in the last few months with folks being recruited at the mid to low-D1 level as well as D3 who don't understand how difficult it is to get recruited and win some playing time in the best of times.   I've tried to explain they are probably better off over 4 years to weigh the D3s higher, get playing time and leverage their academic numbers to get recruited.   Most of us that have been around a while and read HSBBWeb daily understand the value of any college playing time and going to a program that wants you.   There are a lot of people that read HSBBWeb but many are not getting the real message or understanding the real implications.

JMO

Last edited by fenwaysouth

Fenway, I think you are missing the boat where me & PitchingFan are concerned relative to this topic. A couple months ago we (and some others) saw the writing on the wall and (on this board) said that this was going to affect everyone - and we explained how. We were met with a lot of pushback, disbelief, and criticism for being negative, knee jerk reactionary, etc.  It can be pretty frustrating to put a knowledgeable message out there in an attempt to help and have holes shot in it by people with lesser experience. You should know that as well as anyone. So no need for the “genius” poke. 

I started a thread shortly after the NCAA decision to grant all current players an additional year.  It created a lot of controversy (maybe because I used the word Slaughter in the thread title).  

A little more analysis:  What will be interesting, is to see what MLB is experimenting with here.  They want to know how many will sign at next to $0 bonus.  While the draft is only 5 rounds, a lost year is a lost year.  If you were a college junior looking at signing in rounds 8-10 at 125-150k, does taking an additional college year make more sense than signing for 20k this year.  NO is the answer.  If you are taking the gamble that this(baseball) will work out for you professionally, the lost year on the back end is worth far more than the signing bonus most will get up front.

Additionally, if you are a draft eligible guy that entered the portal and can't find anywhere to play in college because of the logjam, maybe the best answer is to sign as an undrafted free agent.  Economy is going to be crap, new jobs will be hard to find, work a part-time job, get the folks to sponsor you for a year and see if it works. 

Last edited by Pedaldad
@Pedaldad posted:

I started a thread shortly after the NCAA decision to grant all current players an additional year.  It created a lot of controversy (maybe because I used the word Slaughter in the thread title).  

A little more analysis:  What will be interesting, is to see what MLB is experimenting with here.  They want to know how many will sign at next to $0 bonus.  While the draft is only 5 rounds, a lost year is a lost year.  If you were a college junior looking at signing in rounds 8-10 at 125-150k, does taking an additional college year make more sense than signing for 20k this year.  NO is the answer.  If you are taking the gamble that this(baseball) will work out for you professionally, the lost year on the back end is worth far more than the signing bonus most will get up front.

Additionally, if you are a draft eligible guy that entered the portal and can't find anywhere to play in college because of the logjam, maybe the best answer is to sign as an undrafted free agent.  Economy is going to be crap, new jobs will be hard to find, work a part-time job, get the folks to sponsor you for a year and see if it works. 

This is exactly what I have been wondering about.  Would appreciate thoughts from those in the know as to how many of these undrafted players does MLB need/want, and why wouldn't some college upperclassmen take this chance - knowing that the draft is unlikely to greatly expand in the future.

Quite honestly it doesn't take a rocket scientist (shout out to Elon and his amazing involvement in making history yesterday) to figure out what is happening and what's more than likely to come of this in the next year or 2. Jeez....you don't even have to search the web and read link after link and story after story....It's all right here in front of you on the good ole' HSBBWEB!

@adbono posted:

Fenway, I think you are missing the boat where me & PitchingFan are concerned relative to this topic. A couple months ago we (and some others) saw the writing on the wall and (on this board) said that this was going to affect everyone - and we explained how. We were met with a lot of pushback, disbelief, and criticism for being negative, knee jerk reactionary, etc.  It can be pretty frustrating to put a knowledgeable message out there in an attempt to help and have holes shot in it by people with lesser experience. You should know that as well as anyone. So no need for the “genius” poke. 

I understand what you are saying and apologize for the genius poke, but you guys are smart and been around the block.   This isn't about you.  Lots of people still have a lot of questions, especially those new to our site and those that don't post frequently.  Lots of them didn't know where to start while the poop was hitting the fan, and are really behind the 8-ball right now.   Recruiting is difficult enough without a feel, experience or someone to Sherpa you through it.  Throw this freaking virus on top of it, and recruiting becomes a rubiks cube to the new folks.

