Clemson president James Barker is chairman of the NCAA board of Directors?!?!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
good perspective - this is getting uglier and uglier... Had not thought about the returning Seniors side of things...
What seems grossly unfair to me is the very real possibility of a player at or under 33% having their scholarship eliminated completely,and then that kid has to sit out a year (on his own dime)in order to go play somewhere else.
Whatever degenerative brain condition these NCAA committee members are suffering from, one thing is clear, they have no regard for the kids.
If you are going to impose the same requirements on baseball as the "head-count" sports, then fine; do away with the equivalency aspect and go to 24-27 full scholarships. Then it would be fair to treat baseball the same as the other sports. Not gonna happen, though!
Whatever degenerative brain condition these NCAA committee members are suffering from, one thing is clear, they have no regard for the kids.
If you are going to impose the same requirements on baseball as the "head-count" sports, then fine; do away with the equivalency aspect and go to 24-27 full scholarships. Then it would be fair to treat baseball the same as the other sports. Not gonna happen, though!
One other thing ...
It seems to me that if a college player is not receiving any athletic scholarship money, that there should be NO restriction on transferring.
If a young man and his family desire to transfer because of playing time and/or scholarship availability, and is not receiving any athletic money, I don't see that the NCAA should have any influence.
I wonder if anyone has ever brought an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA?
It seems to me that if a college player is not receiving any athletic scholarship money, that there should be NO restriction on transferring.
If a young man and his family desire to transfer because of playing time and/or scholarship availability, and is not receiving any athletic money, I don't see that the NCAA should have any influence.
I wonder if anyone has ever brought an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA?
quote:All the memorable players mentioned above came to Clemson with less than a 33 percent scholarship. And many of them would never have played for the Tigers under the new rules.
“They weren’t 33 percent players at that particular time,” Clemson coach Jack Leggett said.
Hard to say whether or not they would not still go to Clemson. To me, playing in college isn't about how much money you get rather it is about the opportunity. Many players are not physically mature when they go to college so it would be difficult for a coach to put a lot of money into them. Many players develop later than others and this happens at every school. Certain positions like pitching are going to command more dollars because without pitching you simply cannot win no matter how good your position players are.
Here is another take on the ramifications of the new rules and I have no idea if this will affect things.
Kids are still going to want to play at schools like Clemson.
Some kids will no longer be able to say they received an athletic scholarship to play even though their status with the team may be entirely the same as it was before.
Some players (and I am guessing mostly pitchers) may have to accept less if there is a minimum requirement for 33% spread out over more players.
The players who see their scholarships boosted to 33% may actually view the new system more favorably.
Players leaving to play out of state may decrease over time and this point has been made before. Many northern kids will still be attracted and find ways to play in the south.
I am not really sure what the ramifications are but they all may not be negative depending on one's perspective. These are just gut feelings I have and not much thought has been put into them.
.
Montana Dad,
Oh you can transfer allright you just can't play in my league.
A compromise might be to let the eight who are NOT on baseball $ transfer without the year sit-out.
44
.
Montana Dad,
Oh you can transfer allright you just can't play in my league.
A compromise might be to let the eight who are NOT on baseball $ transfer without the year sit-out.
44.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Some players (and I am guessing mostly pitchers) may have to accept less if there is a minimum requirement for 33% spread out over more players.
There is no requirement for the 'ship funds to be spread out over more players. There is only a maximum limit of 27 players receiving 'ships. And a minimum 'ship of 33%. So the coach could give out eleven 100% 'ships and one 70% 'ship if he desired.
Texan - thanks for the clarification.
What if a top 25 coach says to a new recruit - under the old system I would have been able to give you X dollars. Now I am offering you recruited walk-on status but we consider you the same as we would have in the old system. Another coach at a top 100 school (but much less prominent) says to the same player, I will offer you 33%. I wonder if that will be enough to cause players like Khalil Greene to bypass a school like Clemson.
If one believes in the "money talks" theory, then we would predict more parity in college baseball.
I wonder if that will indeed be the case or will the traditional powers still remain the traditional powers?
What if a top 25 coach says to a new recruit - under the old system I would have been able to give you X dollars. Now I am offering you recruited walk-on status but we consider you the same as we would have in the old system. Another coach at a top 100 school (but much less prominent) says to the same player, I will offer you 33%. I wonder if that will be enough to cause players like Khalil Greene to bypass a school like Clemson.
