NCAA Update..POLK concedes

.
Interesting article...

Claims that other schools are ALREADY scouting the higher end DI's looking for the cut players...who in turn will bump players at those schools...and so on down the line...appears to have instant ramifications for EVERYONE right down to JC...starting very quickly...Know of a couple solid DI's cut from elite programs already out contacting Di and DII programs looking for a home this spring...

Article also claims program hardship through an adverse effect on the APR's as players transfer and will not be "on hand" to graduate...

Looks as if the new era of college baseball has begun...

It'll be interesting to look back a few years from now and see how all of this plays out...

I guess it might be more interesting if my son was either a few years older or a few years younger because right now he is a senior and it is all very confusing and stressful......

ditto momoftwo. Isn't it just great to be an 08 senior.

quote:

I guess it might be more interesting if my son was either a few years older or a few years younger because right now he is a senior and it is all very confusing and stressful......

very true mom, but just imagine how many other parents going thru the process feel who have not educated themselves on what's happening w/the new rules.

the process is kinda confusing anyway

So how worried should we be for our 08 grad who has not committed? Has been told he is a strong DI prospect, but coaches are telling him they aren't doing much of anything until spring.

worry isn't helpful, anyway recruiting has always gone in waves with the 1rst wave just about over

it doesn't "necessarily" have anything at all to do with the quality of the player who does not sign early ... often some factors are out of his control and determined by who else was on lists w/him & the decisions they made .. ie: LUCK

to most it looks like early signees are pretty talented AND pretty lucky

I think even though the new rules don't take effect until next year, the effects are being seen now as the last opportunity to transfer without penalty fast approaches. Many kids that would have accepted little playing time this year with hopes of stepping into a contributory role next year will now be looking harder at just how firm they feel about a future role. In the past, if they were on the bubble, they could keep working hard, hope to break into the lineup in a year or two without being 'cut'. Now, next year as teams downsize to the mandatory 35-man roster, bubble kids face the double-whammy of maybe being cut then sitting a year if they transfer. Those kids are highly motivated to get out of Dodge early, transfer to a place they feel they can play this spring and/or have a better shot at earning a spot on the 35-man roster next fall. This will be especially true at highly competitive D1 programs that are currently carrying 40-45 guys. 5-10 of those guys will be cut next year but are probably pretty capable players. For them, why risk not playing this year, getting cut next year, then sitting another year if they transfer?

How might this impact '08 HS grads? For those that don't sign an NLI early and lock in a scholarship (coaches are unlikely to cut a scholarshipped player unless there's "other" issues off the field), it might mean having to wait until summer as college coaches put their hooks in the winter transfers water to catch some good college atheletes cascading down from the over-recruited higher level programs and the resulting trickle down effect. This is kind of a one-time opportunity for the coaches before the new rules take effect. The usual process of late-signing HS seniors will face an unusually high spike of competition from mid-year transfers this year.

Know of a few players who have many opportunities but have not and will not make a decsion until they feel it is right.
Coaches have the same option.

Some of you think that the majority of players sign in November, not true, the majority of top HS players in the country sign.

I think the new rules will seperate the players who want to play college ball between the ones who play pro ball out of HS. Those with serious degree in mind may give up the game.

I think that this is what the working group had in mind all along. They do not care for the draft, students transfering for better opportunities to play and be seen and what it does to graduation rates.

quote:

How might this impact '08 HS grads? For those that don't sign an NLI early and lock in a scholarship (coaches are unlikely to cut a scholarshipped player unless there's "other" issues off the field), it might mean having to wait until summer as college coaches put their hooks in the winter transfers water to catch some good college atheletes cascading down from the over-recruited higher level programs and the resulting trickle down effect. This is kind of a one-time opportunity for the coaches before the new rules take effect. The usual process of late-signing HS seniors will face an unusually high spike of competition from mid-year transfers this year.

Roadking - I think your analysis is well thought out and I bet your predictions are correct.

As an aside, just so kids don't get completely discouraged if they have not signed yet, parents or players need not assume some kid transferring from a D1 has the upper hand over someone competing at a another D1 or a D2 or D3. There may have been a reason some kid was sitting on the bench and that does not mean he is entitled to anything at another level. I think people will realize when they get to college that getting recruited somewhere was perhaps the easier part of the equation. Finding playing time at the next level is difficult at best regardless if you have former D1 player on your resume.

CD has made a great post.