I saw what you saw.  Yes, you guys got out in front of it.  I recall all the threads, and frankly I probably read more than a few of them a couple times for understanding because I had to run it through my noggin.   Thanks for doing that.   But the challenge is taking what you read and transferring that into taking action.   I know a couple people that are just completely overwhelmed with data right now, and the recruits haven't taken their SAT or ACT which is not a great place to be.   Over the last 10+ years, I've suggested that most people with the proper leverage take that shot (aim high!) at their dream school and see what happens.   These days, the advice is a little different given Covid-19, MLB and NCAA policy changes...aim low and hope for the best.   All of this is very difficult to message.  I saw an opportunity to reinforce the message to others that I've been in touch with because I think they're tired of hearing it from me.   That is all this is about.  Nothing more. 

Hoping for a more thorough conversation about how the logjam will affect the high academic D3s, Ivy's, and other schools with hyper competitive admission rates.  

Will all colleges feel that same talent movement, or are those very high academic schools going to experience the "logjam" differently?

An obvious assumption would be that Ivy's and other high academics will only superficially experience the same level of problem.  I base this very superficial guesstimate on the following factors:

1.) The Ivy's exercised their option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors.   This creates no increase in roster size without NCAA changing the rules.  But it is interesting to note how difficult it is to hang up the cleats, as most of the graduating players from the Ivy's and other high academics (like Wofford) are seeking places to play given the additional year of eligibility.  

2.). D3's, like the Ivy's, offer no athletic aid.  some might think this would cause their rosters to be more fluid, but in actuality they are more stable.  This is likely because the bulk of their players are students first and athletes second.

3.) Expanding on the items above.  Academics was the first requirement to get into to these schools, not baseball skill.   It is just the opposite at baseball competitive D1, D2, and JUCO programs.

 

 

Last edited by Pedaldad

I posted Prof Galloway's article on another thread earlier but the link below is a 2 min interview and its the same as the article I posted and gets right to the point.  It basically says top tier schools will be ok but many colleges are in real economic trouble and will close.  What he says about the future of education clearly has a huge impact on the future of sports at colleges.   I suspect he's a bit overhyping the situation but this is worth a quick listen.   

How this bleeds down into D3 sports is a good question but I think the post above by pedaldad is a logical one.  I would also say PitchingFan & adbono were way early in discussing the impacts of Covid, the extra year of eligibility and smaller draft on college ball.  I appreciate their insights.  I think my son is somewhat protected by playing high academic D3 and all seniors at the school he is joining moved on but whether D3 or not it's always going to be a battle to see the field.

* watch Part 2 (watch it all of course but I am referencing part 2)

https://twitter.com/profgallow...874000670855169?s=20

Last edited by Gunner Mack Jr.
@Pedaldad posted:

1.) The Ivy's exercised their option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors.   This creates no increase in roster size without NCAA changing the rules.  But it is interesting to note how difficult it is to hang up the cleats, as most of the graduating players from the Ivy's and other high academics (like Wofford) are seeking places to play given the additional year of eligibility.   

The NCAA granted an extra year to ALL spring sports student-athletes, not just seniors. This includes players in the Ivy League. So no, the Ivy did NOT exercise an option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors. In fact, the Ivy League took NO ACTION at all, which means their rule barring graduate students from participating in sports remains the same. 

So yes, ALL Ivy student-athletes (spring) have an extra year of eligibility. But if they happened to graduate then they are no longer eligible to play on an Ivy sports team. They have to use their extra year of eligibility elsewhere. No different than previous years.

@ABSORBER posted:

The NCAA granted an extra year to ALL spring sports student-athletes, not just seniors. This includes players in the Ivy League. So no, the Ivy did NOT exercise an option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors. In fact, the Ivy League took NO ACTION at all, which means their rule barring graduate students from participating in sports remains the same. 

So yes, ALL Ivy student-athletes (spring) have an extra year of eligibility. But if they happened to graduate then they are no longer eligible to play on an Ivy sports team. They have to use their extra year of eligibility elsewhere. No different than previous years.

