Supply and demand are a big issue here. You remove almost 900 D1 spots based on an average 38 man roster (3x293). After these guys find spots at other levels 900 guys at the bottom will not find a BB program to play for.
If BB were an exact science you could say the worst player would be squeezed out thye bottom. I personally don't believe that because I have seen players who showed modest talent becaome stars in several sports. BB is one of the most developmental games there is. I have even heard scouts watching a MLB game who have said things like "who would have thought this guy would become a MLB superstar?" Even ML players have great years and horrible years. In many cases you are only as good as your last game.
The problem with BB is the coach has to judge talent and it isn't an exact science. They make lots of mistakes and now the guy who is borderline at the time of recruitment is facing a major hurdle and could end up totally rerouted from his dream.
quote: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!
How so ?
I don't recall that pertaining to walk ons but rather scholarships. Walk ons are walk ons and not all of them are know to the coach.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Supply and demand are a big issue here. You remove almost 900 D1 spots based on an average 38 man roster (3x293). After these guys find spots at other levels 900 guys at the bottom will not find a BB program to play for.
I don't think 38 is an average, but all the math aside, recall the discussion we had about player tracking. All but a very few who played little as freshman(non RS) ended up a role players.
Recall the distribution of at bats for a player. It just appears that many programs seek out at least one, sometimes more impact freshman that contribute immediately each season. Recall the discussion about impact recruits/developmental recruits/and bench recruits.
It looks like the developmental type player will have a hard time getting 25% when there is a sense of urgency to win.
OS there will be more guys getting no BB moneyand or countable money.
I saw schools with 40+ players including RS guys. A good player behind say 2 senior catchers may get his shot in Soph year depending on recruits. My son's team had 38 on the spring roster as did many others.
If you have 800-900 players going else where many will be turned away that might have developed into great players between those that had to go else where and those who couldn't find a spot because the guys took them who didn't get D1 spots. Lots of great freshmen are behind incumbent seniors and Juniors.
I don't look at coaches ever taking fillers or bench players as you call them and that is why I disagree with your logic. They take guys they think can be contributors in ayear or 2 . At least they used to,
I saw schools with 40+ players including RS guys. A good player behind say 2 senior catchers may get his shot in Soph year depending on recruits. My son's team had 38 on the spring roster as did many others.
If you have 800-900 players going else where many will be turned away that might have developed into great players between those that had to go else where and those who couldn't find a spot because the guys took them who didn't get D1 spots. Lots of great freshmen are behind incumbent seniors and Juniors.
I don't look at coaches ever taking fillers or bench players as you call them and that is why I disagree with your logic. They take guys they think can be contributors in ayear or 2 . At least they used to,
Bottom line is most schools who kept their numbers down will still do business as usual. The smart coaches who could balance and crunch their $$ will still be able to do it, just in different ways.
Lot of finger pointing on the reasons for the new rules, parents and players blaming coaches, coaches blaming NCAA, NCAA blaming the professional draft.
If many coaches had done what they should have from the beginning, transfer rates would have been lower, and the graduation rate would not have been in jeopardy for them to make these changes. Every time a bb player tansfers out it is a strike against you, incoming transfers do not count, so if the purpose is improving the APR, coaches will still recruit from HIGH SCHOOL first.
Lot of finger pointing on the reasons for the new rules, parents and players blaming coaches, coaches blaming NCAA, NCAA blaming the professional draft.
If many coaches had done what they should have from the beginning, transfer rates would have been lower, and the graduation rate would not have been in jeopardy for them to make these changes. Every time a bb player tansfers out it is a strike against you, incoming transfers do not count, so if the purpose is improving the APR, coaches will still recruit from HIGH SCHOOL first.
BHD
Logical or not, nobody wants to sit the bench, especially a collection of talented kids who were all probably one of the best players on their teams from youth ball all the way up thru high school.
When PG, and many others like myself have said the D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO schools are all loaded with talent that would compete with anyone and some surpassing the D1 assumed level of talent, was an understatement.