First, I don't think that too many serious scholarship players will be cut. You are talking about marginal players who are not starting for a reason. My thought is that a college coach will go after the HS player that shows more ability to be a real player in a year.

I have been thinking about this. If my son was going to a school that he really liked, was into his degree and campus life, I would, knowing what I do know, encourage him to seriously think about what is important for his future, transfering to a school he may not like, more bench time, making new friends vs. continuing for his degree in a place where he has made friends and feels comfortable spending another three years in that environment without baseball. That's why where you choose to go should be more important than where you will play. JMO.

I think too many place importance on the game of baseball over their education.

TPM, I don't disagree in any way with your placing priority on education over baseball. However, I wonder just how many baseball players who were cut from a program would want to stay at that school afterwards, even if they liked the school. I would think that staying would be an all-too-painful reminder of what was lost and would rub salt in the wound.

I don't know the answer.

It all depends on the situation. If a player who has books only scholarship, how realistic were the expectations? If a player was getting good money, then I could understand however, that is not usually the case.

If your son was playing for 1000 (books) at a school that he loved, would he transfer? I know mine wouldn't, because most likely he now would be a walk on (no money) at another program. He most likely would like to use his energy elsewhere, there are lots of players who do that. There have been a few players at my sons school who have walked away, and a few in pro ball that have to. They had great opportunities to make lots of $$ elsewhere.

There is life after baseball. I think that we as parents cling onto the hope it will last forever, more than they do.

.
Good thread...Observations...

I'f I'm a 4 year coach at a non elite baseball program (say 60-298)...my roster now is 35 inclduing redshirts, and my schedule is squashed, and academic performance and graduation have become essential for the survival of my program....AND I am supposed to win to keep my job...

Where I previously would have brough in "my guys" and developed them...I suddenly have become a great deal selective when choosing/recruting freshmen. The only freshman I am likley to recruit are those who are very likley to perform in class and absolutey certain to have an immediate/now impact on the field (I no longer have the luxury to allow players to develop, academically, or athletically)...I make any mistakes recruiting frosh either on the field or in the clasroom and I pay an exaggerated price. He stays I have likley locked up 4 years worth of baseball $, he leaves I get a ding on my graduation rates. Why take the risk. A lot of things can happen in four years.

So...I take the guessswork, and the sting of any mistakes out of the equation...I seriously increase my recruting at the JC level...2 years proven baseball talent - at a collegiate level, 2 years proven clasroom work - at a collegiate level particularly with the beefed up academic transfer rules...two years closer to graduation...and if the player does not work out in either case he's gone relatively quickly. I do not have to try to figure out what to do with him, or go through the emotional nightmare of a cut. 2 years is a great deal less risky then 4.

IMO...The JC route to DI will get a huge boost. At the risk of oversimplicication, I don't see a great boost for the concept of "student athletes", at the 4 years...but rather a transformation to a quick in quick out "2 year gun for hire" set up...

...The irony is...that happens and the NCAA will likley have to go back and relegislate...to encourage the concept of real student athletes...

44
.
.

44 that is exactly how I see it coming down aswell as more guys getting no countable money.

While I agree with most of the info posted, I have to disagree with one comment TPM posted. My son is a small scholly at a big time school. The coach did the weekly calls recruiting my son, called summer coaches and other high school coaches and he said he wanted my son to be a player. My son had other large scholly amounts at other D1's but based his decision on the baseball. After getting to school, he and many others find out that cuts will be made.

I know education should be the reason for choosing a school but it's not for all of them, my son included. The 35 roster rule was being contested but all the coaches knew it was a possibility to stay firm. Yet some recruited these boys knowing full well they had other places to play. It's a lesson to learn albeit the hard way.

quote:

by O44: Where I previously would have brough in "my guys" and developed them...I suddenly have become a great deal selective when choosing/recruting freshmen. The only freshman I am likley to recruit are those who are very likley to perform in class and absolutey certain to have an immediate/now impact on the field (I no longer have the luxury to allow players to develop, academically, or athletically)...I make any mistakes recruiting frosh either on the field or in the clasroom and I pay an exaggerated price. He stays I have likley locked up 4 years worth of baseball $, he leaves I get a ding on my graduation rates. Why take the risk

I agree w/Roadkings take that this is a ONE TIME windfall for programs 60 - 298

O44 makes valid points ONLY regarding the minority of DI programs who traditionaly DID stockpile/over-recruit ...

but .. the majority DID NOT cattle call recruit,
and they will continue "business as usual" developing players the same way they have for yrs

Its a very emotional issue and some good points are being made.
As far as the impact, it was already being felt last spring. When D1 coaches would ask me about a 2007 HS player, it was done with the caveat of " is he a guy I'll want to give 25% to next year".