E0C61FA6-FEFD-4F4E-9EEF-1E5F6723F5E0

Attachments

Images (1)
  • E0C61FA6-FEFD-4F4E-9EEF-1E5F6723F5E0
@adbono posted:

E0C61FA6-FEFD-4F4E-9EEF-1E5F6723F5E0

Yes, so you see, national sports writers (media), don't know what they are talking about either. They are no different than some posters on this board.

The Ivy League (or any other conference for that matter) doesn't dictate (confer) NCAA eligibility. Only the NCAA does that. There are plenty of Ivy graduate students in the past who used their last year of eligibility playing at a different school as graduate transfer students. The Ivy League is simply saying you still only get 4 years of eligibility to play an Ivy sport. So just because you still have 4 years of eligibility after you had your freshman season cut short, you still only have 3 years remaining to play on an Ivy team. You are free to use that extra year of eligibility the NCAA granted you somewhere else. That is, of course, why so many Ivy League graduates are in the transfer portal.

So while the Ivy League may have made an "announcement", they were simply restating, or reemphasizing for the general public, their existing rule.

D1 college coaches are likely to have the best roster options in years. For college baseball fans the game will probably be better than it’s ever been. But in the process of this occurring a lot of kids are going to get screwed.

Who cares about roster expansion other than giving a dedicated, senior role player a uniform? What freshman wants to come in and be player #40 on the roster? You don’t want to come in under any circumstances being beyond player #20. Players 21-35 are likely to transfer after a year, or two if they convince themselves things might change hanging around for soph year. What would be different about players 36-45? All expanded rosters do is help coaches to hoard players before they screw them.

If I were a high school kid right now I would be thinking if I’m not a pro prospect what’s the best D3 academic/baseball situation I can find? A friend’s son played on a D3 national champion. The dog pile looked just as fun as the one in Omaha. The kid (now 32) is a Wall Street investment banker making a lot more than most former D1 pro prospects.,

Last edited by RJM
@RJM posted:

D1 college coaches are likely to have the best roster options in years. For college baseball fans the game will probably be better than its ever been. But in the process of this occurring a lot of kids are going to get screwed.

Who cares about roster expansion other than giving a dedicated, senior role player a uniform? What freshman wants to come in and be player #40 on the roster. You don’t want to come in under any circumstances being beyond player #20. Players 21-35 are likely to transfer after a year, or two if they convince themselves things might change hanging around for soph year. What would be different about players 36-45? All expanded rosters do is help coaches to hoard players before they screw them.

If I were a high school kid right now I would be thinking if I’m not a pro prospect what’s the best D3 academic/baseball situation I can find? A friend’s son played on a D3 national champion. The dog pile looked just as fun as the one in Omaha. The kid (now 32) is a Wall Street investment banker making a lot more than most former D1 pro prospects.,

I’m amazed at how many people don’t think like this. Seems like some parents and players would rather be on the low end of a 15+ player recruiting class at a P5

I’m amazed at how many people don’t think like this. Seems like some parents and players would rather be on the low end of a 15+ player recruiting class at a P5

Couldn’t agree more. The likelihood of a college player being a legit MLB prospect is minuscule. And even if you have MLB potential there is always the risk of injury and other factors beyond your control. The emphasis should always be on academics. The reality is that if a player is good enough to play in the SEC, ACC, top half of the Big12, or a handful of other baseball crazy schools that’s a once in a lifetime experience that’s hard to pass up. Those schools offer a combination of high level competition AND rabid fan bases that make them special. There is nothing like playing every game in front of 5000 plus fans. But beyond that, I agree with RJM that you are way better off playing HA D3 than you are playing in a low level D1 Conference that isn’t HA. 

Hoping for a more thorough conversation about how the logjam will affect the high academic D3s, Ivy's, and other schools with hyper competitive admission rates.  

Will all colleges feel that same talent movement, or are those very high academic schools going to experience the "logjam" differently?

Using PedalDad's list as a starting point:

1.) The Ivy's exercised their option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors.   This creates no increase in roster size without NCAA changing the rules.  But it is interesting to note how difficult it is to hang up the cleats, as most of the graduating players from the Ivy's and other high academics (like Wofford) are seeking places to play given the additional year of eligibility -- We've covered that.   No material Ivy policy changes.  Although I believe a lot of the Ivy graduates that went into the portal are just putting placeholders in there to keep their eligibility options open.  By last count there were 40 Ivy players in the portal.  Yes there are a few very talented Ivy players, but I don't think you'll see many have a major impact playing as graduates at the same D1 level or higher D1 levels.

