New NCAA guidelines ?

The presidential bodies in all three NCAA divisions met April 26. The Division I Board of Directors voted to ban text-messaging between coaches and recruits and approved a package of recommendations designed to enhance the academic performance of baseball student-athletes. This takes effect August 1, 2007.

Here is the link to the package of recommendations that was approved.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsd...2-07+NCAA+News

The way I read this is that this package significantly changes the financial aid structure for baseball student-athletes playing D1 baseball as you will have 11.7 scholarships with a min of 33% grant per player receiving aid and a max of 27 receiving grants and a max of 35 on the team. Very different from today with 11.7 grants and no min aid and no max of players.

It also requires academic certification for those student-athletes in the fall term to be eligible to participate in the spring term.

It will also reduce transfers as the legislation requires all transfers from 4 year schools to serve a year in residence before they can participate with the team in games.

This most likely means fewer recruiting classes of 16-20 players with what amounts to a fall tryout with grants in the amount of $250 at some of the large state supported schools and may mean some big changes in the way the schools recruit because if you run one of your 27 counters off, it counts against the school and that player may not be replaced the next season. Also means that the 8 walkon spots can be let go of the team without recourse. It may also mean that more of the real stud players go pro out of HS because there may not be as much money for them. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Question: Does this mean that existing scholarship players that are now under the 33% would have to get bumped up to that 33% level next season (the 2008-2009 year) or not have their scholly renewed? AND, if they didn't get their scholarship renewed, would that be viewed as running them off by the NCAA and count points against the program that could result in scholarship or game reductions?

Also, How does this really affect D1 walkons? Do recruited walkons at D1 schools now really need to sure there is a need for you on the team and you have some guarantees from the coaches. This current season there are no roster limitations so D1’s can keep as many players as they have uniforms for or the school can pretty much run anyone (scholarship or non-scholarship) off without it impacting them, as long as the player leaves in good academic standing. The new rule was instituted by the NCAA to keep down transfers from 4 year schools and to keep schools from running off recruited ($$$) players. The way I see it, is that changes somewhat beginning August 1, because if the player gets academic money, it can count against the school in various ways if the NCAA feels the player has been run off. At a certain point the NCAA will penalize the school by a reduction of scholarships or games played. However, if the player doesn’t get athletic money they can lose their roster spot without recourse to the school. I can envision those non grant spots, with the new limit of 35 players, now being used as tryout spots at many D1 schools. If you aren’t a good enough fit to get money the next season, I can easily see them releasing a walkon after one year or even after fall workouts and giving someone else a tryout.

There are changes to D2 and D3 as well but those do not seem as pronounced and will most likely not make as large of an impact as those at the D1 level.

What is your interpretation of these new rules and what will transpire?

It appears to me (In reading the NCAA website), the new scholly limits will take effect with the 2008-2009 AY. So, I think any 2008 grad who has a VERBAL right now for BIG $$$/%age may be in for a surprise.

This is s perfect example (yet unusual), why verbals are just that.... non-binding.

This also means that any 2007 Grad with an NLI will not be affected for the upcoming year.

I posed this question on the Recruiting Board.
How is the 33% calculated?
The key is what is the denominator?
Reading the CURRENT D1 manual, denominator is the Average COA for ALL Students at the school. This would appear to me to be a straight forward calculation at a private school. But the mix of in-state vs. out of state at the publics complicates this.
Am I right?

I recall seeing that info somewhere on the NCAA site, just don't recall where at the moment. I believe that it is based on in-state. Waivers of out of state tuition are allowed if they are awarded on the same criteria to non-athletes. Again, I think these two statements are accurate, but you better check the NCAA site to be certain.

There will be no change this fall. All of the changes will take place starting in the fall of 2008. These changes were proposed by the D1 committee and are not binding on D2 baseball.

