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.

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,

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.

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 ?".

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.

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.

"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.

quote:

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.

the 35 man roster cap .. effective the day class begins

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.

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

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.

.

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
.

quote:

You had better call the NCAA. They don't know that ? I was specifically told that it only applied to the spring roster

I do stand corrected

quote:

Think about it. A coach is going to bring only 35 guys and can't make cuts .??

sure isn't that the whole point,
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

quote:

What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics

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 ...

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.

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

quote:

What is the harm in allowing these guys to transfer to another D1 school? They did well but were cut due to logistics

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

There is no doubt that coaches have been given new leveredge with the sit out rule. However the kids can still transfer to other divisions without sitting out 1 year.

If transfers were so common before, you have to ask WHY? The new rules do not change THE WHY? Therfore, one has to assume going forward that:

A)Transfers will still continue (but to other div's)
B)The kids that would have transfered under the new rule will stay and be unhappy.
C)The kids will not transfer and quit baseball
OR a combo of the above..

Thats what bugs me, If the NCAA really wanted to fix THE WHY then they would have stiffened the penalties for transfers rather than exclusively punish the student.

quote:

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.

Football and basketball guarantee 100% for four years? or only as long as one remains on the team?
Football and basketball cannot cut players?

I still don't get what's wrong with transferring D1 to D1. Why does a player have to transfer "down" to another division or NAIA?

If a bank vice president loses his job, is he forced to find work elsewhere as a teller or wait a year before working again?

I know of a player who was recruited to a Big 12. Signed his NLI and that was that. Next thing you know, the entire coaching staff was gone and he arrived on campus where the new coaches didn't know him or any of the other players from Adam. Many, many players were told "You're not D1 material." FALSE. It was just the coach's way of running off those who didn't fit his mold. The player is now a highly successful player at a large program on the West Coast. If the new NCAA rules had been in place, this kid could not have gone on to enjoy success at another large program. What did he do to deserve that???

Another player I know has a new pitching coach this year who brought in some pitchers from his former school. This player is pitching maybe 1 inning per week in inter-squad scrimmages and it's becoming evident that things may not work out for him there, despite the fact that he's very accomplished. Again, why should he be penalized by being forced to transfer "down"?

It just doesn't make any sense to me...

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
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.

While I am not a fan of some of the hardships the NCAA rule changes will cause, I cannot agree with this analysis.
One thing every player and parent has to know is that athletic scholarships are renewable annually and there isn't a guarantee. In fact, the NCAA rules say a coach cannot give a scholarship or guarantee for more than one year.
That is true with most non athletic merit based scholarships also. For our son, he received a merit scholarship as a freshman but understood it could be changed annually and depended on his performing at a certain level academically.
For better or for worse, college baseball is a business and the players do not control the rules. It is even tougher at the next level.
There are schools and coaches where everyone should, IMO, approach with care and caution.
This is also a situation where times have changed.
But the rules have never been that there is an expectation of a scholarship at any level for the next year. That is true for many academic scholarships and has long been the rule for athletic.
I read this morning a stat on football. Said Nebraska had something like 50 or so top rated players on the "Rivals" projection. Kansas had 3.
Kansas just beat them 76-39.
That says several things to me. First, some coaches don't do their job. Second, some players don't do theirs. Third, projecting talent from high school to college is less than scientific.
To me, if a student has a merit scholarship and does not perform in the classroom, they lose that money.
Why should it be different in athletics.
I think CD is very correct. DI college coaches can be paid some pretty handsome salaries. Even if it isn't handsome, it is their livelihood. It they don't do their job, they answer to the AD and will be fired. DI college baseball is a business and we cannot want our sons to play at that level and not accept the business reality that is faced. When they get on the field in college baseball, there really isn't anything we can do to protect our sons. It is their play and production, along with the way they manage the academic and social responsibilities that control. We may not like it as parents, but I think CD is 100% correct: college baseball is based on skill, talent and, most importantly, production.
The place this isn't fair, as I see it, is the player who performs and performs well but ends up caught in the new NCAA numbers and either loses the scholarship or has it reduced for reasons other than performance. Hopefully, with time, the NCAA can do some remodeling to mitigate that issue.

infieldad, The transfer rule has nothing to due with the fact that baseball scholly's are for 1 year. Everyone knows that! Why does it keep getting brought up?