2.). D3's, like the Ivy's, offer no athletic aid.  some might think this would cause their rosters to be more fluid, but in actuality they are more stable.  This is likely because the bulk of their players are students first and athletes second. -- Agreed.  Ivy rosters will be more stable than other D1 rosters  but it is all relative.   You may see an influx of JUCO transfers (more than prior years) to Ivy programs that allow it.   Ivy/Patriot/D3 HA rosters are inherently stable, and most players that come in as freshmen leave as seniors.   This isn't the case with traditional D1 schools.   For me, it is going to be interesting to see how many D1 transfers wind up at D3 HA schools, and if there is any impact now or in the near future.   The limiting factor is going to be academics.   People that recognize an opportunity to leverage their academics to transfer into a D3 HA may be in a good spot...it is another option for these people.

3.) Expanding on the items above.  Academics was the first requirement to get into to these schools, not baseball skill.   It is just the opposite at baseball competitive D1, D2, and JUCO programs.  -- Academics is the first requirement but baseball is the "ticket" to more options.   As the saying goes...you're only as good as your options. In this case, it is both.   Transferring to another school can be easier if you are an athlete because a coach is championing you just as he/she is with freshmen recruiting admissions.

Just my thoughts on the topic.   The future is pretty cloudy for traditional D1s when it comes to college baseball and recruiting but I think it is less so with the HA D3s, Ivy and Patriot League schools.  They will be effected too, but just to a much lesser degree because of academics thresholds.   As I mentioned in another thread, if my son were being recruited today (not 10 years) ago, we would have probably just focused on HA, Patriot, and Ivy schools and not looked at D1 Mid-Majors because his focus was academic/engineering.

JMO.

Last edited by fenwaysouth

I posted Prof Galloway's article on another thread earlier but the link below is a 2 min interview and its the same as the article I posted and gets right to the point.  It basically says top tier schools will be ok but many colleges are in real economic trouble and will close.  What he says about the future of education clearly has a huge impact on the future of sports at colleges.   I suspect he's a bit overhyping the situation but this is worth a quick listen.   

How this bleeds down into D3 sports is a good question but I think the post above by pedaldad is a logical one.  I would also say PitchingFan & adbono were way early in discussing the impacts of Covid, the extra year of eligibility and smaller draft on college ball.  I appreciate their insights.  I think my son is somewhat protected by playing high academic D3 and all seniors at the school he is joining moved on but whether D3 or not it's always going to be a battle to see the field.

* watch Part 2 (watch it all of course but I am referencing part 2)

https://twitter.com/profgallow...874000670855169?s=20

Thanks Gunner that was very interesting.  Probably a topic for another thread, but I wonder to what extent the pandemic will affect merit and other financial aid.

Qhead -  Top schools with big waiting lists and big endowments will likely be able to operate as they have been in all aspects.   I have to believe that as soon as you get to schools with limited/no waitlists and small endowments they will not be in a position to offer aid or they will decide to cut money losing sports in order to offer aid but that move will impact enrollments.    There are a lot of schools in between these extremes too - cutting adjunct professors, pay freezes and pay cuts etc.   A lot of different solutions will be coming in the next few years and each school will have a different slice I suspect.   Its a minefield for anyone looking to play ball or even select a college.

@RJM posted:

If I were a high school kid right now I would be thinking if I’m not a pro prospect what’s the best D3 academic/baseball situation I can find? A friend’s son played on a D3 national champion. The dog pile looked just as fun as the one in Omaha. The kid (now 32) is a Wall Street investment banker making a lot more than most former D1 pro prospects.,

The vast majority of kids and parents of HS BB players that I have run into do not think like this. They would rather go to a D1 JUCO than a D3. It is often because they do not have the academic chops to give them the HA option(s), but I am often mystified seeing relatively well educated parents pour tens of thousands of dollars into baseball training their son, but not a nickel for tutoring. The players who seem to benefit most from the HA route appear to be players who come from private schools. There, both the parent and the school are of one mind in using sports to leverage their way in to the best possible academic situation.