The reasoning is that commitments for the fall of 2007 have already been made that do not fit within the guidelines as specified (in regards to % of award). It was also too late to make changes regarding releases when some coaches have already approved players releases for next season. Finally, many Juco players have already been accepted for the fall term of 2007.
---------------------------------
Impact for Juco:

It will have to change how recruiting is done. The coaches will need to be certain that a JUCO transfer is academically qualified prior to accepting him into the program. The work of the Admissions staff will get harder. In addition, the Juco player will need to get more organized on the front end, starting in his first year at college. He'll need to have a 4-year college in mind and work closely with the academic advisors at his school to ensure that most of his credit hours will transfer. If not, he'll need to be prepared to spend the summer between his Juco/4-year college year in summer school, getting academically qualified. The penalty for not being qualified isn't just missing fall practices, it's missing the entire year.

Impact for existing students.

In a short phrase "pass your courses". Many athletes take the NCAA minimum course load during the spring and go heavy during the fall. Now, if you are taking the NCAA minimum of 12 hours and you fail a course, then you aren't an academic qualifier for the next YEAR unless you make up the work during the summer.

Structuring offers from colleges:

The school has to keep within the 11.7 scholarships total for athletics in baseball. In the past, many players were offered token scholarships, in order to make them feel wanted and a part of the program. Many of these offers were 5%-10%-15% range. That won't be allowed anymore. The minimum offer is 33%. What it will mean is that those players who were offered in the past would be divided into two groups. Those the school is willing to offer 33% and those who will receive just a roster spot and no offer. Most schools will continue to have the majority of their atheletic money tied up in their pitching staff, making it tougher for position players to get much athletic money, unless they are a "stud".

Other considerations:

The final thing to consider is how these changes, along with the uniform start date will impact schools. You will have more contests in a shorter time frame at many schools. This will increase the number of mid-week games, increasing the number of missed classes, etc etc etc ...

The penalty for failing to meet the APR for a school will now be the loss of both scholarships and mid-week games. That could be a blow to both the schedule makers and also be a double-edged sword for recruiting. Regardless, it will be interesting to watch.

Roster Size:
Finally, the roster size has implications that all players must consider. Since the roster size is now capped, if the number of returning players plus the number of players being signed will exceed 35, then the program must either use an agressive red-shirting policy, expect to lose a lot of players (or signed players) to the draft or finally, they must run some players off. The player, during the recruiting process needs to STUDY the ROSTER carefully and ask specific questions (number of players being recruited, how many they plan on signing, etc etc ...).

The penalty for not doing your homework and finding a good fit is now sitting out an entire season in order to regain eligibility.

My guess:
These changes going to be simple to navigate and shouldn't pose any real burden PROVIDED. That opinion is based on a few things:
1). Players will do their homework before signing
2). Juco players will work with their academic advisors making sure that their courses transfer to their intended college BEFORE they take them, not after the fact.
3). Maintaining a 2.0 GPA and passing the average college course is not much more difficult than doing the same thing in High School. The average college player, in his desire to avoid the campus during the summer months will exercise a bit more time management skills during the playing season, maintaining his eligibility.

BE SMART ... Plan ahead.

----------
Finally: The question of in-state/out-of-state for calculating the %. In the "old days", it was a calculation based on the percentage of students from out of state.

Example: In state tuition 10,000 Out of State 20,000 .... 80% of students come from in-state, then one of the 11.7 equiv scholarships would be based on an average tuition of 12,000.

HHH,
Great post.

I also think that more diligent recruiting homework will be done on the coaches part as well.

I haven't been following much as it would not affect my son, but since I am totally against over recruiting, I think it will help those that come in the fall and find that there are 40 others who showed up as well.

Any thoughts out there as to whether the roster limit will push more players into other programs (e.g., D2, D3, NAIA, JUCO), or if it will just mean more walk-ons cut?

HHH

I agree with the others: Great post.

What I think you see in the short term is a number of kids who otherwise would have taken token rides at high-end baseball schools (who under the new rules would be walk-ons) opting for more of a sure thing at a lower profile school.

The walk-on status of those eight guys changes how high school players should consider their futures. My guess is six of eight every year will be freshmen, usually with some kind of promise of joining the 27 if things work out. One or two of those eight will make it to the minimum scholarship (probably pitchers) and the others will be run off.

Certainly, the new rules make academic fit so much more important. And it puts a lot of pressure on kids and parents, because the stakes of a bad decision go up significantly.

