NCAA Update..POLK concedes

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
It is also a priviledge to go to college etc but a student should have the right to make choices while honoring contracts.

Not talking about violation of a contract.

Of course you aren't????

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

quote:

am comfortable that there isn't a violation of a contract once the contract is over. If you aren't great.

Not talking about violation of a contract.

BHD - this much I remember from law school, there are no constitutional issues either. Look, if you were Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and could afford a team of top attorneys, you might be able to force the NCAA to alter things but it would take time and obviously more money than any of us can ever acquire. Your points are well taken - it su-cks for the guy getting cut

Yes Law school. I studied law in England at the Inns of Court and the main thing is understanding legal princples.
Some of these issues are constitutional and restriction of freedom of choice.
Yes it would take a truck load of money to fight the NCAA if you were so inclined.
I agree that people have to excercise their choice with full knowledge of the colleges recruiting practices as they may pertain to them. That was why we chose a school that played the big guys and to me that is the greater challenge than playing for one of them.

One other issue is the BB player loses 1 of the five years to play 4 years if he is cut and can't transfer without sitting.

Please correct me of the rules have changed since I was last made aware of them but ....

Student-athletes are held to higher standards than non-athletes. The overal graduation rate for an average incoming class of freshmen is only between 55-60%. Athletes have more demands on their time, yet are expected to graduate at a higher rate and in a reasonable period of time greater than that of a non-athlete.

A student-athlete with a high gpa becomes a negative graduation statistic on their first college program when they choose to transfer for whatever reason other than athletics (academics, location, finances). Yet a student-athlete that struggles through and graduates is a positive stat.

I can understand why the NCAA is making some of the rules. But, they need to take their head out of the sand that college athletics is a business even if a specific sport is not a revenue generator. It's generating income (a living) for a coaching staff placing demands on the players. The NCAA runs ads telling the public athletes are students too. Then how about applying the same graduation standards to the stats?

Is a student forced to sit out a year in his major if he's a potential Rhodes Scholar and transfers? I don't think so!

Don't give them any ideas.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=310

Another Perspective

Posted Nov. 6, 2007 12:29 pm by Aaron Fitt
Filed under: Around The Nation

Friday’s blog post about the impending rules changes for college baseball evoked a strong response from Illinois State assistant coach Tim Brownlee, who reminds us that Mississippi State coach Ron Polk does not speak for everyone in college baseball.

"I completely disagree with everything Ron Polk put in his letter," Brownlee said. "I would like to know who made him the voice for the coaches. He is not out for the good of college baseball, he is out for the good of Mississippi State baseball. Do you think having 66 players in your program is healthy (for the record, the Bulldogs had a 44-man roster in 2007)? That is not looking out for the student-athletes. That is looking out for good ol’ MSU so Southern Miss, Samford, UAB do not get a player who will come back and defeat the Bulldogs one day.

"I don’t know Ron Polk. I am sure he is a good man. I have never heard anyone say a bad word about him. I just don’t agree with the way he has handled this whole situation. He has run his program the right way. There are a lot of programs who have not done it the right way."

Brownlee said that most coaches he has spoken to in the Midwest are in favor of the proposed changes, particularly the 35-man roster cap and the elimination of the one-time transfer exemption. He wasn’t as enthusiastic about the 25 percent minimum scholarship threshold, but he said he could live with that piece of the legislation if it meant curtailing the free movement of players from one school to another.

"With the transfer rule, my summers will be very good because I don’t have to worry about (other coaches) tampering with my kids," Brownlee said. "There are so many vultures out there, and now that’s going to do away with it. The only bad thing about the transfer rule is every year there are two or three guys who aren’t going to play who probably deserve the chance to transfer right away."

Brownlee also said he thinks the roster cap will further competitive balance in college baseball, and more parity would help increase the sport’s popularity as it has for college football.

"We have never had more than 37 players in our program in my 15 years as an assistant coach at the Division 1 level," Brownlee said. "We have never actively recruited players from other programs. We have never taken a scholarship away. We have graduated 95 percent of our players who have stayed for 4 years. If college baseball programs would have done this in the past we would not have needed the changes.