   

“Can you imagine your son getting a call in July — after they’ve been committed to a school for three years and signed a national letter of intent back in November — that not only do they not have a scholarship but they don’t have a spot on that team?”

I’m surprised they haven’t been called out on the statement above that is factually incorrect. Once a prospect has signed the NLI, their scholarship is guaranteed for that year. So, while a coach can say there isn’t a spot on his team (and many will want to leave and play ball elsewhere), they can’t say they don’t have a scholarship for that freshman year.

Also, while more players will be confronted with this situation this year then most, it is a regular occurrence with many P5 and P5-wannabe schools every year. Anybody entering that environment cannot honestly claim to be surprised.

@57special posted:

The vast majority of kids and parents of HS BB players that I have run into do not think like this. They would rather go to a D1 JUCO than a D3. It is often because they do not have the academic chops to give them the HA option(s), but I am often mystified seeing relatively well educated parents pour tens of thousands of dollars into baseball training their son, but not a nickel for tutoring. The players who seem to benefit most from the HA route appear to be players who come from private schools. There, both the parent and the school are of one mind in using sports to leverage their way in to the best possible academic situation.

   

This is certainly how we've approached it from the start.  4/40.  Still holds true. 

So-FLA Dad, when it come to roster cuts lots of coaches will say almost anything to get what they want. Comments are often not confined to what is factually correct regarding scholarships and NLIs. Also most 18 yr old HS seniors are intimidated by college baseball coaches and aren’t likely to question or challenge a coach in the midst of a conversation that is already a huge disappointment to them. 

@SoFla-Dad posted:

“Can you imagine your son getting a call in July — after they’ve been committed to a school for three years and signed a national letter of intent back in November — that not only do they not have a scholarship but they don’t have a spot on that team?”

I’m surprised they haven’t been called out on the statement above that is factually incorrect. Once a prospect has signed the NLI, their scholarship is guaranteed for that year. So, while a coach can say there isn’t a spot on his team (and many will want to leave and play ball elsewhere), they can’t say they don’t have a scholarship for that freshman year.

Also, while more players will be confronted with this situation this year then most, it is a regular occurrence with many P5 and P5-wannabe schools every year. Anybody entering that environment cannot honestly claim to be surprised.

Agreed - actually I'm chuckling a bit because I'm wondering if that was a bit of a "Freudian slip" by the coach revealing that he does not really deem an NLI to be binding on the program (although certainly binding on the student athlete) LOL!  Nothing against this coach personally and I'm not suggesting this is how he views the NLI -- just suggesting that this might be telling....   Once again my "pro labor" bias is showing!  Solidarność"

But as we have said, why would you go or send your kid to a school that does not want your kid?  He has to have a scholarship but the school does not have to do anything baseball related with the kid other than keep him from playing anywhere else if he pushes the issue.   The coach is nicely saying, "no room at the inn."  You can either force your way in the door and be shunned by probably the entire baseball community or move on to find another inn that does have room.  Whether he is legally right or wrong is not the issue.  He does not have room in his plans for the kid and is saying it is not going to happen at his school.  I know there are players and parents who think they can convince the coach but I'm willing to bet the coach will win in 99% of the cases.  The coach will not let the kid anywhere near the baseball facilities and probably tell all of his baseball coach friends that the kid tried to push his way in.  Then the kid gets blackballed everywhere.  What other coach wants a kid who thinks they can tell you what they are gonna do?

I understand the practical reality that's been discussed here many times.  Sorry I got the thread off track.  But at least to me, the question of whether the coach "is legally right or wrong" IS an issue.  The NLI should be bind both parties equally.  Why else bother with it?  That's not the way it works and it's not going to change.  At least the coach quoted in the LA Times article (perhaps unwittingly) kind of fessed up to it LOL.

@PitchingFan posted:

But as we have said, why would you go or send your kid to a school that does not want your kid?  He has to have a scholarship but the school does not have to do anything baseball related with the kid other than keep him from playing anywhere else if he pushes the issue.   The coach is nicely saying, "no room at the inn."  You can either force your way in the door and be shunned by probably the entire baseball community or move on to find another inn that does have room.  Whether he is legally right or wrong is not the issue.  He does not have room in his plans for the kid and is saying it is not going to happen at his school.  I know there are players and parents who think they can convince the coach but I'm willing to bet the coach will win in 99% of the cases.  The coach will not let the kid anywhere near the baseball facilities and probably tell all of his baseball coach friends that the kid tried to push his way in.  Then the kid gets blackballed everywhere.  What other coach wants a kid who thinks they can tell you what they are gonna do?

