More D1 Baseball Programs -- a good thing

Thanks for the info!!  Did I also read somewhere that UCSD was moving to Div 1?

More teams mean more opportunities for kids.  So, to that extent, it is a good thing.  As far as the D1 part, it's only a good thing for those obsessed with saying they/their kid plays D1 ball.  With 300 D1 programs now, the reality is that many of those schools would be far more competitive playing D2 ball.    

So great to see Boise State add Baseball!  Did an internship in Boise 20+ years ago -- loved that town.  Great people, great location and scenery. 

There has always been Major D1 programs and Low D1 programs.  I assume these are adding to the low end.  In my opinion there shouldn't be low or high end, but it is what it is.

smokeminside posted:

Thanks for the info!!  Did I also read somewhere that UCSD was moving to Div 1?

They're trying. The administration and students voted to move to D1, but the school's application to the Big West was rejected, so it's a little unclear what will happen next: 

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/s...-20170406-story.html

CaCO3Girl posted:

There has always been Major D1 programs and Low D1 programs.  I assume these are adding to the low end.  In my opinion there shouldn't be low or high end, but it is what it is.

Who knows? I mean, they're not joining Power 5 conferences, but that doesn't mean that they won't end up with good programs. If Dallas Baptist can have a good program, why not Cal Baptist?

CaCO3Girl posted:

There has always been Major D1 programs and Low D1 programs.  I assume these are adding to the low end.  In my opinion there shouldn't be low or high end, but it is what it is.

It's all about the money.  Some programs get a lot of bang for their buck.  But, as a general rule, over time the schools that put more money into their programs substantially outperform those that don't.  Again, as a general rule, once you get past the top 100 programs, the level of play falls off substantially.    Many teams in the 101-300 range would be better off playing D2.  But, that's not going to happen because most schools (and players) want to say they play D1 ball.

Personally, I'd like to see the NCAA divide those 300 baseball teams the same way they do football teams, into something like FCS and FBS.  You could call it CWS (College World Series) and CTS (College Tournament Series).  This would give a lot more kids something else to play for at the end of their seasons.  

But, again, I don't see it happening.  

Addendum:  Interesting article on the effect of money on programs, and it's effect on RPI.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/2...programs-past-decade

I'd prefer it to be divided by scholarship allotment. Schools should be required to fully fund the 11.7. Allow schools that don't want to fully fund to make up a separate lower D1 division. This would force entire conferences to deal with the issue. For example, here in Coloradom if you don;t include Air Force, we only have ONE D1 baseball program and they only fund something like 3.0 scholarships. That's ridiculous.

roothog66 posted:

I'd prefer it to be divided by scholarship allotment. Schools should be required to fully fund the 11.7. Allow schools that don't want to fully fund to make up a separate lower D1 division. This would force entire conferences to deal with the issue. For example, here in Coloradom if you don;t include Air Force, we only have ONE D1 baseball program and they only fund something like 3.0 scholarships. That's ridiculous.

In most cases it's not so much a matter of not wanting to fully fund as it is not being able to afford it.  You can't make them spend money they don't have.  

I wish there were concrete numbers regarding how many schools TRULY "fully fund."  What I have always heard is around half.  But, looking at the budgets of most of those schools in the 101-300 range, I suspect the true number is probably less than 1/3.  I also suspect that the term "fully funded" is a bit misleading, especially when it comes to state supported schools that have a differential between in-state and out-of-state tuition. 

This......." I also suspect that the term "fully funded" is a bit misleading, especially when it comes to state supported schools that have a differential between in-state and out-of-state tuition".   

During my sons recruiting visits,  One of them said that they have money for 11.7 scholarships based on in state tuition.  At this school, the 2017 / 2018 tuition runs about $4,500 for state residents and the non resident tuition is over $18,000.  

They only have 2 out of state players on their roster.  That's not surprising.

In my view, "more" does not necessarily equate to "better' when it comes to college baseball.

So many thoughts on this site relate to "fit" as the best description of the goal for college and college baseball.

At the core, if a program is D1 but funds in the range of 2-5 scholarships, that means the vast majority of a 35 player roster (anywhere from 25-30 players) are paying the full cost of attendance (unless they have other aid which does not get charged against the 2-5).

Of that 25--30, probably 40% to 50% won't see the field much in any 56 game schedule. If we were to project this out, and remove the Power 5, one might estimate that something in the range of 40% of the players on D1 rosters are paying the full cost of tuition and not seeing much in the way of innings.

How is that better than higher level D3 for the full cost of tuition or better than non-D1 options for playing time? 

Is the D1 "status" so important?

I don't know about "D1 status" being important, but would you ask a football kid why he didn't go to North Dakota State and win a couple FBS national titles instead of going to Indiana???  I doubt it.  Not chance of a National Title at Indiana...but I doubt too many guys would have a tough time deciding between those two choices.

    I think most kids want a chance to compete at the highest level....regardless of whether they are at a Power 5.  My son is at a mid-major that really hasn't done well, but he pitched well in a start at Texas A & M last year in front of 7,000 and also threw well at Florida State as a freshman in front of 5500.  He wouldn't give those two appearance up even if you could somehow guarantee  him a D2 national championship ring if he'd gone that route instead of D1. 