.
Really glad to see that this topic is finally being addressed adequately...

Questions:

- Is there a DI limit on #'s of redshirt players?

- Do DI scholarship/baseball money players who are redshirting count against the 11.7?


44
.

.
More questions while I am waiting for my other answers...

- A player who walks on at a DI, and gets "run off", can no longer transfer without losing a year of eligibility, even though he is not affiliated with the baseball program in any way, correct?

44
.

I would think there would be no technical limit to redshirts, but all scholarship players would count against the 11.7, whether or not they redshirted.

Also, yes, I would think a run-off walk-on still would have to get a release, then sit a year, under the new rule.

I think we need to see more clarifications from the NCAA---if a walk on does not make the team does he need a release? I would hope the release pertains only to roster players

.
TR,

Exactly.

Here is the scenerio...

2008 Recruited as a walk on (we REALLY like you but we have to give the $ to the left handed pitchers..."), accepted into the school, Academically fall eligible, enrolls, tries out, due to other unexpected but better walk on's, gets cut early or late fall...No money, no roster spot, but cannot transfer and join a team mid year (Spring 2009)...I assume that spring 2009 is his sit out year, or is it?...

...Question...is this not effectively a redshirt?...and is it not effectively still a way to stockpile players as it makes it harder for them to leave? Does this rule moderate the scholarship players but create hardship and chaos for increased #'s of walk on's?

So are we trading large rosters, for large #'s of walkons who cannot leave, so may stick around anyway?...And If I am a coach wouldn't I manage my walk on's the same way I used to manage my 50 man roster, only without the expense, or the practice time?

44
.
.

you might be getting tangled in syntax


the recruited walk-on gets no athletic $$ but is rostered (he's on the team) when he gets to campus

open tryouts are posted and last only a few days by rule (not all fall)

if a player makes the roster thru open tryouts he'd then be a walk-on (on the team at that point)



re: a mid-yr transfer, it seems logical that if he sat out baseball season that'd be his yr lost ...
BUT ncaa wording speaks of "year in residence" & that could mean something alot different

BEE

Exactly why I stated that the NCAA needs to issue a lot more clarification on this---but then again when did they ever do anything without having muddy waters

Again, this is my opinion based on what my research has shown and thinking about it for a couple seconds.

For incoming freshmen, the "Year in residence" rule would only apply to players who had MADE a roster. The fact that you are working out with the team in the fall doesn't put him on the roster. The roster is submitted at the beginning of the playing season. That's one of the old ways that stock-piling schools would pile up players. You bring in 20 kids and drive off about 10 of them after the fall. If they aren't in school come spring and not on the roster, then no impact on the scholarship limit would exist. Many of the old stock-piling programs would sign enough players to put them at 13-14 FTE's in their scholarships, knowing that they would drive off enough players to get them below the 11.7 before the season started. That was in the old days. There is nothing in the new requirements that will actually PREVENT this from occuring still. Now, the hits against the Academic Progress Rate by losing so many players could cost the program between 1 and 1.7 scholarships for the next season, so it's less likely than it was.

You have to differentiate between non-scholarship roster players and walk-ons. In smaller programs, with limited scholarships (anywhere between 3-7 scholarships total) have had this situation for years. They invite players and promise them a roster spot but no money. They aren't walk-ons.

My interpretation:
If, under the new rules, you show up on campus, are receiving no baseball money and they cut you before the season even begins, then you've not used ANY eligibility. You've never been on a roster, in season. If you transfer in mid-season to another institution, no penalties may be accessed since there was no NLI signed. It's like the fall never happened. If you "stick" in the spring, but sit on the bench all spring, you have to get a red-shirt in order not to lose a year of eligibility. A tranfer then would result with requiring a "year in residence" before you would be eligible.

Transferring from D1 down to D2 would eliminate the "Year in residence" requirement. That would only apply to players headed from one D1 program to a different D1 program. NAIA isn't covered at all by the NCAA regulations. Transfering from a D1 program to an NAIA program would suspend all rules from being enforced. You could play right away.

