Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
gee,
you'd think the ncaa would be smart enough to "beta test" their (proposed) legislation here at hsbbweb before going public ...
much better than having to backtrack while wiping egg from their face
you'd think the ncaa would be smart enough to "beta test" their (proposed) legislation here at hsbbweb before going public ...
much better than having to backtrack while wiping egg from their face
I hope they do, I am a transfer and I am very glad that I did and did not have to sit out a year. Not to mention, first of all the NCAA gives baseball barely any scholarships to work with, and then with the new legislation they would be telling programs how to spend those scholarships.
None of the academic rules (having to be eligible at the end of the season in order to be a qualifier for the next year), etc etc are being challenged.
The only thing that's being challenged is the 33% scholarship minimum and the number of players you can offer partials to.
I always felt that was the smallest part of the legislation anyway.
The only thing that's being challenged is the 33% scholarship minimum and the number of players you can offer partials to.
I always felt that was the smallest part of the legislation anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Bee>:
gee,
you'd think the ncaa would be smart enough to "beta test" their (proposed) legislation here at hsbbweb before going public ...
much better than having to backtrack while wiping egg from their face
LOL. Maybe they have been reading up Bee, and they just got wise. A little egg is better than eating the the whole crow.
bee
As funny as it may sound this website is not as powerful in "college circles" as you want to think---I would venture to guess that most on the committee are not even aware it exists
As funny as it may sound this website is not as powerful in "college circles" as you want to think---I would venture to guess that most on the committee are not even aware it exists
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
I would venture to guess that most on the committee are not even aware it exists
I would venture to guess that many of those very committee members have never been a baseball game at their university.
I know at least one who has
quote:Originally posted by HiHardHeat:
None of the academic rules (having to be eligible at the end of the season in order to be a qualifier for the next year), etc etc are being challenged.
The only thing that's being challenged is the 33% scholarship minimum and the number of players you can offer partials to.
I always felt that was the smallest part of the legislation anyway.
The telling one of how to spend their money doesn't sit well with many, not just coaches but all the way up the line from AD's, Athletic Aid departments, to Presidents of many D1 schools.
It ain't gonna happen, most everything else will.
I read or listened to several coaches comment. The 33% without a bump in overall scholarships was consistantly panned. More rules without benefits does not cheer up coaches.
Well here's a curve ball and stop and think about it before responding. Let me set up my thought process first.
D1 football has 85 100% 4 year scholarships and they must be 100% no partial
D1 Basketball has 15 100% 4 year scholarship again they must be 100%
now in baseball Coaches can deal out money anyway they want with them only being good per year. Not enough control and there needs to be accountability to a young person from the COACH when it comes to staying at a particular institution.
I propose max Rosters of 35 players, With 30 players recieving guaranteed 40% 4 year scholarships and 5 walkon's if you choose to carry upto 35 players on your roster for baseball nothing more and when a player leaves another steps in to scholarship if available and all transferrs sit out 1 year under the transfer rules etc. This raises the total # of players recieving aid. Puts a bigger responsibility on the athletic accademic support staffs to mange the athletes with study halls, tutors etc. Now the balance of the tuition would remain stackable grants,aid,loans etc. The academic requirments must be met acrossed the whole athletic dept as far as qualifications are concerned semester to semester to determine eligability if a player fails to meet eligability he or she is placed on academic probation for one semester if they fail to meet eligability they're scholarship is removed and they are ineligable for athletics. This creates parity and pushes academics, graduation and retention rates up and everyone is accountable. Now players choose schools based education, coaches, and most importantly FIT
D1 football has 85 100% 4 year scholarships and they must be 100% no partial
D1 Basketball has 15 100% 4 year scholarship again they must be 100%
now in baseball Coaches can deal out money anyway they want with them only being good per year. Not enough control and there needs to be accountability to a young person from the COACH when it comes to staying at a particular institution.