"College baseball is taking a step closer to equality. The so-called ‘traditional powers’ do not like it at all. Look what it has done for college football. I think it is great."

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm by Aaron Fitt and is filed under Around The Nation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

OldSlugger8, thanks for posting. Brownlee sounds like a class act.

These last few months with impending NCAA rule changes pertaining to baseball have been mind-boggling and confusing. I liked Polk's reasoning treatise and jumped on his bandwagon. As the November meeting came & went, I began seeing the writing on the wall but still was confused about application of the rules. I'm less confused about the application now, but still am bothered about the feasibility and reasoning behind the changes and the timing of them. I read Brownlee's posting and welcome it. The writing on the wall is gonna happen, not likely be deluted in any way. I do wish the transfer rule could have played out after the 08 season that followed matriculating on campuses in the fall of 07. Unfortunately, there could be unprecedented mid-year transfers shaking up team rosters & chemistry. Players seemingly content on their spot may find out differently when new players appear in the new year, before the season. The landscape will change and be more settled by this time next year, definitely by the 09 season.

quote:

The only bad thing about the transfer rule is every year there are two or three guys who aren’t going to play who probably deserve the chance to transfer right away."

These coaches all have their own perspective on the rules but I certainly agree with this line of his statement.
I think most understand that Polk like everyone has their own agenda, good or bad.

Many, many programs have functioned with a working roster of under 35 for a long time, as there always have been stockpilers also.

College coaches who "do it right" will always try to get the best available pitching, their predicted positional needs based on roster turns(grad/draft), and someone they perceive to be better than someone they felt hasn't performed as expected.

I had the pleasure of dealing with both types, as well as a few programs that just got new coaches who made wholesale exchanges(cuts), a couple of yarn spinners, many take it now or lose it guys, etc.

As said many times on this site by many parents much more experienced " Do your homework"

I have always wondered if DI programs recruited from other DI programs. Brownlee makes it sound like this did occur. I like the transfer rule for that purpose, but still believe some kids are going to get unjustly hurt by it.

I wonder how many kids that would have made a team with a 35+ roster are going to be out there distributing among other teams? In other words, if there were 50 programs that carried ave. 45 guys, thats 500 kids !!! I don't know what the number actually is....but if it is significant, thats alot of DI spots no longer available. So now, MORE talent is chasing FEWER roster spots.

It possibly just got a lot harder for 08 and beyond grads to break into a DI program. My son is an 09, and quite frankly, I'm ok with it. I like the 35 minimum!!

There are 293 D1 schools and an average roster about 37. It is a signicicant amout considering the fall squad could be 40-45 guys. It will be interesting to see what changes occure from the coach and the player side.

Oh you better beleive that D1 programs recruit other D1 programs. Take a look at the transfer lists and some of the schools don't go looking for JUCO or D2,D3 players, just other D1 guys. Most conferences have had the one year sit out rule for years, if you go from one school to another you have to sit. And many schools abided by the suggestion from their conference for roster limits.

The abouve article is what I have stated all along, most coaches are NOT unhappy with the changes, except the money thing.

IMO, the players that will least benefit will be those that could have gone to a smaller program
but chose to win a spot on the top teams in the country. We have already seen the change in baseball, with some programs getting further ahead in post season than tehy have ever before. It will make teh post season interesting.

He also lamented the transfer rule hurting kids he thought would be cut and deserve/had the talent to play at the D1 level.

There may be D1 coaches that talk to players they aren't supposed to but who really knows ? I guess that would be unethical and if caught result in penalties.

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
It possibly just got a lot harder for 08 and beyond grads to break into a DI program. My son is an 09, and quite frankly, I'm ok with it. I like the 35 minimum!!

I believe the hard part for 08's and 09's will be to determine what's a real opportunity with so much movement of players this year. By the 10's the dust should settle.

I also wonder how many of the #36-45 were happy just to be aboard and will give up baseball rather than transfer.

