NCAA Proposal Would Have Wide-Ranging Effects

Bee,

The only one that scares me is the transfer change.

Can you imagine making a choice - having it turn out to be a miserable experience - and then having to sit out the next year as well.

It would probably end many collegiate careers - that dont deserve to end.

There are still way too many college coaches that are not honest with their recruits. The proposed transfer rule would only serve to give these coaches even more leverage than they have now - IMO.

The transfer rule wouldn't apply to Juco players going to a 4 year after completing the Juco's program would it?

It will be significantly more difficult for the potential JUCO transfer but not because of the transfer rule.

JUCO transfers will be subject to much stricter academic requirements. That will most certainly have an impact on colleges that recruit alot of JUCO transfers IMO.

No ... this would only affect D1, not any other divisions, and the JUCO's aren't ruled (directly) by the NCAA.

They still have to be academically eligible to play though, that goes without saying.

I agree with itsinthegame regarding the transfer rules.

The roster size is fine with me. Have you ever looked at the number of players on some teams--mostly D3? 54--or 48--or 44....How silly.

And quite the recruiting tool---"Sure--come to school XYZ--you can be on the baseball team....(along with 53 other stud players)"! It sure helps the enrollment numbers.

Oh dear--posted simultaneously....

Too bad the rules won't apply to D3 schools.

They should.

So "let the buyer beware."

The college coaches wont have a problem with the transfer rule.

It gives them more power.

I think they definitely wont like the rest of the proposal though.

Isnt there also an impact on stud pitchers/players - can they still get a full ride or to give them a full ride you would have to decrease the roster size - maybe I'm not reading it correctly. It is still 11.7 full scholorships but it must be shared by 27 players (33%)????????

No reason a school couldn't give 9 total scholarships of 33% each .... or 4 total .... or 2 ...

27 is the max number .. there is still no minimum.

Thanks - I read it wrong

Times they are a’changin’!

If anyone saw Costas Now this month, it was pretty easy to see the writing is on the wall, not for just baseball, but for all of the NCAA sports.

Personally, I agree with those who think that if the NFL and NBA want a minor league system, they out to develop and pay for it themselves. And for baseball, if there’s any big fear that a lot of ball players will be lost because of this, MLB can certainly allow every team to have another minor league team or two to give a place for players who can’t hack college, a chance to develop.

In fact, for baseball it might even work out for the best. It could be a heck of a boost for the many independent leagues and teams!

I would be screamin’ and hollerin’ if all the schools took hits, but if what’s said here is to be believed and its just the D1’s, and they’ve been floatin’ for a long time. I think everyone should just sit back and reserve judgment. Its not as though they just got a couple drunks off the street to dream this thing up, and they had the opportunity to vote it down, so there must be at least some redeeming things about it.

At least I hope so!

To err is human, to really foul things up beyond belief takes a bureaucracy...

Oh yea. What they ought to do is not allow baseball scholarships period. Take'em all away and give to all the profitable women's programs. Oh! That’s right, there are none. No, really they should make all the baseball players pay the administration and NCAA directly double the tuition of regular students. That way we could pay the Lou Sabans 8 million instead of 4.

No, I bet there weren't a couple of drunks thinking this up there was probably a room full of them ordering doubles, laughing with their cheating mistress and gouging themselves on the buffet, after they thought this up.

This is brilliant. Look at any Div 1 program in the country. Review the scores 24 -10, 17 -13, 29-4.... How many pitchers have taken line drives to the head? Safety? No, we are worried about the scholarships and giving the athletes too many dinners and lunches. Just brilliant.....

.

I used to be idealistic too...willing to leave things in the hands of those with more information and their hands on the pulse...however it has been my experience that those people are often more interested in their own agendas, their own reputations, than they are the welfare of our kids.

Maybe I am way off base here but....why is it that we expect students holding down more than a full time job (baseball) to graduate at a pace faster than and a level equal to the general student population? Hello? Com’on, 4 years is simply NOT realistic with any kind of reasonable major.

Generally What the NCAA is doing is...

- squashing the time frames down...both season and graduation.
- upping the class requirements...more spring classes
- trapping players in schools...no transfers W/O a year off baseball
- And all the while requiring absolute adherence to rules while paying them less than the "going wage" (Full scholarships.)