I propose max Rosters of 35 players, With 30 players recieving guaranteed 40% 4 year scholarships and 5 walkon's if you choose to carry upto 35 players on your roster for baseball nothing more and when a player leaves another steps in to scholarship if available and all transferrs sit out 1 year under the transfer rules etc. This raises the total # of players recieving aid. Puts a bigger responsibility on the athletic accademic support staffs to mange the athletes with study halls, tutors etc. Now the balance of the tuition would remain stackable grants,aid,loans etc. The academic requirments must be met acrossed the whole athletic dept as far as qualifications are concerned semester to semester to determine eligability if a player fails to meet eligability he or she is placed on academic probation for one semester if they fail to meet eligability they're scholarship is removed and they are ineligable for athletics. This creates parity and pushes academics, graduation and retention rates up and everyone is accountable. Now players choose schools based education, coaches, and most importantly FIT
RYNO
I like your proposal
Another plus would be that the coaches will look a bit more closely at academics so as to maintain the APR and not have eligibility problems
I like your proposal
Another plus would be that the coaches will look a bit more closely at academics so as to maintain the APR and not have eligibility problems
I thought this was an interesting quote from over on the DoubleAZone at the NCAA.
--------------------------------------------
I don’t understand why Division I baseball coaches are responding to recent legislative changes by complaining about the lack of scholarships they have to give players. What does an insufficient number of scholarship dollars have to do with the way baseball student-athletes perform in school? The legislative changes enacted by the Division I Board of Directors are good for the academic performance of baseball student-athletes. There were flaws in the system, which was evident by looking at the graduation rates of baseball players, and these changes have a chance to clean things up.
"Right now, we have some coaches that are cheating the system and the kids. We've brought this upon ourselves, and now we have to make some changes. And how can you complain about doing something to make sure kids graduate? That's the bottom line,” said Iowa coach Jack Dahm.
--------------------------------------------
I don’t understand why Division I baseball coaches are responding to recent legislative changes by complaining about the lack of scholarships they have to give players. What does an insufficient number of scholarship dollars have to do with the way baseball student-athletes perform in school? The legislative changes enacted by the Division I Board of Directors are good for the academic performance of baseball student-athletes. There were flaws in the system, which was evident by looking at the graduation rates of baseball players, and these changes have a chance to clean things up.
"Right now, we have some coaches that are cheating the system and the kids. We've brought this upon ourselves, and now we have to make some changes. And how can you complain about doing something to make sure kids graduate? That's the bottom line,” said Iowa coach Jack Dahm.
RYNO, Why would you limit the percent at all? You are still dictating how they spend the money. The schools should have complete freedom to offer percentages as they see fit as long as the total number of scholarships is 11.7.
What's up with 11.7 any way with that low of a number for scholarships? Looking at some ratios of scholarships to players in play at any single moment let's see using the numbers cites above:
15 to 5 for basketball (3)
85 to 22 for football (assume no two way players and not counting for specilities like kicking) well OK maybe bump that to 27 for football. (3)
11.7 to 9 (1.3)
There is your biggest disparity!!
What's up with 11.7 any way with that low of a number for scholarships? Looking at some ratios of scholarships to players in play at any single moment let's see using the numbers cites above:
15 to 5 for basketball (3)
85 to 22 for football (assume no two way players and not counting for specilities like kicking) well OK maybe bump that to 27 for football. (3)
11.7 to 9 (1.3)
There is your biggest disparity!!
The reason is they won't increase the numbers at this point because of funding and really not much gate $$$revenue coming in and most of the 11.7 scholarship money is going to the pitching staff. In my plan you create an equal opportunity for all the players and now all ego's can be held in check and your not forced to play player (A) who has full ride because he might transferr.
Actually the number of men's D1 basketball scholarships is 13 (unless they changed that this season).
The problem I have with the system as it is now stands, is a coach giving a kid book money, bringing him in for a fall tryout, and then the coach cutting back his roster to a managable number - running off players. Lets face it, there generally is little need to have more than 35 players on a D1 roster. There should be no room in college athletics for that type of recruiting and it should be driven out of the game and any coach that tries it should be penalized.