But, don't be mistaken ... this will cut down on player movement. You don't develop if you aren't on the field and working out with the team. During the "Year in Residence" of a transferee, he would be allowed to participate in fall workouts and spring workouts, take batting practice, etc ... but he couldn't participate in any contests.

Thanks again HHH.
I guess this might not prevent a coach from fall stock piling. He might be reluctant to give out a scholarship and have a player "test the waters" his way before he decides to commit to them. He doesn't have to report his roster and be in compliance until spring.
My opinion is that transfers are usually player generated, usually based upon the fact that they are not happy with lack of playing time. The recruit will have to clearly decide beforehand, if he is willing to sit and wait his turn or go to play where he will have more of a chance as a freshman. And I think the D2,D3 and NAIA will benefit in the end.
Are penalties imposed for transfers out only?

No reason to penalize a transfer in ... it's hard to differentiate a JUCO/NAIA/D2 or other D1 transfer in and impose rules that aren't obviously discriminatory.

Fit is becoming critical ...

If I were a HS sophomore/junior and interested in a few schools, I'd visit each one "un-officially" at my own expense several times. I'd talk to players. I'd talk to students who didn't play any sport. I'd try my best to determine if this was a campus I'd like to spend the next 4 years at if baseball wasn't in the picture at all (you are only one injury away from ending your baseball career).

Eliminate any school where the academic and cultural fit isn't "good". Only keep a school on your list if it's a school that you would like to attend REGARDLESS of baseball. This should shrink your list of schools considerably down to a manageable level. Then break out the rosters, look at the signees, who's staying, who's leaving, etc etc.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK. This isn't time to skimp on the research. You are making a decision that could impact (positively or negatively) the next 4 years of your life.

All would seem to be correct in that once you've been put on the roster, you have to get a release and sit out a year. And I thought I read somewhere that D-II is going to have the same kind of transfer provision. But like others have said, we need to see the actual language to see what the rules are.

But if you've never made the roster, I would think you'd be free to transfer without penalty, though I'll bet some/many schools will make it a blanket thing and make all transfers sit.

It seems as though the bottom line of all of this is if you don't get a scholarship, count on a rough ride. If it's anything better, it's a pleasant surprize. It's 5 years for UP TO 4 seasons.

From what I'm seeing, programs that don't fully fund their programs will be hurting. For example, a few years ago, Maryland, an ACC program, only had 3 total schollies for the entire team. Following the rule, any player offered money to play must receive at least 33%, which means that basically a max of nine players could be signed to fit in witheir limit of 3 schollies, with the rest of the team having to be comprised of walk-ons.

If a program in this situation is looking at having 2/3 of their players having to be walk-ons, the danger to players and fans of that program is that they might just eliminate baseball money, and make the players all be walk-ons.

Thank you all for your great interpretation of these confusing changes. After I posed this question here my son got an e-mail from one of the colleges he's interested in and the coach explained the changes and the time table. Still all very confusing and difficult to understand. It will be interesting to see how the colleges handle the verbals they already have issued to '08's.

One question on how these new rules relate to getting a release: right now if a player is released he can transfer and play immediately. If he doesn't get a release, he can still transfer, but can't play for a year. With these new rules and the mandatory one year in residence, what purpose does a release play anymore?

For the 2008's: All I can say is this is .....this is why it's called a "Verbal". It is non-binding on either party. Hopefully, it won't affect those folks that have already verballed. But bottom line, a school MAY have to change their offer to be in compliance, which at the end of the day may cause a player to have to look elsewhere.

As a father of a 2008, I am still trying to make heads and tails of all this......

Does anyone know when the new transfer rules will take effect? I'd think that if they were implemented at the end of next year along with the scholarship changes that this coming summer would be the one last window of opportunity for players to request a release and be eligible to play next year. This would be an important question to know the answer for any players contemplating a transfer. The stakes go up significantly after the change.