Baseball is way different from the other 2 major sports such as football and basketball. Size, speed and strength are favored over skill in football, and basketball follows that path also. How many horribly skilled players have you seen in the college and pro ranks of basketball. MANY
BUT...............you don't see many smaller division football and basketball kids in the Pros. The NCAA D1 is their farm system. Not baseball. Players come from all levels of collegiate schools, let alone the global infusion.
When you bring this all together, I am saying simply this.
There are reasons why kids on D1 rosters who are what you call developmental basically on the bench for 3-4 years. The reason is that the coach finds someone better, each year. Some of the guys overlooked by D1 initially, or chose to play at a smaller division because of perceived playing time issues, i.e an all-american in his way, have gone on to the next level anyway. Just track the draft.
There was a thread on here before called "Why D1 ?".
Logical or not, nobody wants to sit the bench, especially a collection of talented kids who were all probably one of the best players on their teams from youth ball all the way up thru high school.
When PG, and many others like myself have said the D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO schools are all loaded with talent that would compete with anyone and some surpassing the D1 assumed level of talent, was an understatement.
Baseball is way different from the other 2 major sports such as football and basketball. Size, speed and strength are favored over skill in football, and basketball follows that path also. How many horribly skilled players have you seen in the college and pro ranks of basketball. MANY
BUT...............you don't see many smaller division football and basketball kids in the Pros. The NCAA D1 is their farm system. Not baseball. Players come from all levels of collegiate schools, let alone the global infusion.
When you bring this all together, I am saying simply this.
There are reasons why kids on D1 rosters who are what you call developmental basically on the bench for 3-4 years. The reason is that the coach finds someone better, each year. Some of the guys overlooked by D1 initially, or chose to play at a smaller division because of perceived playing time issues, i.e an all-american in his way, have gone on to the next level anyway. Just track the draft.
There was a thread on here before called "Why D1 ?".
The point I dissagre with is that a kid who wants to play D1 will sit if he has to to get his chance to play. There have been, are and will be guys who sit in their Freshman and soph years that are capable of starting. There are people on this site whos son's have been on the bench or RS who have come in to compete and contribute. Many get there chance and prove they can play. many bulk up alittle refine their skills and become contributors.
Not arguing where the drafted players come from. A kids dream of playing D1 may not be logical but it is their dream. The dream just got a little dimmer for some.
Not arguing where the drafted players come from. A kids dream of playing D1 may not be logical but it is their dream. The dream just got a little dimmer for some.
I am not really understnading what the problem is coaches have for roster size max #'s.
A D1 school needs 3-4 catchers (depending on pitching staff), 7-8 outfielders, 6 infielders, 15-17 pitchers. Give or take to make a max roster of 35. And why the big numbers for D2 and D3
schools? They also only need the same amount, maybe less due to schedules.
NCAA post season only allows 25, more than half are pitchers.
Yet 40-45 show up for the fall.
Players that come to a program with roster of 30-35 most likely know they might have to wait behind someone for a year, maybe two. As long as they get their fair shot most are ok or while waiting have opportunities to learn and contribute.
A D1 school needs 3-4 catchers (depending on pitching staff), 7-8 outfielders, 6 infielders, 15-17 pitchers. Give or take to make a max roster of 35. And why the big numbers for D2 and D3
schools? They also only need the same amount, maybe less due to schedules.
NCAA post season only allows 25, more than half are pitchers.
Yet 40-45 show up for the fall.
Players that come to a program with roster of 30-35 most likely know they might have to wait behind someone for a year, maybe two. As long as they get their fair shot most are ok or while waiting have opportunities to learn and contribute.
"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."
My only problem with reducing to 35 is with the coaches who didn't do it before the players showed up on campus.Many of the boys had other offers at quality schools that may not be an option now.
My only problem with reducing to 35 is with the coaches who didn't do it before the players showed up on campus.Many of the boys had other offers at quality schools that may not be an option now.
the 35 man roster cap .. effective the day class beginsquote:quote:
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!
How so ?