Infield dad your ramblings show you don't understand what Midlo is talking about. Thanks for the 101 on college BB.

I am dead against students transferring on their own whim. That had nothing to do with guys who are cut.

BHD, actually, I do understand.
Parents want their player to have a DI scholarship. If the amount gets changed, they want their player to be able to transfer without penalty.
In my "ramblings," I was pointing out that parents do not have a voice in this.
These are your rules and your son had better produce.
If he doesn't, then the player and parent need to pick a program and coach where the business side and winning and being in Omaha isn't the emphasis.

quote:

If a bank vice president loses his job, is he forced to find work elsewhere as a teller or wait a year before working again?

Yes, if he can't hit or get anybody out

The situation where a kid gets cut by a new coach. with a different game plan is very troublesome. The new rules really hurts these kids, no fault of their own, just cut due to a new coach with a different plan.

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
The situation where a kid gets cut by a new coach. with a different game plan is very troublesome. The new rules really hurts these kids, no fault of their own, just cut due to a new coach with a different plan.

I agree this is troublesome.
On the other hand, I don't believe a new coach will cut players who can succeed and produce.
I sat with a coach this summer. He is in a highly visible program and charged with the job of resurrecting it to be competitive. He raved about number of great kids who were recruited by the former staff, who could not compete with the new recruits.
He loved those kids and was anguishing about what the new rules might require. But he had met with each of them, explained what was needed and expected, and each knew they were not going to play.
It is very unfortunate the new rules could impact both the coach and player.
While saying this, I wish the NCAA would evaluate coaches conduct. Oversight of the coaches on this process could be of great value because just as there are coaches of the type I talked with, I strongly believe there are coaches/programs who are ruthless.
For reasons I do not understand, even though I think the "ruthlessness" is pretty obvious, especially for one, some of those coaches have a very long list of top prospects commit every year, and I don't see that changing.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
BHD, actually, I do understand.
Parents want their player to have a DI scholarship. If the amount gets changed, they want their player to be able to transfer without penalty.
In my "ramblings," I was pointing out that parents do not have a voice in this.
These are your rules and your son had better produce.
If he doesn't, then the player and parent need to pick a program and coach where the business side and winning and being in Omaha isn't the emphasis.

quote:

DI college baseball is a business and we cannot want our sons to play at that level and not accept the business reality that is faced.

I thought posters here said wait until the pro baseball because it is a business.

Is college baseball a revenue sport? You think the institution powers are glad they only have to fund 11.7 by rule so they can clean up at the gate??

Or is it a cheap feeder system for MLB ?? Where is there investment? Only for the few who bonus up, and the rest have to prove them wrong very quickly or its the scrap heap.

Some kid and his $2000 baseball grant, WANTED by a college coach deserves every opportunity to show his talents, or don't call him at all. Splitting up $150,000 over 35 kids while the world gets richer is bad business. Giving a full ride to a football jock who has no chance in heck of getting to the NFL and "giving back" while getting a basket weaving degree is non-sensical.

Giving a 4.8 student a free ride academically is nice, but is no guarantee to the institution that that kid will give back.

Baseball in college is not a revenue sport. It is a cheap feeder system. Just look at the draft each season, then look at the international FA signings.

WRONG ANSWER

I better clean up my act or I will got tossed

quote:

Originally posted by TripleDad:
There is no doubt that coaches have been given new leveredge with the sit out rule. However the kids can still transfer to other divisions without sitting out 1 year.

If transfers were so common before, you have to ask WHY? The new rules do not change THE WHY? Therfore, one has to assume going forward that:

A)Transfers will still continue (but to other div's)
B)The kids that would have transfered under the new rule will stay and be unhappy.
C)The kids will not transfer and quit baseball
OR a combo of the above..

Thats what bugs me, If the NCAA really wanted to fix THE WHY then they would have stiffened the penalties for transfers rather than exclusively punish the student.