If one believes in the "money talks" theory, then we would predict more parity in college baseball.
I wonder if that will indeed be the case or will the traditional powers still remain the traditional powers?
How do you put a dollar amount on a full ride? Some colleges are $40,000 and others are $20,000. I have never understood how this is worked out.
CD - Good example but in some (actually many) cases the COA may come into play. For example, using your numbers....
COA at school #1 = $30K. Since player is not getting money, out of pocket is still $30K.
COA at School #2 = $25K. Player gets 33% scholly ($8,250). Out of pocket is $16,750.
BIG difference! But there are a ton of variables to consider but I do think more kids than not would opt to go to school #2 and get money (bragging rights, less debt) than go for the glory of being on team #1.
COA at school #1 = $30K. Since player is not getting money, out of pocket is still $30K.
COA at School #2 = $25K. Player gets 33% scholly ($8,250). Out of pocket is $16,750.
BIG difference! But there are a ton of variables to consider but I do think more kids than not would opt to go to school #2 and get money (bragging rights, less debt) than go for the glory of being on team #1.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
How do you put a dollar amount on a full ride?
It varies from school to school but a "full ride" is when they cover the total cost of attendence (COA). These costs are room, board, tuition, books and fees. (seems like I missed something??)
bbd, it is based on the cost of attendance at that school and not on a set dollar amount. A 100% 'ship may be $30,000 at a private school and only $15,0000 at a state school. The school can award a dollar amount equal to 11.7 times their cost.
CD, so many schools still aren't fully funded (even with an 11.7 limit), I'm not sure this will bring about any big increases in parity. But perhaps if it truly ends up pushing some major D1 kids to smaller programs, it might.
CD, so many schools still aren't fully funded (even with an 11.7 limit), I'm not sure this will bring about any big increases in parity. But perhaps if it truly ends up pushing some major D1 kids to smaller programs, it might.
Thanks for clarifying. I imagine their must me a way to determine cost of housing etc because it also can vary according to where you live while at college.
The offers we had were all dollar amounts and the one we accepted was not nearly as high as the higest offer but the spread was similar between COA. This could creat
a lack of parity.
The offers we had were all dollar amounts and the one we accepted was not nearly as high as the higest offer but the spread was similar between COA. This could creat
a lack of parity.
quote:To me, playing in college isn't about how much money you get rather it is about the opportunity.
I agree with that. However it seems to me that "opportunities" will be fewer than before...especially out of state or privates.
I just really don't understand how this could be good for college baseball.
quote:However it seems to me that "opportunities" will be fewer than before...especially out of state or privates.
justbb - first long time no see
Lets reason this out. If Coach Leggett at Clemson is saying that they will be missing out on the likes of Greene and other "developed" stars, wouldn't these same players still be developed but at different schools? In other words, wouldn't the opportunites be in the same amount but just shift somewhere else? Wouldn't these new policies put a dent in the "over recruiting problems" we have all discussed for years on these boards?
I just ask these questions for sake of discussion. I have no idea what the correct answer might be. We may be just talking a paradigm shift and not whether the new policy is actually good or bad for the athlete. Also, under utilitarian principles, maybe more resources are potentially being distributed to more athletes. As Texan has pointed out however, schools are not forced to change their respective distributions - they are just capped at a maximum number and if they do make a monetary offer it is for a minimum amount. Books scholarships appear to be dead. Is that a bad thing?
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
I just really don't understand how this could be good for college baseball.
I agree.
Would a Khalil Greene still have developed to the player he was if he had not gone to Clemson? Knowing his other choices maybe, maybe not. Greene was very unusual, he most likely would have made it regardless. I think the writer was making a point.
CD,
Some schools, many schools don't "develop" players. If a player wishes to attend a school that has a history of developing players, he may not get that opportunity anymnore due to new rules.
It appears that some less developed freshmen may not be able to go to some of the top schools like Clemsen. That may be good for NCAA overall. It also could end up with these players not getting signed as there will be less money to distribute due to the lower limit being 33%. The book money guys may be a thing of the past and a coach really has to think about players that need development. Marginal players who develop into great college players may not get the ooportunities.