And then attempting to sell it to the media as an improvement. Sorry I'm not buying it. Maybe I am missing something but I see little here that really recognizes reality or helps deal with the difficulty of holding down two full time jobs simultaneously. I see little here that will help my sons cope with the difficulties that already exist. What I see is making it MORE difficult to achieve something that many players ALREADY struggle to balance.

This is often what happens when you give such things to a group...they are making decisions to make the public relations department of the NCAA happy, NOT help the kids.

The sad thing is that the cat is out of the bag with the big money sports. They are simply minor leagues for the professionals. But because they are cash cows they will not be touched...in fact the NBA/College collusion to allow player to play NCAA for a year before being drafted is about as far away from moving toward student athlete as it gets. Why did they do that? Because it puts butts in the stands, and it makes the NBA look like they care.

So....rather…let’s go after baseball...won't hurt our bottom AND we can look like we really care.

If I were in charge I'd suggest we...put our money where out boast is…

- Lengthen the season to give the kids more time to do their schoolwork.
- Pay the going wage...Fully fund scholarships if you are going to trap them in schools.
- Put it in the hands of the kids not just the school. Give them more years to graduate, and a year or two beyond baseball - if it is REALLY educating them that you are after, not media sound bites. For example if we give them more time and less classes and they might end up after 5 or 6 years in pre med or engineering, not 4 year in general studies.
- Realize that maybe; just maybe low academic performance is due to the difficulty of the situation the kids have been put in NOT laziness on the part of school or the player.
- come up with a realistic and fair way to take transfers and draftees into account. What I see is..."we are too lazy to figure out a good way to measure this soooo...lets just effectively outlaw it." Great message to send to the kids. Also does away with free choice on the part of athletes. Gives coaches more Carte Blanche

I see lots of posts on the HSBBW about kids hitting the wall, kids finding it hard to balance, kids stressing out, grades dropping....Isn't this telling us something? I refuse to believe that the kids don't graduate because we don't push them and the schools hard enough.

Off the soapbox.

44
.

44:




That sir, is worth saluting! Well reasoned and spoken...sir!

Observer44, your reasoning seems right on.

quote:

So....rather…let’s go after baseball...won't hurt our bottom AND we can look like we really care.

If I were in charge I'd suggest we...put our money where out boast is…

- Lengthen the season to give the kids more time to do their schoolwork.
- Pay the going wage...Fully fund scholarships if you are going to trap them in schools.
- Put it in the hands of the kids not just the school. Give them more years to graduate, and a year or two beyond baseball - if it is REALLY educating them that you are after, not media sound bites.

I cant say I know enough but 44s reasoning sounds very good to me - what can we do besides just take it. Im thinking collectively maybe we could make a difference but maybe Im just being naive. Any thoughts?

before ya come down too hard on the ncaa, keep in mind that the proposal was drafted by representatives (ADs or other smart? people) of member schools

Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group

I for one like all of the rules and don't have a problem them. This site has told the kids for years that they need to select a school that they would be happy attending if baseball was taken away, so that takes care of the transfer rule. JMO, but I sometimes feel that kids play too much baseball (long Fall practices & Spring) and staying on campus for Summer school would help them with their academics and baseball. They could attend class, workout and make a little money working the college camps. However, I would like to know how many hours they expect a student/athlete to pass each academic year? Is it 24 semester hours, 28 semester hours, 32 semester hours, etc...?

Bottom line --like it or not you cannot change what the NCAA has or will do with their rules---they are autonomous

I have learned to live with it and adapt to it---maybe all of you should as well

Observer:

These kids are in school first to go to school, and the big time sports have the exact same requirements. I understand your points and agree with some, but your stance strikes me as more cynical than necessary. Some (many) kids are in school for anything but school, which is not good. That said, I agree that the time frame ought to be five years rather than four, that the one-time transfer rule should not be rescinded with only partial scholarships available (and most below 50 percent). What I would advocate is this same proposal but with two changes:

An increase in total scholarships to 18 and the change to a five year time frame in which to graduate. The rest I strongly support. Unfortunately, with Title IX in place and the cost involved, the chances of an increase in the number of scholarships for baseball is virtually zero. Which means that the best change to the proposal -- and a reasonable compromise -- would be to lengthen the graduation period to five years.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
before ya come down too hard on the ncaa, keep in mind that the proposal was drafted by representatives (ADs or other smart? people) of member schools

Bee,
I must respecfully and strongly disagree with you. Although the committee drafted these rules, the NCAA is the one that mandated change and offered this committee up to draft the change proposal.