I don't recall that pertaining to walk ons but rather scholarships. Walk ons are walk ons and not all of them are know to the coach.
all walk-ons are known to coaches because they are players on his team receiving no bb $$ ..
all open tryout candidates (students TRYING to make the team as a walk-on) are also known to coach as they are required to attend one or more pre tryout meetings submitting required info - name, ss#, insurance, academic standing, etc
hope that helps
Bee>,
35 roster cap is not for the fall, but to be submitted the day before opening season.
35 roster cap is not for the fall, but to be submitted the day before opening season.
quote:Originally posted by Bee>:
the 35 man roster cap .. effective the day class begins
I do believe the 35 man roster is effective the first day of what the NCAA refers to as, "The Championship Session", that being the first day of spring baseball, Feb 22 in 2008.
The bottom line is still the same--regardless of the roster size the player has prove his worth--- does all this concern about roster size come from the fact that todays kids are used to being "given" a spot on the roster in previous stages.
If a player has the talent why all the concern ? Where is the self confidence? I think it has eroded due to all the "freebies" thru LL and HS
If a player has the talent why all the concern ? Where is the self confidence? I think it has eroded due to all the "freebies" thru LL and HS
quote:the 35 man roster cap .. effective the day class begins
You had better call the NCAA. They don't know that ?
I was specifically told that it only applied to the spring roster. Think about it. A coach is going to bring only 35 guys and can't make cuts .???
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
The bottom line is still the same--regardless of the roster size the player has prove his worth--- does all this concern about roster size come from the fact that todays kids are used to being "given" a spot on the roster in previous stages.
If a player has the talent why all the concern ? Where is the self confidence? I think it has eroded due to all the "freebies" thru LL and HS
I am not sure why all the concern but I agree the bottom line is the same. The opportunities for playing time are the same. One of the harsh realities at many schools is that it is a national competition all the time for playing time. Maybe the guy ahead of you has graduated or has been drafted. That does not necessarily mean you are next in line even though you have waited your turn. You are next in line if you are better than some highly recruiited freshman, some kid who has transferred from another program, some JUCO player on the Coast, and likely some kid on your current roster who does not necessarily play your position but who might be given a chance because he can hit.
Someone may say their dream of playing D1 has ended but the dream ultimately should be to play college baseball imho and not merely be on the roster.
.
CD...Outstanding! That is about the best one paragraph synopsis of the true competitive nature of college ball that I have seen yet. Mine have seen and experienced all those on their teams every year.
--
We spend a great deal of time here encouraging players and parents...being positive and upbeat...and that's grand...
But make no mistake about the harsh competitive realities of what you and your son are striving for, or stepping into, or experiencing...Not everyone gets a trophy, starting time/Ab's are not leveled out, positions are earned by performance not by seniority, scholarships are one year reknewable at the discretion of the coach...the pressure to perform is constant.
I have talked to parents this fall whose son's played very well this fall, good enough to start...but due to the highly competitive and changing nature of college ball were unsure if they would end up starting, on the bench, or off the roster altogether by the end of fall practice.
44
.
quote:One of the harsh realities at many schools is that it is a national competition all the time for playing time. Maybe the guy ahead of you has graduated or has been drafted. That does not necessarily mean you are next in line even though you have waited your turn. You are next in line if you are better than some highly recruiited freshman, some kid who has transferred from another program, some JUCO player on the Coast, and likely some kid on your current roster who does not necessarily play your position but who might be given a chance because he can hit.
CD...Outstanding! That is about the best one paragraph synopsis of the true competitive nature of college ball that I have seen yet. Mine have seen and experienced all those on their teams every year.
--
We spend a great deal of time here encouraging players and parents...being positive and upbeat...and that's grand...
But make no mistake about the harsh competitive realities of what you and your son are striving for, or stepping into, or experiencing...Not everyone gets a trophy, starting time/Ab's are not leveled out, positions are earned by performance not by seniority, scholarships are one year reknewable at the discretion of the coach...the pressure to perform is constant.
I have talked to parents this fall whose son's played very well this fall, good enough to start...but due to the highly competitive and changing nature of college ball were unsure if they would end up starting, on the bench, or off the roster altogether by the end of fall practice.