Also how does academic money fit in to the equation ? Most scholarships I know about have larger academic amounts than BB amounts.
Also how does academic money fit in to the equation ? Most scholarships I know about have larger academic amounts than BB amounts.
BTW,
Found out today President Barker just recently became chairman, he was not in on the original committe that made the rules.
Found out today President Barker just recently became chairman, he was not in on the original committe that made the rules.
Want to follow up on some of the COA posts. IN reading the CURRENT D1 manual, it states that COA is determined/published by each school. It encompasses the items mentioned earlier. For "equivalency" purposes, books are counted as $400, regardless of the "real" amount.
However, under current rules, one of the key factors in calculating the 11.7 scholarships is the denominator figure. The D1 manual states that the denominator is the AVERAGE COA for the school. For a private school, this is pretty straightforward. However, there can be significant variances in the $$$ limit for schollys at state schools. Why? The composition of in state vs. out of state comes into play. So if I am a coach at a state school with a high percentage of out of staters in the OVERALL student population, I conceiveably have more scholly $$$'s available than a similar state school with more in state student. This assumes, of course, that both schools are fully funding their scholly's.
Now, I won't even BEGIN to pretend how the new calculations will work. However, if the basic formulas remain unchanged, I am guessing many state schools will have to change their recruiting approach, ESPECIALLY if the are used to giving book money to in staters and currently use their lion's share of athletic $$$'s on out of state studs.
However, under current rules, one of the key factors in calculating the 11.7 scholarships is the denominator figure. The D1 manual states that the denominator is the AVERAGE COA for the school. For a private school, this is pretty straightforward. However, there can be significant variances in the $$$ limit for schollys at state schools. Why? The composition of in state vs. out of state comes into play. So if I am a coach at a state school with a high percentage of out of staters in the OVERALL student population, I conceiveably have more scholly $$$'s available than a similar state school with more in state student. This assumes, of course, that both schools are fully funding their scholly's.
Now, I won't even BEGIN to pretend how the new calculations will work. However, if the basic formulas remain unchanged, I am guessing many state schools will have to change their recruiting approach, ESPECIALLY if the are used to giving book money to in staters and currently use their lion's share of athletic $$$'s on out of state studs.
quote:CD,
Some schools, many schools don't "develop" players. If a player wishes to attend a school that has a history of developing players, he may not get that opportunity anymnore due to new rules.
I used the word develop because the coach implied it. He said those listed players in the article were not 33% guys at the time they were recruited yet obviously became such after they were with the program for a few years. I know Fungo has said D1 players are not recruited to be developed but most obviously do "develop" from the time they are recruited.
We may be seeing less players willing to sit the bench at premier institutions and filtering down to smaller programs. Of course, this means that some kids who are now playing at the smaller programs may be forced out of baseball. Is this good for college baseball? One could argue that the overall quality of the game would go up across the board while eliminating some opportunites that may exist today.
Good read on the topic in BaseballAmerica today.
Also listed are schools that came in under the required APR for all sports.
You know, in the end, we really don't know how this all will pan out, maybe in about 3-4 years we all might still be here for further discussion.
Also listed are schools that came in under the required APR for all sports.
You know, in the end, we really don't know how this all will pan out, maybe in about 3-4 years we all might still be here for further discussion.
CD - My thoughts on "fewer opportunities" boil down to this.
I think a lot of schools use the 'books-only' and 10% scholarship amounts to lure in players they aren't totally sure about. Yes, they overstock (some anyways). Still others may use that 10-25% to get into their "dream school" where otherwise it wasn't possible. A decent number of those develop once in college and turn out to be pretty darn good. I could give you a pretty impressive example of this (another poster's son) who wouldn't have ended up at his dream school and developed into a primo starter if these new rules were in place. But I won't name names.
Would he have ended developing somewhere else? Who knows?...but he wouldn't have been where he wanted to be...and maybe (even probably?) he wouldn't have developed like he did in the comfortable environment he chose where the coach believed in him, but couldn't quite risk it coming out of HS.
I can give you another example of a now-graduated 'books-only' kid who ended up in his top-25 school's record books as a Friday night starter. Point is, its not hard for me to quickly think of multiple kids who benefitted from the current system.