As to pressures put on the student athelete, I'm sorry but this is the wrong shoulder to cry that river on. Where and why do you think that the average degree completion length is coming from? It comes from the universities allowing the students to go longer and longer without declaration of a major. It is to the universities advantage to have that student attending for 5 or 6 years, so there is no urgency to move that student towards a degree. This is the same university management that is the ugly head of the snake they call the NCAA. We as a society have come to accept the notion that you don't have to finish college in a specified time. Our tolerance has lead to a very expensive situation for our students. You can graduate student athletes in 4 years. Army does it every year, with a crushing academic load of 16 to 18 hours per semester, even in season. This is in addition to the military load. I'm not trying to suggest that all students should take on a similar level of workload, just showing that it can and is done every year, and nearly everyone graduates.

The most unfair aspect about this new proposal is the transfer rule. Without complete scholarship funding, now you are creating a situation that solely benefits the university by creating that extra year of attendance at the athletes expense.

The committee has done a reasonably good job coming up with these proposals. It's the ignorant university presidents that make up the NCAA that give them an unfair deck of cards from which to deal these proposals. Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

JMHO

Um, not everyone is military academy material. Actually that is not correct. Very few are miltary academy material.

I like the proposals and see them as a step in the right direction. There are too many players rostered, getting to little athletic aid and getting too few degrees. When everyone is getting at least tuition and books, they will have it about right, but they all may be out of pitching by May 1.

Initially, I was skeptical of the new rules, but the more I read about them, I am not that upset about them. It should or hopefully will improve the college baseball game.

I think that a couple of modifications are in order to this plan:

1) Given there is now a floor on scholarships, make the transfer rule be - if you are on a baseball scholarship, you have to sit out a year. If you are not getting money, then you can transfer once with no sitting out. Why should a kid who is paying his own way be held captive to a program?

2) If a paid coach leaves (assistant or head), the kids are permitted to transfer - all of them - with no sitting out.

3) Change the graduation calculation to match that of the underlying school - if the average engineering major at school x takes 5 years to graduate, then baseball players who start in the engineering program and remain there also get 5 years as their APR baseline. If 5 years is the underlying norm, why should baseball players have to do better?

4) Cap the number of games per week at 4 or 5 - reduce the number of games per season to match the number - or slightly lengthen the season into the summer.

08

.

Agreed...

- I am a cynic when it comes blindly trusting the world to comittees, or governments, or corporations without individuals oversight.

- The very fact that a group of highly respected individuals goes into a comittee and comes up with a flawed plan like shortening the season and now this.. is a clear vindication of my cynicism of such things.

- Yes, there is nothing we are going to say or do that will make an iota worth of difference (TR, this is REALLY cynical)...but I'll go to my grave believing that we need to educate ourselves, think, see, feel, talk, communicate and keep a watchful eye anyway....so that when we are in situations where we can make a difference we are ready willing and able to do so.

- IMO there are better, more practcial and realistic ways to educate players and let them play ball (I like 08's suggestions as a start...)

- Give the nature of baseball...year round, heavy fall schedule, more games per week than any other sport, more travel than any other sport (and increasing) baseball is simply different. The only reason for not individualizing the plan to fit college baseball is laziness, public relations, and "corporate policy." They can offer baseball less scholarships, but not the other way around. Geeze, wonder why am I cynical.

- My bias...balance baseball and school. I know I am way in the minority on this,...but I see no reason why one cannot. I see no reason why a player should not consider both ends when going to school particularly now when we are going to "trap" them. Good point, not all kids are academy material.

- Lest you think I am simply worried about mine...Mine is 3.97 in a highly academic study at a top 50 DI, a year ahead of his class...IT all just seems misdirected to me....

44
.