44.
I do stand correctedquote:You had better call the NCAA. They don't know that ? I was specifically told that it only applied to the spring roster
sure isn't that the whole point,quote:Think about it. A coach is going to bring only 35 guys and can't make cuts .??
pressure the guys who run fall cuts type programs to learn how to recruit guys they actually want on their team.
Bee> its not that I don't agree that it should be like that. It just isn't and over recruiting is alive and well. the new rules should have addressed this but it is not in the coaches/schools best interests.
To me this is a tradjedy for some BB guys just waiting to happen. For parents and students who commit to a school and get cut with no transfer without penalty is a real problem. If they could transfer it would not be as harsh.
To me this is a tradjedy for some BB guys just waiting to happen. For parents and students who commit to a school and get cut with no transfer without penalty is a real problem. If they could transfer it would not be as harsh.
Bobble, exactamundo!
The problem is, I think a lot of the schools and coaches actually support the imposition of the transfer sit-out rule on baseball players. Now, a coach can cut your money and you have no where to go! It gives the coach all the power in the relationship. Heck, even if the coach secretly planned to cut you after your first year from the get go, he can defraud you with impunity. Way to go, NCAA!
Basically there was no one at the table in those NCAA meetings to represent the interests of the future kids who're going to get the shaft in all of this. Even Polk's letter focused more on the individual scholarship minimums and the roster caps. He didn't really take up the cause for the kid who wants, or perhaps really needs, to transfer. Nobody did, and it's those kids who're going to suffer the most from all of this.
I'll cite Arizona State as an example. Every year they over-recruit, then cut upper classmen's scholarships to get themselves under the cap. Every year they lose guys to transfers as a result of kids looking to better their situation, the same way you or I might if our employer cut our pay. But now, those same kids cannot transfer without having to sit out a year. That messes with their status for the pro draft, and puts a big impediment between them and a fair deal. Some of these kids may not be able to afford school after their money is cut. But there is no grace for them!
Whether they should expect to compete, yada yada yada, is not the point. Some of these kids are flat out being lied to and the NCAA is sweeping these unscrupulous recruiting practices under the rug at thse kids' expense.
The problem is, I think a lot of the schools and coaches actually support the imposition of the transfer sit-out rule on baseball players. Now, a coach can cut your money and you have no where to go! It gives the coach all the power in the relationship. Heck, even if the coach secretly planned to cut you after your first year from the get go, he can defraud you with impunity. Way to go, NCAA!
Basically there was no one at the table in those NCAA meetings to represent the interests of the future kids who're going to get the shaft in all of this. Even Polk's letter focused more on the individual scholarship minimums and the roster caps. He didn't really take up the cause for the kid who wants, or perhaps really needs, to transfer. Nobody did, and it's those kids who're going to suffer the most from all of this.
I'll cite Arizona State as an example. Every year they over-recruit, then cut upper classmen's scholarships to get themselves under the cap. Every year they lose guys to transfers as a result of kids looking to better their situation, the same way you or I might if our employer cut our pay. But now, those same kids cannot transfer without having to sit out a year. That messes with their status for the pro draft, and puts a big impediment between them and a fair deal. Some of these kids may not be able to afford school after their money is cut. But there is no grace for them!
Whether they should expect to compete, yada yada yada, is not the point. Some of these kids are flat out being lied to and the NCAA is sweeping these unscrupulous recruiting practices under the rug at thse kids' expense.
BobbleheadDoll and Midlo Dad, very well put!
We are on the same page.
Future students will be relying on the good intentions of a coach. The only thing they could do is leave and hurt the the RPI but that is hardly a weapon of defence.
Future students will be relying on the good intentions of a coach. The only thing they could do is leave and hurt the the RPI but that is hardly a weapon of defence.
MidloDad and BobbleheadDoll - I am comletely lost on the points you are tying to make? Some random thoughts and not trying to be argumentitive....
Other sports have the no transfer rule - are you suggesting those sports are rampant with coaches who are liers? The no transfer rule causes lying?