The sad thing with the changes in the transfer rules is they didn't increase the number of scholarships. It's one thing to say that baseball will now be the same as football and basketball on restricting transfers, but the one BIG difference is the majority of the rosters in football and basketball are on full scholarships. Baseball has a lot of players on minimal or no finacial aid, so how is restricting transfers of players paying their own way or who might not be seeing any playing time fair to the player? If a kid isn't being utilized by a program and isn't getting $$$, he should be free to go somewhere he can play.

Go to the recuiting section and read the opinions of SC's Ray Tanner and Clemson's Jack Leggett.

How will this affect a 2 sport athlete? One who may be getting athletic money from both sports?

quote:

How will this affect a 2 sport athlete? One who may be getting athletic money from both sports?

Depends on the other sport. I think if you play football or basketball, your scholly has to count against those sports...that keeps the football coach from convincing the athletic director to offer a bunch of track guys so that they can slide under the radar and play football.

A two sport athlete gets the higher given. For example, if you play football and baseball your scholarship is counted against football.

I may be wrong but I think this is right.

Here is alink to a story with Clemsons coach and his reaction...not to happy.


Leggett: You've got a mess

Below is what I posted on another thread... just to add my two cents

I'll be interested to see how this all plays out, and how it will or won't solve the issue of graduation rates. Some of the concerns I have with it are:

- dictating minimum scholly percent does not take into account out of state vs. in state athletes. A higher % might be required to get the out of state player. Also trying to balance the cap of 27 players on scholarship once injuries and draft come into play will be interesting. Will some current players who have higher % scholly's have it reduced?

- requiring sitting a year if a player transfers really traps a player if they are in a bad situation hurts the player, or if they need to transfer due to financial issues.

- I'm just guessing here but I think you will see more players having their scholly's dropped when they are not part of the teams plans. Since the team can only have a total of 27 on scholly and a 35 man roster max, there is less flexibility.

- With 8 true walk-ons if a team goes to 35 players, will the school be able to offer them any assistance with the admission process as they do now with scholly athletes. (This will vary by school). Some schools are very competitive academically and even if you qualify you may not be admitted.

Just a few questions to start with, but if the Grand Poobahs of the NCAA have developed these rules you know it can't be good for the athlete or the school.

At the Long Beach Junior Day this week-end, the head coach said the existing players on scholarship will be "grandfathered in" with their current scholarships. We had not heard this, so am even more confused by the new rules. What have others heard?

I have yet to see where the scholarship breakdown specifically defines if it is all concerning baseball money----where does academic money fit in here ?

Could be that academics will be more critical now

NCAA news

Here is the NCAA newsletter that supposedly was going to contain details. It does not have much new info, however.

The board voted down a proposition to reduce the 33% to 25%. For reasons I can't fathom.

It does say that the American Baseball Coaches Asso­ciation supported all the recommendations. I wonder if they read it first...

Still haven't found the full text of the board action. Has anyone else?

Update: Here is the proposal that was presented to the D1 Board. Don't know if any changes were made prior to its adoption, though.
Baseball changes

An excerpt on the financial aid portion:
"Effective Date. August 1, 2008 begins two-year implementation process.

a.Implications. For the 2008-09 academic year, institutions will be required to (1) provide all student-athletes initially enrolling in a four-year institution (freshmen, two-year transfers) a minimum equivalency of 33% in athletics aid; (2) limit the total number of student-athletes receiving athletics aid (squad size) to 30; and (3) limit the total number of student-athletes on their team (roster size) to 35. Beginning with the 2009-10 academic year, the 33% athletics aid criteria will remain in effect for first-time enrollees, squad sizes must be reduced to 27 and roster sizes will remain limited to 35.

b. Rationale. About half of all Division I baseball programs have squad sizes above 27 (median is 28). Requiring institutions to meet the squad size limit of 27 any earlier may only exacerbate current retention issues in baseball by encouraging programs to employ a “run-off” strategy to meet the limitation rather than relying on natural attrition through graduation and professional baseball departures."

There is absolutely nothing that addresses the coaches taking away 'ships after one year.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Could be that academics will be more critical now

Absolutely, TR, particularly at private schools where the tuition is higher. A kid who can come to the school and NOT need baseball money is going to become a far more valuable commodity to a coach at a school where the tuition is higher.