And if I do the quick caclulations...seems pretty simple that there won't be as many kids with scholarship dollars as before...given that they MUST have 33%. Some of those left out will attend other schools, some will sign pro contracts for not-much-money...others will decide that baseball is over for them and just go to college without playing ball. So yes, I think there will be a bit fewer opps.
Am I screwed up in how I look at this? I kind of hope so because I've got another pretty good baseball player heading into HS next year who ?may? get a shot someday too and I don't see how this helps him at all.
I think a lot of schools use the 'books-only' and 10% scholarship amounts to lure in players they aren't totally sure about. Yes, they overstock (some anyways). Still others may use that 10-25% to get into their "dream school" where otherwise it wasn't possible. A decent number of those develop once in college and turn out to be pretty darn good. I could give you a pretty impressive example of this (another poster's son) who wouldn't have ended up at his dream school and developed into a primo starter if these new rules were in place. But I won't name names.
Would he have ended developing somewhere else? Who knows?...but he wouldn't have been where he wanted to be...and maybe (even probably?) he wouldn't have developed like he did in the comfortable environment he chose where the coach believed in him, but couldn't quite risk it coming out of HS.
I can give you another example of a now-graduated 'books-only' kid who ended up in his top-25 school's record books as a Friday night starter. Point is, its not hard for me to quickly think of multiple kids who benefitted from the current system.
And if I do the quick caclulations...seems pretty simple that there won't be as many kids with scholarship dollars as before...given that they MUST have 33%. Some of those left out will attend other schools, some will sign pro contracts for not-much-money...others will decide that baseball is over for them and just go to college without playing ball. So yes, I think there will be a bit fewer opps.
Am I screwed up in how I look at this? I kind of hope so because I've got another pretty good baseball player heading into HS next year who ?may? get a shot someday too and I don't see how this helps him at all.
justbb - Thanks for your thoughts
I have the same feelings and don't disagree with anything you have said. Let me ask you though - just for the sake of making us all think about this....
Lets say that player was lured for a books scholarship. Lets say books are roughly $1000.00 total for two semesters. If the coach told the kid he viewed his "status" the same as he did before the rule change but could only offer him a recruited walk-on position, would that still turn away those same kids who had a dream of playing for that dream school? Turn them away for a mere $1000? I say perhaps not. I do realize there is a prestige factor in saying one has earned a scholarship as Beezer noted.
I do know that I don't know what the answer is but your intuition may be entirely correct Interesting discussion.
I have the same feelings and don't disagree with anything you have said. Let me ask you though - just for the sake of making us all think about this....
Lets say that player was lured for a books scholarship. Lets say books are roughly $1000.00 total for two semesters. If the coach told the kid he viewed his "status" the same as he did before the rule change but could only offer him a recruited walk-on position, would that still turn away those same kids who had a dream of playing for that dream school? Turn them away for a mere $1000? I say perhaps not. I do realize there is a prestige factor in saying one has earned a scholarship as Beezer noted.
I do know that I don't know what the answer is but your intuition may be entirely correct
Interesting discussion.
CD - All I have on this topic is intuition. But yes, I think some kids are lured to their favorite schools by anything...just to say "I've got a scholarship to BIG-SCHOOL U.!" Both of the examples I metioned above were lured by such (at least from what I know talking to their parents). They both turned down 'good' scholarships at other colleges. It has worked out really well in both cases.
I also know a kid who is succeeding quite a bit as an 'invited walkon' to his dream school. But I also know he strongly considered other options with money attached. I don't know how close he came to taking one of those other offers.
Lastly, I know of kids who dropped the dream of playing college athletics due to this walkon type of situation...I expect the number of those will grow sincer fewer total kids are likely to get anything at all.
Its all just a hunch, nothing more.
I also know a kid who is succeeding quite a bit as an 'invited walkon' to his dream school. But I also know he strongly considered other options with money attached. I don't know how close he came to taking one of those other offers.
Lastly, I know of kids who dropped the dream of playing college athletics due to this walkon type of situation...I expect the number of those will grow sincer fewer total kids are likely to get anything at all.
Its all just a hunch, nothing more.
It seems to me that coaches that previously have been pretty good about keeping kids for 4 years to see if they develop because it only cost them books or 10% will now have to make a lot of decisions to cancel scholarships altogether if they are forced to spend 33% to keep a kid. That combined with a 1 year wait to play someplace else simply is not fair to the player.