If coaches were unethical before, then I would think they will continue to be so imho. Arizona State is used as an example. If it is as you suggest, then they were acting a certain way under the old rules. Why are the new rules going to make that (living up to their promises) any worse? Under the old system, couldn't a coach tell a plyer he was next in line yet continue to recruit players who were better?
Put another way, maybe it is the recruits that need to say they won't put up with it. If a coach has a reputation, then maybe that program should be avoided as was the case before. The problem is that does not seem to have hurt their recruting if what has been said is true. You can say these innocent recruits need protection from unscrupulous coaches. Apparently, if you do your homework as you did with ASU, you can find out who will honor their committments and who will not. BTW, I have no idea if ASU has done anything unethical.
It is incorrect to say the only option is to sit btw. Baseball still has a transfer option without sitting and that includes NAIA, JUCO or other divisions I believe. The Indians first round draft choice was from an NAIA school and had transferred from Fresno State.
Other sports have the no transfer rule - are you suggesting those sports are rampant with coaches who are liers? The no transfer rule causes lying?
If coaches were unethical before, then I would think they will continue to be so imho. Arizona State is used as an example. If it is as you suggest, then they were acting a certain way under the old rules. Why are the new rules going to make that (living up to their promises) any worse? Under the old system, couldn't a coach tell a plyer he was next in line yet continue to recruit players who were better?
Put another way, maybe it is the recruits that need to say they won't put up with it. If a coach has a reputation, then maybe that program should be avoided as was the case before. The problem is that does not seem to have hurt their recruting if what has been said is true. You can say these innocent recruits need protection from unscrupulous coaches. Apparently, if you do your homework as you did with ASU, you can find out who will honor their committments and who will not. BTW, I have no idea if ASU has done anything unethical.
It is incorrect to say the only option is to sit btw. Baseball still has a transfer option without sitting and that includes NAIA, JUCO or other divisions I believe. The Indians first round draft choice was from an NAIA school and had transferred from Fresno State.
First thing here---everyone is aware of what ASU does so how does it become "unethical"? It is not to me as long as I know what Coach is doing.---Do your homework !!!!
I do not think things will change with the new situation---all it means, in my mind, is that kids who sat the pine won't be doing that at the same school---they may be doing it at other schools though---there are not too many kids who are in the over 35 number group who may be good enough to play at other schools.
The kids with desire and talent will end up playing just as they did before if they do their homework and get in the right situation.
We are back to that term "entitlement" and perhaps that will now be totally erased with the new situation---there is no "entitlement"---never has and never will be except in the minds of those who felt that way.
Why can't a player go to a school of his choice and say " I am willing to fight for that position!"
C'mon folks---there is a real world out there---learn to work for what you want
I do not think things will change with the new situation---all it means, in my mind, is that kids who sat the pine won't be doing that at the same school---they may be doing it at other schools though---there are not too many kids who are in the over 35 number group who may be good enough to play at other schools.
The kids with desire and talent will end up playing just as they did before if they do their homework and get in the right situation.
We are back to that term "entitlement" and perhaps that will now be totally erased with the new situation---there is no "entitlement"---never has and never will be except in the minds of those who felt that way.
Why can't a player go to a school of his choice and say " I am willing to fight for that position!"
C'mon folks---there is a real world out there---learn to work for what you want
Personally I don't and never have considered over recruiting as unethical.
Players who have been recruited and come to fall camp and are cut should be allowed to transfer without penalty. The coach is saying I don't have a spot for you. It is not the student that is chosing to leave and should not be penalized. What if a kid is slated to be RS and now the roster spot is limited. maybe that guy is cut instead of RS.
CD I can't imagine you supporting penalizing a player when a coach cuts him. Nothing to do with unethical but it does have to do with whos interests are served.
Players who have been recruited and come to fall camp and are cut should be allowed to transfer without penalty. The coach is saying I don't have a spot for you. It is not the student that is chosing to leave and should not be penalized. What if a kid is slated to be RS and now the roster spot is limited. maybe that guy is cut instead of RS.