Just wondering how it will be implemented and if any kids will be negatively affected on scholly's ...ones who maybe had minimal amount will lose what they have

Also the qualifying being done in the Fall vs Spring...may not be good for a team (Juco transfers) but might be good for the student-athlete, to have to focus on academics.

Actually, observer, I did not know you even had a son. Glad to see he is doing well. I laid out my thoughts earlier, and I believe such changes would enhance the plan, although they probably have little chance of coming about. But in the end, I view this plan as an improvement over the current situation for true student athletes, mostly because it limits the overstocking of talent. Good work by the committee.

Typical committee result.

I invented a theorem that explains the quality of committee work product. It is a way to measure the intelligence of any given committee, and therefore have some idea as to how useful its product will be.

I wrote up the theorem on my blog.

Some have suggested that this theorem has actually now been proven, and so it is no longer a theorem, but an axiom.

This NCAA committee result would support that assertion.

Just a couple of thoughts.

1) The lower roster size will theoretically increase parity, by not allowing some programs to have a 50 man roster.

2)If you require every scholarship player to receive a 1/3 scholarship, then schools that don't fully fund baseball are going to have an awful lot of guys getting absolutely nothing. A SEC program like South Carolina, or an ACC program like Clemson fully funds baseball, so it's no big deal. But an ACC school like Maryland, which only a few years ago only funded 3 scholarships (I'm not sure what they fund now) would have 18 players unable to get any money.

3) I don't agree with the problems JUCO transfers will be running into. I know several kids off of the top of my head that have played JUCO ball, transferred to a D1, and have had enough courses not accepted that they have had to spend an extra couple of semesters taking classes.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Typical committee result.

I invented a theorem that explains the quality of committee work product. It is a way to measure the intelligence of any given committee, and therefore have some idea as to how useful its product will be.

I wrote up the theorem on my blog.

Some have suggested that this theorem has actually now been proven, and so it is no longer a theorem, but an axiom.

This NCAA committee result would support that assertion.

RK,
Pretty witty!

quote:

Originally posted by observer44:

we need to educate ourselves, think, see, feel, talk, communicate and keep a watchful eye anyway....so that when we are in situations where we can make a difference we are ready willing and able to do so.

Worth repeating.

Especially when it comes to our children--we need to be their advocates--and ALL THINGS MEDICAL.

So what's the average IQ of a plagiarist? I've been using that for a long time. However I give credit to Robert Heinlein (sp?) who put essentially the same formula in one of his stories 40 years or so ago. I think he may have gotten it from Samuel Clemens.

CADad - don't be so quick with the accusation.

Turns out Heinlein's formula was significantly different. I never knew he said anything of the sort, but after a search, I found that he said the committee intelligence is the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people on the committee.

So you've been using what a long time? Heinleins, or Kremer's?

Keep your ears to the walls. The committe met and the decision has been made...

I like your stand Ob44. I am not too NCAA savvy, but perhaps this new proposal will counteract or at least balance out the grad.ratio rules...I know it is giving college baseball coaches a fit. The better a program is (or more appropriately the greater the number of draftees) the harder they are hit...ultimately losing schollys if grad rate/scholly rate falls. Transfers somehow figure into a complex formula...as well as hardships or change of heart type losses. Maybe this is a fix for the mess to come from that decision.

JMO, but this is part of what will happen:
1. Athletes will be much more selective when deciding which school to attend and many more will go the JUCO route or to a school other than D1's.
2. College coaches will also be very selective and will not take the marginal student because they can't afford for them to flunk out or be on probation. Look for grades and SAT/ACT scores to be viewed much more closely. With the amount of time that teams spend on the road, I could see where a coach does not take a player without a 3.0 & a SAT of 1000 or ACT 20. They just can't take the risk.
3. Parity will take over.
4. Most top round draft picks will select pro ball over attending college.
5. The college game will not be as good because many more players will have to attend Summer School and will not be able to play in the elite Summer Leagues.

.
Coach Merc...

Drafted with some changes/adjustments or hook, line and sink(er)...

Do you have a link to the final wording?...

44
.

From what I heard today it should come out shortly. They are trying to firm up a few dates (effective) and the was an adjustment in the APR excluding drafted players. Everything else was approved... again, second or third hand info...