They just won't have the room or the money to reward a great kid that could be a team guy but probably won't contribute until he is a junior or possibly a senior. If I was a coach I know I wouldn't like having to tell someone after 1 or two years that I can't give you 33%, I need to reload and oh by the way if you want to play you have to wait another year.
They just won't have the room or the money to reward a great kid that could be a team guy but probably won't contribute until he is a junior or possibly a senior. If I was a coach I know I wouldn't like having to tell someone after 1 or two years that I can't give you 33%, I need to reload and oh by the way if you want to play you have to wait another year.
What about the guy who picks a school soley based on academics and is offered no BB money ? Can he be on their team ?
I sat witha guy a few weeks ago while in Charleston SC and we got on the subject of scholarships. His son went to the school because it was his academic dream school and was offer a spot because of the IVY school and what an honor it was to attend this prestigious school. How does it affect a guy like that?
I sat witha guy a few weeks ago while in Charleston SC and we got on the subject of scholarships. His son went to the school because it was his academic dream school and was offer a spot because of the IVY school and what an honor it was to attend this prestigious school. How does it affect a guy like that?
I believe the Huskies coach was right (BA article) in that programs in states having "Hope" type scholarships will gain even more advantage because those guys already get a 70%+ ride from Hope and are abundant.
currently many Hope type schools average 40%+ aid down the roster .. tho it's not all atheletic $$ ... money is money - who cares where it comes from?
but intstead of complaining about Hope, he should be wining & dining HIS State Reps for a similar program
jmo
currently many Hope type schools average 40%+ aid down the roster .. tho it's not all atheletic $$ ... money is money - who cares where it comes from?
but intstead of complaining about Hope, he should be wining & dining HIS State Reps for a similar program
jmo
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
If the coach told the kid he viewed his "status" the same as he did before the rule change but could only offer him a recruited walk-on position, would that still turn away those same kids who had a dream of playing for that dream school?
CD - I don't think those are the players the dream school will lose. Why quibble over $1000? If it's your dream school and you can be a preferred walk-on, why not? There will be 8 of those spots available...presumably.
My point was more for the 5% to 30% type scholly guys. I think those are the ones who will most likely be going elsewhere now and contribute to the parity you alluded to.
I may have asked this qestion in another thread.....I know in football and basketball....if you transfer D1 to D1, you have to sit out a year. Are there any other NCAA sports like this?
Most, if not all, of these players are on full rides. I see the rationale a bit for making these players sit out a year. But in baseball, few if any players are on full rides.
I just don't get the transfer penalty for a player that may only be on a 1/3 scholly.
I am agreeing with many here that if they wanted to institute transfer rule and 33% min, they ALSO should have upped the scholly limit (probably to 20).
Most, if not all, of these players are on full rides. I see the rationale a bit for making these players sit out a year. But in baseball, few if any players are on full rides.
I just don't get the transfer penalty for a player that may only be on a 1/3 scholly.
I am agreeing with many here that if they wanted to institute transfer rule and 33% min, they ALSO should have upped the scholly limit (probably to 20).
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
What about the guy who picks a school soley based on academics and is offered no BB money ? Can he be on their team ?
Sure. Walkons are still allowed.
To elaborate on my previous post...
Currently you've got basically 3 groups of players:
1 - "Big" scholarship players (>33% scholly).
2 - "Small" scholarship players (<33% scholly).
3 - Walk-ons (no $ at all).
Once this change goes into effect, although the $$ will be divied up differently, you'll have "big" scholarship players and walk-ons. I think the difference though is that the "walk-ons" will be guys from the 2nd group and the current guys who may have been walk-ons will go elsewhere, maybe even to a smaller school for a scholly. Keep in mind, in the new situation, the coach will only have a maximum of 8 non-scholly spots so he'll need to use those wisely.
Currently you've got basically 3 groups of players:
1 - "Big" scholarship players (>33% scholly).
2 - "Small" scholarship players (<33% scholly).
3 - Walk-ons (no $ at all).
Once this change goes into effect, although the $$ will be divied up differently, you'll have "big" scholarship players and walk-ons. I think the difference though is that the "walk-ons" will be guys from the 2nd group and the current guys who may have been walk-ons will go elsewhere, maybe even to a smaller school for a scholly. Keep in mind, in the new situation, the coach will only have a maximum of 8 non-scholly spots so he'll need to use those wisely.