CD I can't imagine you supporting penalizing a player when a coach cuts him. Nothing to do with unethical but it does have to do with whos interests are served.
quote:Why can't a player go to a school of his choice and say " I am willing to fight for that position!"
That is what they do. When they get there and there are 2 Upton quality guys in front of them they should be allowed to find a different school without penalty if and only if the coach cuts him. I think ASU cut some quality guys. What would you have them do. Quit BB or sit out a year before they get a chance to play ?
quote:never have considered over recruiting as unethical.
Players who have been recruited and come to fall camp and are cut should be allowed to transfer without penalty. The coach is saying I don't have a spot for you
players who have been recruited = we have a spot on the team for you, earn your PT
quote:CD I can't imagine you supporting penalizing a player when a coach cuts him. Nothing to do with unethical but it does have to do with whos interests are served.
That is the part I am having trouble understanding. What exactly is the penalty? That he can no longer sit on the bench? The student can still transfer without sitting. He simply cannot transfer to another D1. The problem is, since he was already sitting, who is to say he would not also sit at the other D1? - if he can find one.
I think this is about competition and I agree with TR on this one. Doing your homework is just as important now as it was before. I am sure I am missing something here
Are players guaranteed four year scholarships in the other sports? That might bolster your arguments somewhat if that is the case.quote:C'mon folks---there is a real world out there---learn to work for what you want
quote:C'mon folks---there is a real world out there---learn to work for what you want
In the real world some people get the job and some don't.
quote:Are players guaranteed four year scholarships in the other sports?
How does this become about scholarships for 4 years. You say its not a penalty in the players mind to have to sit a year or chose a different school like Naia etc.
If a coach cuts a player and it is not always about lack of talent. The ASU has shown that. These guys might be starters at another school. I have seen this before. What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics.
There are no 4 year scholarships---they are one year and renewal at the coaches whim---if the play does what he has to ther ewill be no problem---just like Daddies job---Daddy can be fired tomorrow---there is no security in life--there are no givens
CD, here is the crux of the mis-understanding ...
apparently your recruiting experience was very much like ours ..
an NLI scholarship offer was for a spot on the team, yours to lose, renewed each year, PT to be earned
others considered offers presented differently, but continue to present them as "the norm"
the recruiting offer was for a chance to go thru an "open try out process with many others" during the team's fall workouts
if you took in ify position that didn't work out, you have no right to bump the guy your #2 choice hired who is working his but off
apparently your recruiting experience was very much like ours ..
an NLI scholarship offer was for a spot on the team, yours to lose, renewed each year, PT to be earned
others considered offers presented differently, but continue to present them as "the norm"
the recruiting offer was for a chance to go thru an "open try out process with many others" during the team's fall workouts
they accepted a job offer "to good to be true", and as such they should be expected to fall behind guys that were smarter about it, did their homework, and found a good fit - - just like a job in the real world ...quote:What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics
if you took in ify position that didn't work out, you have no right to bump the guy your #2 choice hired who is working his but off
TR I believe we all know that scholarships are 1 year and renewable by the coach.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:quote:Are players guaranteed four year scholarships in the other sports?
How does this become about scholarships for 4 years. You say its not a penalty in the players mind to have to sit a year or chose a different school like Naia etc.
If a coach cuts a player and it is not always about lack of talent. The ASU has shown that. These guys might be starters at another school. I have seen this before. What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics.
BHD - you agreed with Midlo and this is what he said in part:
quote:The problem is, I think a lot of the schools and coaches actually support the imposition of the transfer sit-out rule on baseball players. Now, a coach can cut your money and you have no where to go! It gives the coach all the power in the relationship. Heck, even if the coach secretly planned to cut you after your first year from the get go, he can defraud you with impunity. Way to go, NCAA!
My question about the other sports is simple. Does the no transfer rule cause this type of behaviour in other sports? What is your premise for suggesting all this unethical behaviour? If the other sports had to honor a 4 year comittment from the get go, then I can see the penalty argument (for baseball) a little better. You agreed with him and I am not getting it.