So the 33% applies ONLY to those atheletes that are NEW to the school (frosh and transfers)?

So they set up a rule that will encourage coaches to roll back scholarships from returning players in order to stockpile enough money to meet the 33% rule and attract new recruits. And this is supposed to help prevent transfers? What genius came up with that math? What this does is tell kids they are much better off going the JC route then transfering to a four year as a junior where they can hopefully step into a starting role somewhere. It's also better for the coaches. They then know a kid has two year of academics under their belts without them having to be the babysitter that gets kids through that big adjustment the first year of college.

How will waiting period affect the draftability of a transferring student? Seems to me if a player isn't allowed to play for a year then the best option would be to go the JUCO route and be draft eligible. The junior draft rule would go away for these transferring students, correct?

If you think about this, it's pretty typical for a program to have up to 15 new kids coming into a program in freshman recruits and JC transfers. That would mean that AT MOST the available scholarships for returning players would be 6.7, since those freshman and transfers all must received the 33% minimum. In reality it'd probably be less than this since they likely have 1-2 'almost' full rides in the incoming group of rookies in order to attract a top-flight pitcher or power hitter.

This rule completely screws returning players by targeting the 33% minimum to only new enrollees. And at the same time the returning player is handcuffed to the program by the one-year sit out rule. We all know that "full rides" or even 75%+ scholarships are very rare in college baseball, but this now places an additional pressure on coaches to revise the scholarships for returning players to meet the rule minimums and to continue attracting top talent. The coaches shouldn't like this either: it puts them in the catch-22 situation of giving more money to the incoming recruits (helps recruiting), but being forced to revise scholarships for returnees which does bad things for reputation (hurts recruiting).

Wow. This basically says any kid with legitimate hopes of developing himself for the pro draft would very much benefit by going to a prominent JC program where he can play and develop, keeping maximum options open with minimum costs, then transfer into a 4-year his junior year with a top-flight scholarship and ready to showcase himself for the draft. 4-year coaches get a kid that's proven himself on the field and academically already without the overhead of academic babysitting. The draft still hurts the APR, but there'd be less risk of APR damaging freshman dropping out of the program and less time and money spent hand-holding them through their first couple years. This could transform the face of college baseball recruiting. Four years from now we'll probably see top D1 teams with a ton of JC transfers.

quote:

Originally posted by Roadking:
If you think about this, it's pretty typical for a program to have up to 15 new kids coming into a program in freshman recruits and JC transfers. That would mean that AT MOST the available scholarships for returning players would be 6.7, since those freshman and transfers all must received the 33% minimum.

No, the 15 incoming players do not have to receive any 'ship at all. But if they do receive a 'ship, it must be 33% min.

JUCO transfers in major D1's aren't exactly unheard of now.

It certainly does appear that this change was not adequately thought through, however.

I tried to read all posts (quickly, to see if my question was addressed)...A conversation I heard (they were standing right next to me) between college coach and MLB scout...got me thinking...
A while back there was some discussion about coaches undermining draftability of draft eligible players (some acknowledged incidents were discussed). Seems to me, it would really hurt the program to lose draft eligible players prior to graduation. If I understand the way these penalties work, APR is not recognizing the draft in anyway, which would make a case for coach REALLY not wanting players to be drafted. Is draft a big problem? or am I not understanding the basics.
Most coaches would probably deal with it in an honorable way, but there are those few...

Catsuremom,
There are many coaches that do undermine potential draft prospects. But it is not to increase graduation rates.
The graduation rate is based on a rolling 4 year period, most players that go to son's program are expected back to graduate, not sure if that is figured into the rolling period, but a school that has players drafted is not punished for non graduation. Many college recruiters base their classes on who most likely will get drafted and who will not when they recruit. Some coaches will also call players into their office to tell them their scholarship ends third year, if you stay it is on your own dime or go pro.
The object is to keep players on eligibility tract for academics to graduate often a certain time frame. Transfers usually lose credits and they fall below the eligibility rules. Plus a player taking the minimum (12 credits) hurts a program because chances are by the time he reaches 4 years (not redshirted) player is way behind.