NRPMOM that is exactly the problem. Coaches says all kinds of stuff to get players and they know thyere will be cuts. Nothing has really changed by the new rules except the penalty for a low grad rate. There still will be overrecruiting but hopefully less.
It can be a shock to find out there are way more players than spots and that cuts will be made. Cuts can also occure in subsequet years as well.

quote:

IMO...The JC route to DI will get a huge boost. At the risk of oversimplicication, I don't see a great boost for the concept of "student athletes", at the 4 years...but rather a transformation to a quick in quick out "2 year gun for hire" set up...

I don't see anything significant changing for the top players...they will continue to be coveted and recruited heavily by D1 programs. In addition, with the schedule changes, pitching is a now at an all time premium and will command an even higher % of scholly $.
As far as the potential JUCO to D1 transfer onslaught, the NCAA continues to make this a difficult road. One of the least talked about aspects of the new rules is the requirement for all D1 players to be academically certified on day one of the fall semester. This really puts the squeeze on any potential 2-4 transfers as the fall semester can now not be used to make up acadmeic deficiencies prior to the baseball season.
The bottom line....college coaches will have to be smarter and more thorough in the process of identifying, evaluating and recruiting players. The new limits mean they can't make mistakes. One potential effect may be a reduction in super early offers...at least I would hope so.
At the same time, families need to be smarter on their end when it comes to selecting a potetial fit. Shoe horning a player into the wrong program now carries a big time penalty.

I look at it as if the MLB got rid of all the minor league teams and only looked at guys who they feel could play MLB right away.
They have somewhat hurt the guys who need some development .

quote:

and they will continue "business as usual" developing players the same way they have for yrs

Ready to be educated...If the landscape has changed...what is the advantage to developing freshmen vs. cherrypicking JC's?

44.
.

.
rbinaz...

My point exactly, If a player gets through the 2 year gauntlet...he is the kind of player I REALLY want in all respects at my 4 year...Proven academically AND atheletically...He is a great risk...exactlly why the smart coaches will increase recruiting them...

And agreed the TOP DI, "step in today and crontibute" Blue Chip recruits will still be sought...even more than ever...

And the top schools will still generally get those top players...

It's the players who would have developed who will take the brunt of this...

44
.

quote:

My point exactly, If a player gets through the 2 year gauntlet...he is the kind of player I REALLY want in all respects at my 4 year...Proven academically AND atheletically...He is a great risk...exactlly why the smart coaches will increase recruiting them...

Let me clarify my point here. The JUCO player who has done everything right on his end will still be a casualty with these new rules...at least in the D1 scenario.
Here's an example: We had a HS kid with a 4.5 GPA elect to forgo the D2/D3 offers that were thrown at him and go the JC route...a national top level program. He plays 2 years..has the AA degree in hand and is recruited to a small, minor D1 program on the east coast. The kid was rock star student in HS and at the JC.
Lo and behold, even this exemplary student was 3 classes shy in his major of meeting the 40-60-80 rule. He is facing sitting out the 2008 season due to eligibility problems.
This is a young man who did everything correctly and still had issues. Luckily, his raw intelligence allowed him to test out of all 3 classes and he will play this year.
Others will not be so lucky.

.
With all due respects...

While I would agree...It is NOT easy, It is a gauntlet...and homework is esential to see that all classes are complete...and a player IS taking on some risk...and I am not saying it is right or easy...

But structly from the viewpoint of a 4 year coach....

Once he gets out of 2 year, with all it's challenges...he is a still more of a known quantity...athletically, academically...And he is now a 2 year risk to me, not a 4 year one.

44
.

quote:

Originally posted by rbinaz:

quote:

My point exactly, If a player gets through the 2 year gauntlet...he is the kind of player I REALLY want in all respects at my 4 year...Proven academically AND atheletically...He is a great risk...exactlly why the smart coaches will increase recruiting them...