A new coach comes in and starts hacking guys . A friend had 3 of his roommates cut in their JR year. The coach was putting his touch on the team. Do these guys quit or do they get a chance to transfer to another D1 without penalty. Well they transfered and did very well at another D1.
Maybe the MLB players should site to. Traded so they are no good. TR is the 1st to say college ball is a business so let the assets move when they are no longer required just like dad who is caught in down sizing.
Maybe the MLB players should site to. Traded so they are no good. TR is the 1st to say college ball is a business so let the assets move when they are no longer required just like dad who is caught in down sizing.
quote:Originally posted by Bee>:
CD, here is the crux of the mis-understanding ...
apparently your recruiting experience was very much like ours ..
an NLI scholarship offer was for a spot on the team, yours to lose, renewed each year, PT to be earned
others considered offers presented differently, but continue to present them as "the norm"
the recruiting offer was for a chance to go thru a "try out process with many others" during the team's fall practice
they accepted a job offer "to good to be true", and as such they should be expected to fall behind guys that were smarter about it, did their homework, and found a good fit - - just like a job in the real world ...quote:What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics
if you took in ify position that didn't work out, you have no right to bump the guy your #2 choice hired who is working his but off
Bee> - I am understanding you and TR clearly and yes my recruiting experience/understanding was exactly like yours. All I am asking is to understand the other arguments that have been raised - namely that the new rules somehow cause shady behaviour.
I still agree with his basic premise but I don't consider it unethical or fraudulent.
I do consider it one sided and is open to abuse.
I do consider it one sided and is open to abuse.
Bobbleheaddoll
The business world is exactly as you say---go into it with your eyes open---if you don't don't come back asking for help
The business world is exactly as you say---go into it with your eyes open---if you don't don't come back asking for help
Tr I understand where you come from after years of dealing with those nasty parents but, how is being cut from a BB team and wanting to find a new D1 to play at begging for help ?
We are talking about young HS men who have done their homework and had no idea there would be guy who are more developed than they are. You would rather see them punished for being so stupid. How interesting.
We are talking about young HS men who have done their homework and had no idea there would be guy who are more developed than they are. You would rather see them punished for being so stupid. How interesting.
Wow, you guys are really good at missing the point.
First of all, I'm not talking about playing time. I'm talking about a kid having his baseball money cut from one year to the next. I don't think anyone should come into a program thinking they're entitled to playing time. Playing time you have to earn. But if someone gives me 40% one year, then comes in over the summer and says "guess what, it's going to be 25% next year," I should be able to check into options without penalty.
And what if the coach now says, "I think you're worth maybe 15%, but the NCAA says I can't do that. You're not worth 25% to me, so you can stay for ZERO, or you can transfer if you like. But remember, you'll have to sit out a year." This is where we're headed, folks.
CD asks how is this different from other sports where the transfer sit-out rule has been in effect for some time. The answer is, this rule previously applied only to football and basketball, where pretty much all scholarships are 100%. Whether you play or not, you get 100%. Therefore you don't see kids getting "pay cuts" year to year like you do in baseball. So again, you misunderstand me because I'm not talking about playing time, I'm talking about the scholarship money.
TR asks, with respect to places like ASU, if everyone knows about it, so what? The answer is, some folks know and some folks don't. The coaches ask for the kids' trust. If the kids give it, and get the shaft for that, we shouldn't let the adults off scot-free and stick the kids with the bill. But I guess per the NCAA, that's exactly what we are going to do from here on out.
Then you say, your daddy might get his pay cut or even lose his job tomorrow, nothing in life is guaranteed. Well, that may be true, but dad can open the want ads the next day and go job hunting. He may be back on somebody's payroll in a matter of days. He doesn't have to sit out a year before he is permitted to get another job. We don't let that happen. But we are going to let it happen to college baseball players. Why on earth are we doing this?
Think about this, guys. Some kids need this money to pay their college bills. If they suddenly get a pay cut, shouldn't they be able to shop around for a better deal? Why on earth should a program be able to come to a kid -- sometimes as late as mid-August -- and tell him his percentage is getting cut and there's nothing he can do about it? What if it means he has to drop out of school because now he cannot pay the bills?