Beezer-
In reading the NCAA website (along with other posts here), it is my impression that a maximum of 27 players can receive athletic $$$'s. In theory, a team could have more than 8 walk-ons, assuming a coach chose to give less than 27 players athletic money.
In reading the NCAA website (along with other posts here), it is my impression that a maximum of 27 players can receive athletic $$$'s. In theory, a team could have more than 8 walk-ons, assuming a coach chose to give less than 27 players athletic money.
jbbaseball - true. My numbers were based on the assumption the 27 ARE on scholly. With the roster limit of 35, then 8 players would be non-scholly. As you say though, maybe they only have schollys for 20 players? The variables are limitless but I was simply using the numbers to make a point.
There is something that I wonder if people are thinking through about this...there is now an advantage to a coach to give a spot on his team to a guy who is a decent player with a full or almost full academic ride, particularly at a private school where the tuition is higher. After all, the coach could have a player that is likely to advance on schedule, helping the team's APR, and he doesn't have to give money to the kid. Given that schools are going to HAVE to have guys on no baseball money to fill out their 35 man roster, academics in high school may become even more important than ever.
We've all talked about "big brother" (the NCAA) and the impact of the changes. Both Tanner and Leggett have come out publically opposed to the changes. It's time to look at "facts".
1. Fact: Baseball players have higher GPA's and SAT scores on the average than their football/basketball brethern.
2. Fact: Baseball players have underperformed in the classroom for a VARIETY of reasons. The overall Academic Progress rate for baseball is virtually the same as for football and basketball.
3. Fact: For the rest of the universe (excluding all college athletes), College is normally (not always) about obtaining an education. That is the stated objective of the colleges ... to educate.
-----------------------------
Situation 1: If you are involved in college baseball, you know (or have known) players who's sole purpose was not to get an education but to simply "stay eligible" for college ball.
Situation 2: If you are involved in college baseball, you know (or have known) many players who switch their intended major after the first year, simply because it's too difficult for them to be successful in that major and still play college ball.
------------------
In D1 ball, the Baseball Academic Performance Committee looked at players in the last two instances and were surprised on HOW HIGH the percentage was for these players, particularly for those players in the FIRST situation, just trying to stay eligible. Now, lets also remember WHY this committee was formed. It was a reaction from the college baseball community so they wouldn't have their playing season reduced from 56 to 52 games, following the change to the uniform start date.
The Uniform Start Date might not have as much affect on players in the northern schools, because they (generally) started a bit later. A lot of them ended up with large travel budgets coming south to play matches in early february. It's pretty much a generality that southern schools will have their games compressed, missing more class-time than before. I'm not sure how the northern schools will react, except possibly to play less contests. With fewer weekends available and still playing a 56 game schedule, that means more mid-week games. Simple math.
--------------
So ... the baseball committee has laid down a set of guidelines that are INTENDED to make it more difficult to run players off. That means that colleges must work on making them students.
The coaches are now complaining that their efforts NOT to lose games didn't give them the desired results. It's made recruiting more difficult. It's making WINNING more difficult. They still want their 56 game schedule. They still want their players to miss more class-time. The player has to make up for the missed lectures, assignments and tests entirely on their own (in most cases).
----------
I'm not buying it. Sorry Tanner. Sorry Leggett. You're response is still selfish and doesn't tell me a THING about the student. If you have a BETTER solution, then lets hear it. Complaining that it will make it difficult for you to bring in the studs to win 50 games a year isn't a valid reason. Complaining that you will have to work harder in your recruiting process is valid either, since you are making your players work harder in the class-room.
So, if you have something better, I'd like to hear it.
1. Fact: Baseball players have higher GPA's and SAT scores on the average than their football/basketball brethern.
2. Fact: Baseball players have underperformed in the classroom for a VARIETY of reasons. The overall Academic Progress rate for baseball is virtually the same as for football and basketball.
3. Fact: For the rest of the universe (excluding all college athletes), College is normally (not always) about obtaining an education. That is the stated objective of the colleges ... to educate.
-----------------------------
Situation 1: If you are involved in college baseball, you know (or have known) players who's sole purpose was not to get an education but to simply "stay eligible" for college ball.