"I don't know about "D1 status" being important, but would you ask a football kid why he didn't go to North Dakota State and win a couple FBS national titles instead of going to Indiana???  I doubt it.  Not chance of a National Title at Indiana...but I doubt too many guys would have a tough time deciding between those two choices."

Well, I don't think that was my example, but sure, if the player were recruited to both, had a full scholarship to both, with equal playing time opportunities at both, and the educational opportunities were equivalent, and both were a "fit," I would ask that question? However, some place in there will be a rub.  That is not the post I made, though.

As to the second point, college baseball can be filled with memorable and lifetime experiences.  Our son played D3 at the top levels, and got drafted and had a really nice Milb career (other than when injury issues impacted his performance.)

Before he got to Milb, he played with great Summer league teams in filled stadiums in New England including games against the very best-Team USA.  While the thrill of being on the mound at A&M or in a filled park in New England are not exactly the same, they are memories of competing, which is not my question.

I tried to be quite careful in my post.  I am not referencing those at D1 who get innings. I am talking about the 40% or so outside the Power 5 (maybe more than 40%) who pay the full cost of attendance and don't get innings.  Knowing these decisions are quite personal, I am not sure sitting for 56 games and paying the full cost of attendance creates too many "memories" which are memorable. But that is just one perspective. I made my thoughts known to understand other perspectives, especially in the context of this thread that "more" D1is better.

InfieldDad.....I wasn't referencing just your post....and I wasn't trying to argue your points in any way.  Your reference to being a bench guy makes perfect sense...and in that scenario I would think that the player would want to play, not sit...making some level other than D1 a better fit for him.  I guess I was basing my thoughts more on our situation.  My son was throwing 90 when he came out of HS so I guess he never really considered that he wouldn't get to throw.  If it had happened that way, then I'm sure maybe his feelings on being a D1 player would be different.   I know kids that he played with growing up that were "expected" to contribute on their chose D1 as a freshman but ended up seeing very little playing time and have transferred to D2's or D3's in the past 2 years.   They ended up just as happy at their new school as they were at the D1 and are seeing the field.  I guess everyone's sitution is different.

infielddad posted:

 

Is the D1 "status" so important?

To many, the answer is yes.  And from what I have seen, talk of "fit" is often (certainly not always) a platitude or rationalization. 

On average, D1 programs invest more in baseball than other divisions. They can, if they wish, have more scholarships. Boise State, to use one of the new schools, is planning a $1 million annual baseball budget (not particularly high for baseball in D1, but not really low, either). Think about it this way: if there were another 100 schools launching D1 baseball programs, would that be bad or good in terms of making more opportunities available to HS baseball players? How about if 100 current D1 programs cut their programs?

Maybe it's easy to dismiss because we're only talking about 4 schools, and maybe a 5th if UCSD gets its wish, but IMO more is better.

Here's the flip side -- the Univ. of Buffalo cut its baseball program earlier this year, and that was a bad thing: http://community.hsbaseballweb...o-dropping-baseball?

MTH posted:

infielddad posted:

 

Is the D1 "status" so important?

To many, the answer is yes.  And from what I have seen, talk of "fit" is often (certainly not always) a platitude or rationalization. 

Agreed, and heard most often from Freshman and Sophomores in my experience.

2019Dad,

I fully understand what you are saying.  My approach is a bit different and I apologize if I am not articulating it well.

My hope is to use the idea that more D1 is better to ask, is it really "better"? If the  discussion  is not about "quantity" but is also focused on "quality" and which  brings into the question whether D1 equates to a better "quality" if you are not on of the 11.7 (or 2-5) and don't get innings.

Taking the UCSD example, assuming they do get to D1 and get into the Big West (questionable at present), will that experience (which might equate to UC Davis unless they put big $$$ behind that effort) be "better" than being at the D2 CWS more than a few times and a national champion on one occasion for those 15-17 or so players who get little to no innings and pay the full cost of attendance?

The D1 opportunity is desired by most because they want to play at the power programs.  More than likely it's not going to happen for most. 

I watched D2 baseball last year and it was GREAT and highly competitive.  If you are worried about being drafted remember many states have lots of scouts and they are always looking for players to draft. At quite a few games this year there were lots of scouts, a lot depends on who you play.

Some top D2 programs have a lot of money to spend, many struggle just like lower tier D1 programs. Attending a regional is just as exciting whether you attend a D1 or D2 program and I  imagine same for D3.  It's a shame that the NCAA doesn't make programs fully fund. It's a shame. 

The best advice I ever heard and can give is to choose a program where the coaches aren't afraid to play against the best programs in the country (good for your son Buckeye). Facing an FSU or an A&M, or similar program may be the answer to getting a regional placement. Choose a program that attends regionals consistantly.  You don't have to attend a D1 to have a great college baseball experience, but don't attend a D1 program where the athletic department treats you like the ugly stepchild.

JMO

Buckeye 2015 posted:

I don't know about "D1 status" being important, but would you ask a football kid why he didn't go to North Dakota State and win a couple FBS national titles instead of going to Indiana???  I doubt it.  Not chance of a National Title at Indiana...but I doubt too many guys would have a tough time deciding between those two choices.

I know of three B1G prospects that have chosen NDSU for that reason, so...