You guys are trying to defend the indefensible. This attitude that "coaches do no wrong, kids need to suck it up" is baloney. Sure, some kids whine immaturely about things that aren't really the coaches' fault, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Most coaches are wonderful I'm sure, but there are bad apples in coaching, just as in any profession. And we just gave the bad apples more power to do their bad things to a whole lot of innocent kids. So get ready, because these things are going to start happening with greater frequency, thanks to the wisdom of the NCAA!
First of all, I'm not talking about playing time. I'm talking about a kid having his baseball money cut from one year to the next. I don't think anyone should come into a program thinking they're entitled to playing time. Playing time you have to earn. But if someone gives me 40% one year, then comes in over the summer and says "guess what, it's going to be 25% next year," I should be able to check into options without penalty.
And what if the coach now says, "I think you're worth maybe 15%, but the NCAA says I can't do that. You're not worth 25% to me, so you can stay for ZERO, or you can transfer if you like. But remember, you'll have to sit out a year." This is where we're headed, folks.
CD asks how is this different from other sports where the transfer sit-out rule has been in effect for some time. The answer is, this rule previously applied only to football and basketball, where pretty much all scholarships are 100%. Whether you play or not, you get 100%. Therefore you don't see kids getting "pay cuts" year to year like you do in baseball. So again, you misunderstand me because I'm not talking about playing time, I'm talking about the scholarship money.
TR asks, with respect to places like ASU, if everyone knows about it, so what? The answer is, some folks know and some folks don't. The coaches ask for the kids' trust. If the kids give it, and get the shaft for that, we shouldn't let the adults off scot-free and stick the kids with the bill. But I guess per the NCAA, that's exactly what we are going to do from here on out.
Then you say, your daddy might get his pay cut or even lose his job tomorrow, nothing in life is guaranteed. Well, that may be true, but dad can open the want ads the next day and go job hunting. He may be back on somebody's payroll in a matter of days. He doesn't have to sit out a year before he is permitted to get another job. We don't let that happen. But we are going to let it happen to college baseball players. Why on earth are we doing this?
Think about this, guys. Some kids need this money to pay their college bills. If they suddenly get a pay cut, shouldn't they be able to shop around for a better deal? Why on earth should a program be able to come to a kid -- sometimes as late as mid-August -- and tell him his percentage is getting cut and there's nothing he can do about it? What if it means he has to drop out of school because now he cannot pay the bills?
You guys are trying to defend the indefensible. This attitude that "coaches do no wrong, kids need to suck it up" is baloney. Sure, some kids whine immaturely about things that aren't really the coaches' fault, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Most coaches are wonderful I'm sure, but there are bad apples in coaching, just as in any profession. And we just gave the bad apples more power to do their bad things to a whole lot of innocent kids. So get ready, because these things are going to start happening with greater frequency, thanks to the wisdom of the NCAA!
quote:Why are the new rules going to make that (living up to their promises) any worse? Under the old system, couldn't a coach tell a player he was next in line yet continue to recruit players who were better?
BINGO
Incoming freshman compete in the Fall with their new team. The coach now sees them daily for several weeks and gets a good comparison of these kids to what he already has.
Coach did recruit based on watching prior performances through high school, and mostly summer ball, and one would assume that the player fits a need, either to replace someone currently, or groom for the following season.
Coach makes a determination that he himself did good, or over/under estimated the players abilities. The first season performance then provides enough information for the players next assessment.
Impact
Bench
Cut
While this is happening, they recruit replacements who they think will be better.
i.e. if you struggle in the Fall against your own team, the hill to climb gets steeper
I posted before that all you have to do is comb the historical rosters and track players. The known "stockpilers" just cut the kid, and the coaches who keep a lean roster(30-35) keep the kid and they play very little.
D1 to D1 tranfer rules are in question. If the players D1 coach sends the message that the kid ain't cutting it, then the kid can move downward to D2/3/NAIA, and possibly still reap the benefits of playing, exposure, and pro ball.
In other words, a one year tryout.