Let me clarify my point here. The JUCO player who has done everything right on his end will still be a casualty with these new rules...at least in the D1 scenario.
Here's an example: We had a HS kid with a 4.5 GPA elect to forgo the D2/D3 offers that were thrown at him and go the JC route...a national top level program. He plays 2 years..has the AA degree in hand and is recruited to a small, minor D1 program on the east coast. The kid was rock star student in HS and at the JC.
Lo and behold, even this exemplary student was 3 classes shy in his major of meeting the 40-60-80 rule. He is facing sitting out the 2008 season due to eligibility problems.
This is a young man who did everything correctly and still had issues. Luckily, his raw intelligence allowed him to test out of all 3 classes and he will play this year.
Others will not be so lucky.

Not being familiar with Juco eligibility rules, what is the 40-60-80 rule? Is this a problem with the coaches and/or counselors at the Juco's not watching out for their players? What is the effect of red shirting at a Juco and taking three years to get out? Is it different with what types of schools they go to?

quote:

Originally posted by observer44:
.
But structly from the viewpoint of a 4 year coach....

Once he gets out of 2 year, with all it's challenges...he is a still more of a known quantity...athletically, academically...And he is now a 2 year risk to me, not a 4 year one.

44
.

I do not necessarily agree. Coaches look to fill in gaps with Juco players and will continue to do so. If it is a top program, that player has to also be a top player from the 2 year program that he has come from. If that JUCO player is that good or talented, he usually won't be available due to the draft.

One year JUCO players Often does not have enough credits to transfer to D1 programs. Remember a JUCO player now will have to be eligible by the fall, not spring.


If it was that easy, you would find many more JUCO players in 4 year programs.

quote:

Originally posted by NRPMom:
While I agree with most of the info posted, I have to disagree with one comment TPM posted.

It ok to disagree but not sure what you are disagreeing with.

If your son had sat two years on the bench and not played and then cut, what would suggest he do? Go looking for another program to sit again or remain at school to finish his degree?

As far as coaches knowing this was coming down, you are correct. IMO, coaches responsibility was to speak to all players that may be cut and give them options before they set foot on campus.

I know of a coach who did that and there were remarks made here by some ignorant people regarding how terrible that was. What he did do, coming into a 44-45 man roster was speak to some players (some Juco) and tell them that their best bet was to find other schools before it was too late to transfer and helped them in the porcess. The fall roster was 37. He could have waited until the end of fall, hand picked who he felt were the best players and let others go, but he chose to take the time and do the right thing. He also works very hard (and so do the players) with his new team to develop them into the best players they can be.

.
TPM...

I agree...with the Top programs. Assuming that more players decide to go pro and avoid the academic gauntlet in 2 or 4 year...there will be fewer blues out of HS...Lower total numbers of Blues than in years past but the the elites will still have the pick of the litter out of HS...and they will still get most of the top JC players. Agreed.

And with the smaller DI rosters the numbers in the JC ranks will swell (even with the academic challenges)...the overall quality at JC's will arguably rise...

My initial post mentioned programs from 60-298, not the elite programs. Say I'm a coach...at 60-298...Where I'm seeing...Less HS blues...less chance one falls to me...And with APR I have greater penalities for a mistake than ever. With a roster of 35 and 5 games a week I have no room to develop players.

As a coach, I can not afford to take risks with a player I am not absolutely certain of. I can get a player and wait 1 or 2 years and a roster spot for development...or get help immediately. I can get an 18 year old..or a 20 year old with two years of college weight lifting. I can get a player with two years of year round college baseball experience...or a player with none. I can get a player within 2 years from graduation or I can get one 4 years from graduation. I can get a player with 2 years of risk of leaving and messing up my APR...or one with two years of risk.

Now agreed there are players will not make it out of JC...but those who do emerge academically available, and skill developed are arguably more valuable than ever as they are a known quantitiy and lower risk.

Now, I am not saying...everybody rush to JC (it has it's own very well documented challenges)...I am just saying that with the new ruels it would not surprise me at all to see a shift in recruiting emphasis.

And I am not saying that the JC route is easy...but I DO think you will be seeing more players out of the JC ranks...and more and more DI programs like some of the top DII's that are nearly exclusively JC transfers.

44
.

A couple of additions:

quote:

My initial post mentioned programs from 60-298, not the elite programs....observer44

With all due respect, rankings and ratings change each year and I don't understand about drawing a line in the sand as far as program classifications using team 60 as a cutoff? Is Louisville an Elite program? Compare their past rosters to see what they did to crawl out of the cellar in 2007. It is called wholesale exchange of goods!!

If you want to classify Elite, I would say they are the programs that recruit normally well outside their State boundaries each year. That takes resources, some past baseball success, and the perception that the limelight grants the player the best exposure. Just use the Draft each year to prove out that players from #1 to # 298 get selected, Elite program or not.