The problem I have with the new rules is the one year sitting out if you transfer. I personally don't care how much money a kid gets. Book money or a full ride. That is their business so you can do away with that rule or keep it as I don't care. The only thing I might like is that ALL athletic scholarship recipiants receive the same amount. No variances. That way it evens the playing field for the coaches. The big public university couldn't give book money to several instate position players and then give full rides to a couple of national class pitchers. BUT What I don't really like about the new rules is that a boy basically paying his own way to school would have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer. Just doesn't seem right to me. A little different with basketball and football players as those guys get a full ride. The school has more of a commitment in them. Why should a boy basically paying his own way to school have to sit out if he decides he is in the wrong situation. If the NCAA thinks this is a big issue then go to full rides for baseball and then restrict transfers.
IMHO.
The problem I have with the system as it is now stands, is a coach giving a kid book money, bringing him in for a fall tryout, and then the coach cutting back his roster to a managable number - running off players. Lets face it, there generally is little need to have more than 35 players on a D1 roster. There should be no room in college athletics for that type of recruiting and it should be driven out of the game and any coach that tries it should be penalized.
The problem I have with the new rules is the one year sitting out if you transfer. I personally don't care how much money a kid gets. Book money or a full ride. That is their business so you can do away with that rule or keep it as I don't care. The only thing I might like is that ALL athletic scholarship recipiants receive the same amount. No variances. That way it evens the playing field for the coaches. The big public university couldn't give book money to several instate position players and then give full rides to a couple of national class pitchers. BUT What I don't really like about the new rules is that a boy basically paying his own way to school would have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer. Just doesn't seem right to me. A little different with basketball and football players as those guys get a full ride. The school has more of a commitment in them. Why should a boy basically paying his own way to school have to sit out if he decides he is in the wrong situation. If the NCAA thinks this is a big issue then go to full rides for baseball and then restrict transfers.
IMHO.
You aren't going to get more scholarships for baseball (Title IX) ....
... eliminate all of that from your proposals.
Then come up with a workable plan. The 33% may irritate some folks, but it is a reasonable number.
-----------------------
The change I'd make is to allow non-scholarship players to move freely as many times as they want provided that they stay academically eligible. Let them play at 4 different colleges over 4 years if they desire, as long as they stay on track to graduate using the 40/60/80 rule.
... eliminate all of that from your proposals.
Then come up with a workable plan. The 33% may irritate some folks, but it is a reasonable number.
-----------------------
The change I'd make is to allow non-scholarship players to move freely as many times as they want provided that they stay academically eligible. Let them play at 4 different colleges over 4 years if they desire, as long as they stay on track to graduate using the 40/60/80 rule.
most programs do NOT do that ... & those that do - well, in these days of instant internet roster info the programs that do it are not a secret .. those kids are standing in line for the chance ...quote:by MD: giving a kid book money, bringing him in for a fall tryout, and then the coach cutting back his roster to a managable number - running off players .. There should be no room in college athletics for that type of recruiting and it should be driven out of the game and any coach that tries it should be penalized.
now you wanna tell them they can't have it??
as for legislating egos, well most coaches play their best & don't think about the $$
if high $$ guys are often sitting ...
well there will soon be a moving van idling in front of the recruiting coach's house
quote:Originally posted by Bee>:
most programs do NOT do that ... & those that do - well, in these days of instant internet roster info the programs that do it are not a secret .. those kids are standing in line for the chance ...
as for legislating egos, well most coaches play their best & don't think about the $$
if high $$ guys are often sitting ...
well there will soon be a moving van idling in front of the recruiting coach's house
All the above is correct.
BTW, MOST coaches give out very little athletic $$, those who get that money do so to get out of state players to come to that program or not get drafted. Despite what many think, less money is given out at the top programs because THEY DON"T HAVE TO give it. And I do not beleive that all players come equal in baseball and should be rewarded as such. And it is the schools business to give to who they want and not be dictated by Big Daddy (NCAA) who only cares about the sports that make them very rich. The new transfer rule is not fair for those that earn the right (good grades and on target) to make a change.
To stop stocking piling in the fall, set your roster limits then, but the NCAA has not chosen to do that, so stockpiling will remain an issue.
I have no dog in this fight but just can't understand if this is about academic reform, what does scholarship $$ have to do with it? 33% minimum is going to make a student work harder in class?
Correct me if I am wrong, all athletic scholarships are for one year, all sports.
quote:Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
Correct me if I am wrong, all athletic scholarships are for one year, all sports.
Correct.