Good points, however, below is the message the NCAA has sent to both, to avoid tranfer situations.

Coaches do your homework, be honest, make sure that this is a player that you will be happy with (under all circumstances) will not be ignores and given an opportunity to fill a role on your team (in whatever capacity)so he will be happy and not want to leave.

Players, you too do your homework too, make sure this is where you want to be, and accept that you have to work your hardest to be able to contribute to your team and if perhaps there are those who win the start over you, you are wiling ot accept less playing time at that school then ayou might have gotten somewhere else.

Now don't get me wrong, I DO NOT agree with the one year sit out transfer rule for baseball when only given partial scholarships, but this was made to stop the revolving door that occurs at SOME (not all) programs.

0S8,
I do not disagree, but keep in mind that the BB working group has publicly stated they do not care for the MLB draft and their "work" has proved that. They want players who are more committed to being student athletes who works just as hard in teh classroom as on teh field and who are will to stay 4-5 years and earn their degree, not get by until their next draft year. Schools are not penalized for players who leave because of the draft, but penalized because a player feels he is not getting his due (and leaves) for a better opportunity to perform and be seen elsewhere.

The NCAA does not care about kids, they care about an equation that has variables that are skewed.

POLITICS

They are better served at dealing with the academic cheating that goes on in all sports, like recently at that maroon and gold school in FL.

POLITICS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I guess basket weaving is a tough class

So much for integrity. Being naive', I would think a coach has more important things to do than masking the shortcomings of a recruit. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck????

ROB-O Welcome, I can't say for sure, but I doubt even the most unscrupulous coach would resort to those tactics. He might get away with it once or twice but not habitual. There are too many ramifications, one being; the underclassmen will know what is happening and will make their own adjustments (ie transfer to other Div). The other, I can't imagine this approach sitting well with the AD.

Sounds like a good recipe for a talented team that doesn't get it done on the field!

I have been wattching this site and have learned alot from the many posters that write experiences and opinions on hsbbw. The question for you guys that concerns me the most is what happens to the starter that the coach knows is very happy and cuts his scholarship because he knows they don't want to sit out a year before they play again. Coaches now have all the cards ,50% player who is all conference before knew if coach took money he could go wherever he wanted so there was checks and balances, I see this as skewed now because coach can now use the new rules to get recruits and reduce or cut out upperclassmen scholarships. Coaches reputation is the only thing stopping this from happening now and this concerns me.

My prev. response is to LEX. you posted same question earlier inder diff. ID.

sorry tripledad didn't realize my name was on other id when I first signed up. I agree this may not play good on field but have heard of this happening even before transfer rules changed.

quote:

Coaches reputation is the only thing stopping this from happening now and this concerns me.

Lex - welcome to the hsbbweb.

The coach's reputation was the only thing that prevented him from doing this in the past imho. I don't see the nexus between the new rules and unethical conduct. All the unseedy coach had to do in the past was string the player along with false promises. You say threat of transfer prevented it but word gets around. I believe coaches who try and get one over on their players will see their program put in jeopardy - old or new rules. This whole thread is arguing over the last guys on the roster and that is a competitive issue imho. All conference players get their scholarships increased - not decreased. People should not assume coaches are out there to scr-ew them. Adequate research will let you know which programs to avoid and which ones can be trusted. The good news imho, is that most can be trusted. It is just like life. Not every Businessman, Doctor, or Lawyer etc. can be trusted but most of them can. Who wants to be known as dishonest - most people do not.

quote:

Originally posted by LexBaseballeagle:
I have been wattching this site and have learned alot from the many posters that write experiences and opinions on hsbbw. The question for you guys that concerns me the most is what happens to the starter that the coach knows is very happy and cuts his scholarship because he knows they don't want to sit out a year before they play again. Coaches now have all the cards ,50% player who is all conference before knew if coach took money he could go wherever he wanted so there was checks and balances, I see this as skewed now because coach can now use the new rules to get recruits and reduce or cut out upperclassmen scholarships. Coaches reputation is the only thing stopping this from happening now and this concerns me.

Whoever you are,
Good coaches don't do the above.