BDH,

It is common practice for some coaches to send their summer players out looking for players. If there is interest, then a coach is made to the coach to come look. Lots of ways to get around the rules.

My son's team played with 35 or less, and it worked out well, so I never thought any thing of it until I started noticing huge rosters when he got to college.

If a kid is #36 thru 45 he is borderline talent and in most cases won't play that much at any other program---he is just happy to be there and wear a uniform

Take 36-45 in the top programs....those guys can't play in mid to lower DI ?? Prob where they should have been in the first place. And the kids they displace will slide down the chain and on and on.....

One more thing, IF (As has been mentioned here) Coaches start looking JUCU more....than double whammy for the 08's and beyond.

So if the average roster size is 37 and say coaches pick 2 more JUCO players than they otherwise would have....thats 1172 DI roster spots not available for recruits. I don't know if that logic is right or not, but the pie gonna get smaller.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If a kid is #36 thru 45 he is borderline talent and in most cases won't play that much at any other program---he is just happy to be there and wear a uniform

I don't necessarily agree with that. #36 thru 45 at one program may be #1 thru 15 at another. All depends on who is in front of you and who is behind you.

TPM

Think about it a bit more than just a second---if a kid is 1 thru 15 in another program why in God's name is he 36 thru 45 at another program---IF YOU ARE GOOD YOU ARE GOOD !!!!

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
Take 36-45 in the top programs....those guys can't play in mid to lower DI ?? Prob where they should have been in the first place. And the kids they displace will slide down the chain and on and on.....

I don't disagree. But if many of them were happy being on the team and not getting playing time, wouldn't they have transferred already if they were juniors or seniors to be? These kids might just bag baseball and stay at the school. They weren't playing anyway. It was more about being part of the team and not letting go of the game.

It's more likely last year's freshmen and sophomores will be the ones on the hunt for the new school and playing time. They're more likely to still be chasing the dream.

So while there will definitely be a shift downward in the flow of talent, I don't believe it will be all the cut players. It won't be the upperclassmen who didn't walk away from the game over lack of playing time. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of an upperclassman 5th string bullpen catcher becoming a student manager so he can still hang with the team, wear the uniform and warm up pitchers.

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
... but the pie gonna get smaller.

Smaller, but maybe not as small as you think based on my thoughts. Some players will face the reality of their baseball future, realize the school is a good place for them academically and socially, and give up baseball.

The decision to give up baseball comes sooner or later---much better it happens in college where the young man gets his degree and goes on with his life

TR,
If you are sitting on a top baseball program, chances are you were tsalented enough to be recruited to that program however, you may be sitting because someone is more talented than you.
In another program, let's say a smaller program, where the talent pool isnt has high you might find yourself a start.
I am thinking about it, on my sons college team every pitcher was top D1 material and every pitcher made contributions, some more than others. Many of those pitchers with lesser roles would have been the ace for another team. JMO.

TR I wish it was that simple. We could all go home knowing we don't have a future in BB if we don't play for the top D1s .

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
The decision to give up baseball comes sooner or later---much better it happens in college where the young man gets his degree and goes on with his life

That I agree with. I also agree that many will leave the game because many are there to enhance their college experience, not to make it their career goal. I know that's hard for some of you to understand, but many players when they reach the college level, after seeing those they play with and who they compete with, usually know where they fall in the scheme of things. Not every college baseball player is there to play at the next level.

You will also be surprised how some of your players, who lived and breathed baseball all of their lives, get real serious about their degree and begin to start thinking about life after baseball.

Hey my son started reading books on his own. Go figure. He also has a serious girl friend for the 1st time in his life. It only took 21 years. He has turned preppy and done away with the baggy hoody look. Who know whats next ?

quote:

Hey my son started reading books on his own. Go figure. He also has a serious girl friend for the 1st time in his life. It only took 21 years. He has turned preppy and done away with the baggy hoody look. Who know whats next ?