My point on the recruiting landscape.

Programs that have historically plucked the best talent in their home State will have the easiest transition. Why?

These programs have spent 2-3 years of following local players, watching them grow, getting to know them, seeing them play many times which provides the coach enough information to aid in a decision on whether to make an offer. These programs also have been working in the under 35 range of rostered players. They are very selective, as well as careful.

Player classifications will take on another sub-class. We discussed on another thread that for illustrative purposes, there are 3 types of recruits:

Immediate impact
Future impact/development ******
Substitute/Bench player

Now each of those will have a secondary label attached regarding academics and non-countable aid.

The formation of a 27/35 roster, and maintaining it will be more of a problem for these "elite" programs.

Whereas in the past, # 1 prep pitcher gets "60" calls on July 1 with a phone offer of a ?full ride?, the coach will now have to seriously consider all of the other factors relating to that individual player, the players on his current roster, the teams other needs to fill as far as new recruits all within these guidelines. He just can't give away a big chunk anymore thinking he will offset it with cutting 5 players and reallocating their money.

Haven't the JUCO's always been a holding tank, farm system for college baseball and pro baseball? That will continue, and I agree will be utilized even more for programs at all levels.

The player classed at future impact/development may be the ones the most affected. If the coach wants to win now, he can't tie up a minimum 25% monies on a player who may get a few innings on the hill or a few at bats in year #1. The coach would just pluck a JUCO in there as needed??

If any coach keeps stockpiling after this, then he is one helluva liar

quote:

If you want to classify Elite, I would say they are the programs that recruit normally well outside their State boundaries each year.

OldSlugger8, I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but I don't think you can classify elite programs based on the criteria you listed above. For example, take the University of Texas, which is a perennial powerhouse. Their current roster lists 32 in-state players and only 6 from out-of-state.

quote:

by TPM: Coaches look to fill in gaps with Juco players and will continue to do so

agree with TPM

quote:

by O44: If the landscape has changed...what is the advantage to developing freshmen vs. cherrypicking JC's?

many programs use JC to fill gapslike TPM says ..
others others rarely use them - that will continue imo.

the advantage to developing freshmen will be a continuing line of (high) quality freshmen seeking your program

and the disadvantage to (heavily) using JCs is that quality freshmen will avoid your program.

re the "academic gauntlet", you're scaring folks with apocylptic predictions.

there is one undeniable affect tho, less roster spots overall

Has anyone brought up the pending realignment of baseball equivalencies yet?

Two concepts to think about. The first are the players well above 25% in baseball monies. The pie size remains the same for those funds, but the slicing may mean many kids who have a high amount of grant may be asked to surrender a portion, even the starters.

OR

The coach will be "forced" to have counters on the roster with no baseball money, but 25% non-team countable qualified academic aid type players under the mixed monies rule.

OR BOTH

This was part of the basis on the point of recruiting solid players maybe a year out from being a major contributor.

All of the new NCAA rules, regulations and limitations will be a gigantic boost to top NAIA schools where the rules are much more lenient or even nonexistent.

The top NAIA programs already compete with and even beat many of the NCAA DI schools. There are NAIA schools that have had more players drafted than most DI schools and now they will be even stronger, thanks to the NCAA. Guess I’m alright with that.

Most people are not aware of the quality of many of the nation’s top NAIA programs, but IMO that will soon change. There are a lot of great opportunities for high level players and great coaching staffs at NAIA schools. Be it recruiting, transferring, scholarships, draft opportunities, or playing right away… There are a lot of good options for high level players, outside of DI.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
and the disadvantage to (heavily) using JCs is that quality freshmen will avoid your program.

Scenerios

My HS son is looking at a program with a roster of 35 and 10 are JUCO transfers. To me the 4 year coach is restocking and not developing. We are not interested.

As a parent of a JUCO player, I want my son to go play on a 4 year team where the coach will continue to develop his skills.

As a 4 year college coach (any division) I want a JUCO player that matches the calibur of HS players I recruit.

There are many success stories of JUCO players who have gone to 4 year programs and have done very well. But mostly, because the had the tools to play on that team from the get go, but for some reason (grades, money, etc) they didn't get the opportunity originally.