You are correct, A kid with this mindset has no business going to that school. Who cares that the head coach of the school just had you sign an NLI for a 50% athletic scholarship this past November? You have no business being there because the coach doesn't want you anymore because of a pandemic and he's playing for one season at a time. So go ahead and try to find another school at this late hour because you are so laser-focused on baseball you definitely need to play at any community college willing to give you a tryout next fall. Because you will surely play in the MLB one day.

Or maybe you signed that NLI because that's the school you want to get an education from and that's why you turned down other offers and why it's the only school in which you applied. Maybe you should take that money that the coach committed to when he thought you were worth it six months ago. Let him eat it. Because he certainly deserves it.

The guy quoted is someone making a statement to help influence the NCAA into increasing the 11.7/27 next season. He knows the agreement is legally binding and when the push comes to shove, the NLI wins. He wants the families of those incoming freshman to help apply some pressure on the NCAA. He's willing to "bend" the truth a bit to get people riled up.

@ABSORBER posted:

The NCAA granted an extra year to ALL spring sports student-athletes, not just seniors. This includes players in the Ivy League. So no, the Ivy did NOT exercise an option to NOT grant an additional year to seniors. In fact, the Ivy League took NO ACTION at all, which means their rule barring graduate students from participating in sports remains the same. 

So yes, ALL Ivy student-athletes (spring) have an extra year of eligibility. But if they happened to graduate then they are no longer eligible to play on an Ivy sports team. They have to use their extra year of eligibility elsewhere. No different than previous years.the Ivy's 

Seems like circular logic to me.  The Ivy's taking no action is the definition of choosing not to exercise an option.   Didn't need an Ivy education to teach me that.

@ABSORBER posted:

You are correct, A kid with this mindset has no business going to that school. Who cares that the head coach of the school just had you sign an NLI for a 50% athletic scholarship this past November? You have no business being there because the coach doesn't want you anymore because of a pandemic and he's playing for one season at a time. So go ahead and try to find another school at this late hour because you are so laser-focused on baseball you definitely need to play at any community college willing to give you a tryout next fall. Because you will surely play in the MLB one day.

Or maybe you signed that NLI because that's the school you want to get an education from and that's why you turned down other offers and why it's the only school in which you applied. Maybe you should take that money that the coach committed to when he thought you were worth it six months ago. Let him eat it. Because he certainly deserves it.

“You can drive a car with your feet if you want to. That don’t make it a good f*****g idea!”

- Chris Rock 

@ABSORBER posted:

The guy quoted is someone making a statement to help influence the NCAA into increasing the 11.7/27 next season. He knows the agreement is legally binding and when the push comes to shove, the NLI wins. He wants the families of those incoming freshman to help apply some pressure on the NCAA. He's willing to "bend" the truth a bit to get people riled up.

Why not, if it makes the situation better?

Don't see anything wrong with wanting the NCAA to adjust/increase the 11.7/27 rule.  It helps teams, coaches, and players at minimal extra cost to schools.  This takes away pitting a freshman with a signed NLI against a returning proven upperclassmen.

Remember, we are talking about athletes' education, but also coaches' livelihood.  It is a different world in Ivy's, Patriot, HA D3 leagues where coaches don't have typical pressure of on-field success to keep their jobs.  Heck, 3 of the 8 Ivy coaches have been there for between 22  to 30 years.  The best winning percentage among them is right at 50%, and that is the best in the conference.

In places where coaches need to win to keep their job, it is going to be different.  Gary Gilmore has been the head coach at Coastal for 25 years because he wins.  Mike Sansing has been the head coach at Kennesaw because he wins.  If they weren't winning consistently, they get replaced quickly.

So why is it wrong for someone to support reducing the burden put on coaches and players.  If all 35 positions could have funding, there would be no question about who is really on the team and who isn't.  If the Ivy's don't grant any athletic scholarships with their ridiculous endowments and Georgetown only wants to grant 5 baseball scholarships with their $1.7 billion endowment, so what.  

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×