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:


So if the average roster size is 37 and say coaches pick 2 more JUCO players than they otherwise would have....thats 1172 DI roster spots not available for recruits. I don't know if that logic is right or not, but the pie gonna get smaller.

If Tripledad is correct a lot of 08's that traditionally join D1 rosters will be left out in the cold. Typically, the percentage of freshmen coming into a D1 program is somewhere around 25% to 30% of the total roster. Using the lower percentage, that would leave approximately 2350 freshman roster spots available for all D1 schools. If you take away the 1172 potential transfers that Tripledad speaks of, the trickle down could cut the available freshmen spots down almost 50% (1178)! I feel bad for the ones that get cut however I also feel bad for the 08’s that will seem to be paying the price for reform.

I know many of the kids being cut this fall will not transfer to a D1 school but this “last chance” to not have to sit out transfer situation should be more than a little unsettling as to how it might affect the 08 recruits.

Jersey,
From my limited experience, it is not the unknown freshman that gets cut, it is the soph that didn't pan out. I doubt that the numbers will reflect that many less freshman, just a shorter leash for newcomers. JMHO

quote:

If Tripledad is correct a lot of 08's that traditionally join D1 rosters will be left out in the cold

there won't be a rush to recruit juco players, that's bogus logic.
actualy juco baseball's quality & numbers will suffer from MLB eliminating "draft & follow"

imo, what will happen is that as the talent disperses because of roster limits, the entire game of college baseball will become stronger.

stronger programs won't suffer from the loss of a few guys & weaker programs will do nothing but benefit from this rules deal.

the only losers will be guys that previously were able to land roster spots because nobody better was available or interested

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

imo, what will happen is that as the talent disperses because of roster limits, the entire game of college baseball will become stronger.

stronger programs won't suffer from the loss of a few guys & weaker programs will do nothing but benefit from this rules deal.

the only losers will be guys that previously were able to land roster spots because nobody better was available or interested

I share your opinion BEE

Again, all one has to do is look back at the results of prior seasons on any D1 website. The guys who get the lions share of at bats and innings pitched will still get them. The ones that don't get many, or any at all, well, as BEE says.......

If I was a player today entering college baseball, I would rather play at #290 whatever than sit at #1.

I would rather play at a "lesser level", as they say, than sitting at # 290 D1
whatever.

Sitting stinks, PERIOD !!

Bee,
Insightful, yet, how badly do you think juco will suffer considering that the player wishing to be drafted still has that option there and not with 4 year?

quote:

Bee,
Insightful, yet, how badly do you think juco will suffer considering that the player wishing to be drafted still has that option there and not with 4 year?

good question, tho they WILL still get those guys .. but more guys who have the pro option will go pro, not juco

AND most of the guys going juco eyeing pro options have NO intent of a 2-4 transfer after JC graduation. (if they even graduate)

the main JC group would be the "non-qualifiers out of hs " ...
some of them will take care of business (academicly PLUS athleticly) & make it clear to a 4 yr coach that they can handle the academic demands of a 4yr university while playing sports - most will NOT ..

just graduating a JC isn't proving academic success at a 4 yr.

.

quote:

imo, what will happen is that as the talent disperses because of roster limits, the entire game of college baseball will become stronger.

Is this a positive development? And why?

44
.

Let me suggest some realities that have existed for players from areas like Tx, Ca. and I assume other states.
In CA., there are far more DI players than spots available in DI programs.
Of the DI schools, the range in academic quality and cost is also quite variable.
There are a fair number of mid range type DI players from California who end up heading to more academically challenging DIII programs which also have strong baseball programs.
They end up playing immediately and receive the type of education that fits together better with their academic goals. During the time our son played in college, their team had players from Fla., Illinois, Tx and Southern Ca who had similar options and made similar choices.
Where academics is a compelling factor, as this process evolves, I think the new DI transfer rules may end up with mid/lower level type DI players also strongly considering academics and playing time as much as whether it is DI.

quote:

Where academics is a compelling factor, as this process evolves, I think the new DI transfer rules may end up with mid/lower level type DI players also strongly considering academics and playing time as much as whether it is DI.

infielddad - nice thoughts!