The only thing that will change, JUCO's will benefit because of the sit transfer rule. I do not see a bigger influx into 4 year programs because of the new recruiting rules.

quote:

there is one undeniable affect tho, less roster spots overall

After having thought about it some more, that is the main effect. There will still be 56 game schedules played next year each needing 9 or 10 guys to make a team on a given day. The actual amount of playing time out there is unchanged. Some will no longer be able to tell their friends they are college baseball players. Others with a better defined sense of themselves, their self-worth, love of the game, and ambition will find a home somewhere to play.

One way of looking at things is that 5-10 spots have dropped off from the bottom of the rosters. Another way of looking at is there are only 2900 opportunities (290 d1's x 10) to start on a given day at D1. There are at least as many opportunties in the other divisions as well. The ability to claim one of those opportunites across all divisions has remained unchanged.

Regarding developmental players with talent, Coach Leggett at Clemson noted that players like Khalil Greene might not have gotten an opportunity under the new system. Perhaps not at Clemson but there are other options. Greene could have still gone to Clemson as a walk-on possibly or he could have pursued baseball somewhere else. If he wouldn't have been good enough to make their 35 man roster at the time, then Clemson perhaps would have been a poor baseball fit for the young man. There are D2, D3, NAIA, and JUCO's out there that also play high levels of baseball and provide opportunities for exposure to be drafted highly. The trick is to find a place and PLAY.

BA's Aaron Fitt's blog is right on top of it (and of course years late)

Most all NCAA D1 Coaches are 'suggesting' all "players" (i.e. those who are unlikely to make the official roster, or get any playing time, or to be redshirted) the 'opportunity' to think about transferring in between semesters and yes, the last chance to transfer freely.

But do these 'sensivitive' coaches really really care?.....very debatable.

Some view points:
a) Coaches don't have to or want to scholarship some of these players next August 2008. (If player is on books this year, and if remains on roster next year, coach will have to pop up the bucks to the player... from ~ $1G for books to almost 5x higher. (That my be either 25% or 33% whatever ABCA decides in Jan vote)

b) Coach may not want to wait for "Freshman/Sophomore to grow up". Will take less risk on transfers/JUCO.

c) NCAA bad boy R. Polk complaining again? What's new here? Polk been rambling on and on for ~20 years.
Only a 18 page letter to every D1 coach to voice his opinion against the roster cap and scholarship restrictions? That's way down!

What's Polk got this year, ~ 15 walk-ons.
That will be reduced in Aug 2008!
And then reduced again in Aug 2009, and probably to less than two!

d) Some believe as I do, this helps the local / regional recruiting. Epecially for the Northeast and less than top D1 conferences. Why a NE player will accept a chance at a dream and accept a walk on status to ....Miami, Texas A&M, Miss St, vs accept a 33% to a Tier II or Tier III Div I Baseball Conference becomes a no-brainer!

e) Contrary to perception that some coaches really believe some of the Southern colleges are 'bigger than the darkess days our amateur National Pastime,
a Annie will sing:
.......Tomorrow, tomorrow, the Sun comes tomorrow
.......It's always a day away
.......Tomorrow, tomorrow, the Sun comes tomorrow
.......It's always a day ... a ... way!

More discussion and view points should follow:

Regards
Bear

ps. It's impacting a lot of people, both in good ways and other ways. I would NOT know how to advise my son! Where is the gender equity in all of this?

My understanding about Greene was that he had tools but as a position player not a 25% player when he was recruited. I don't think he was drafted out of HS. He worked under Tim Corbin, and I seriously doubt if he had to go to a smaller program he would have been the 13th pick that year or national player of the year. No doubt he would have played anywhere he went most likely with new rules stayed in FL to attend school.

He is an exception to every rule so not sure why he was used as an example.

I agree that this rule may help regional schools where otherwise good players would have looked elsewhere, however, my understanding is that schools in the south are so much less $$ than northern schools to attend, they will still head south.

Bottom line is, go where the opportunity presents itself for you to play and not sit. That doesn't change.

I too would not know how to advise my son if he was being recruited these days.

BTW, Clemson along with many of the top ACC schools gives very little money to position players, you all most likely would be shocked by the amounts. Maybe a bit more to get a position player out of their home state. Big $$ goes to pitchers. They actually are just like everyone else, they want to spend as little as possible on a player.

However, the rosters as far as I have been following them for many years never has gone over a ridiculous amount, between 30-35 as most of the teams in the ACC. If you are given an opportunity, you know you have to come to compete, but you also know you don't have to start fighting for whatever scholarship was awarded to you the year before. This year their fall roster is 30. I have never heard of an invited walk on there.