Curious if you think these type of players are also highly/partially motivated with professional baseball in their minds? For example, would they be concerned if there was some type of implied admission that their choice of academics over baseball might send an implied message to the scouts that baseball was not that important to them?

Also, do you believe pro scouts give some type of magical bonus points to a player if he were a good D1 player versus some kid who was a superstar D3 player?

I am really raising these questions as hypotheticals to keep this interesting topic going.

CD,
Interesting questions.
On the first, I believe that is very much program specific. If the player is heading to a school like Emory, Trinity, Johns Hopkins, Eastern Connecticut St, Marietta and some others, the answer is no. I think it actually indicates to scouts that these are players who are motivated. Each school has had good success with summer league placements and with players being selected in the draft and doing well in Milb.
IMO, these are not necessarily the norm in DIII, but those schools are by no means the exception either.
I completely agree that playing DIII ball makes scouting judgments a bit tougher. Certainly, they can measure speed, arm strength and the like but the level of competition can make a difference.
Our son was fortunate because there are so many scouts in the I35 corridor from Austin to Houston to San Antonio. Scouts and cross checkers normally showed up when the games were against better DIII opponents. For position players especially, I think DIII makes it tougher.
As bbscout told me though, MLB scouts get paid to find those types and fired when they don't. From what I know, scouts don't miss the DIII guys who can play at the next level.

Many have said here that the level of college baseball, and its sub-levels are portrayed each year in the draft.

I truly believe it is about the player, and what they bring to the table as individuals regarding baseball abilities.

From my observations, there are guys who bust 90 mph pitching at all college levels, and guys who crush 90 mph plus at all levels.

But there aren't that many at all levels, if you get my drift. If the player does his thing, the coach does his thing, and the parent does their thing, i.e support, and the scout isn't complacent, then eventually the player will get his shot.

Did every draft eligible starter at Georgia Tech, LSU, AZ State, Stanford, and Oregon State get drafted? NO..... Did the Draft include players from programs well off the radar?? YES

You don't get exposure on the BENCH.

If a kid wants to be part of something with no further aspirations, fine, but I would guess many of them want their shot at it, and as I said before, you gotta play, even at St. Copious of the Northern Region or the # 1 ranked D1 program.

It does happen..............

http://www.scadathletics.com/index.asp?path=baseball

OS8 - I don't dispute any of your observations. I guess I was curious if in the players minds they were somehow limiting themselves with their choices. As you noted, it is hard to get exposure sitting on the bench.

I think another factor that is sometimes overlooked is winning. Would a player rather win at a successful D3 program or perhaps be relegated to losing just to satisfy their desire to play D1?

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
OS8 - I don't dispute any of your observations. I guess I was curious if in the players minds they were somehow limiting themselves with their choices. As you noted, it is hard to get exposure sitting on the bench.

I think another factor that is sometimes overlooked is winning. Would a player rather win at a successful D3 program or perhaps be relegated to losing just to satisfy their desire to play D1?

That opens the great debate of EXPOSURE, I guess.

Solid contributor on a D3 winning program

Solid contributor on a losing D1 program

Do the scouts automatically assume that a D3 stud who dominates is tainted by the level of competition?

Would that same player dominate in D1 on a team construed as "the little sisters of the poor"?

How/Why is that kid not in D1?

Is the talent level that different?

Questions that only coaches can give answers to, I suppose.

If a kid goes D3, NAIA and not D1, and I have seen him perform, and in my opinion, would excel at D1, then I just shake my head and chalk it up to the numbers game and my lack of knowledge in baseball matters.

If I see 2 kids who can turn on 90 plus, one ends up at D1 and the other at D3, I ask what the hell did somebody see different.

Maybe now you see the basis for many of my posts. It is simple. Many players who have rode the "exposure trail" eventually don't cut it, and many who took the "long path" do make it. That is not meant as a DIS to anyone and anything, it just means that eventually the "field of play will determine the outcome".