Situation 2: If you are involved in college baseball, you know (or have known) many players who switch their intended major after the first year, simply because it's too difficult for them to be successful in that major and still play college ball.
------------------
In D1 ball, the Baseball Academic Performance Committee looked at players in the last two instances and were surprised on HOW HIGH the percentage was for these players, particularly for those players in the FIRST situation, just trying to stay eligible. Now, lets also remember WHY this committee was formed. It was a reaction from the college baseball community so they wouldn't have their playing season reduced from 56 to 52 games, following the change to the uniform start date.
The Uniform Start Date might not have as much affect on players in the northern schools, because they (generally) started a bit later. A lot of them ended up with large travel budgets coming south to play matches in early february. It's pretty much a generality that southern schools will have their games compressed, missing more class-time than before. I'm not sure how the northern schools will react, except possibly to play less contests. With fewer weekends available and still playing a 56 game schedule, that means more mid-week games. Simple math.
--------------
So ... the baseball committee has laid down a set of guidelines that are INTENDED to make it more difficult to run players off. That means that colleges must work on making them students.
The coaches are now complaining that their efforts NOT to lose games didn't give them the desired results. It's made recruiting more difficult. It's making WINNING more difficult. They still want their 56 game schedule. They still want their players to miss more class-time. The player has to make up for the missed lectures, assignments and tests entirely on their own (in most cases).
----------
I'm not buying it. Sorry Tanner. Sorry Leggett. You're response is still selfish and doesn't tell me a THING about the student. If you have a BETTER solution, then lets hear it. Complaining that it will make it difficult for you to bring in the studs to win 50 games a year isn't a valid reason. Complaining that you will have to work harder in your recruiting process is valid either, since you are making your players work harder in the class-room.
So, if you have something better, I'd like to hear it.
HHH,
That was a good post.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with academic reforms. You have made a good point, it is a known fact that baseball players come in with a higher GPA, but usually don't maintain it.
Academic advisors work harder with football, basketball players than with baseball players, because college is their training ground. Because they are revenue sports and huge revenue for the NCAA. That bugs me.
I personally have no problems with the tranfer rules, the later start date, the cutting of scholarships in any sport for non academic performance. This is all about academic reforms correct? Please explain in your opinion, how the new scholarship rules (for baseball) fit into the APR? Could you imagine what would happen if they TOOK away percentage of a basketball or football scholarship? Riots. BTW who needs 80 football players anyway? Do they all play?
The government makes me be accountable for paying taxes every year, but they do not have the right to tell me how to spend my money. I look at it the same way. NCAA can make schools be accountable for athletes graduationg (yes that is what they are there for), all schools, but what gives them the right how to tell a school how to spend their money? I don't get it.
I can't speak for SEC schools or any other large conference schools, but if you check rosters for most ACC schools, they are very small, most smaller than smaller D1 schools. And if you check the APR scores for most ACC schools you will also find the GPA's to be higher than most schools.
Top programs will still recruit top prospects. Who is going to be hurt by this, in the end?
If it is stockpiling they want to stop, then place a cap on roster size, but don't take the opportunity away from those who might get some money to now get nothing, because in the end, it will be the average player who will be hurt financially.
BTW, there is only a cap on scholarship players.
Also for the record, in most programs it IS about winning, it's about winning at every school, every division. At son's school it is about winning, but it is also about accountability in the classroom. You are not allowed to cut ONE class, class reports are handed in on each player and you better do your best to maintain a 3.0 or above. So don't want to hear about how at the larger programs is is all about winning.
BTW, Leggett gave a solution, "11.7 by fall not spring. This eliminates open fall tryouts some schools employ and force coaches to be pickier about whom they recruit."
I would imagine this protects players from being "run off", if that is the purpose of the scholarship reduction.
That was a good post.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with academic reforms. You have made a good point, it is a known fact that baseball players come in with a higher GPA, but usually don't maintain it.
Academic advisors work harder with football, basketball players than with baseball players, because college is their training ground. Because they are revenue sports and huge revenue for the NCAA. That bugs me.
I personally have no problems with the tranfer rules, the later start date, the cutting of scholarships in any sport for non academic performance. This is all about academic reforms correct? Please explain in your opinion, how the new scholarship rules (for baseball) fit into the APR? Could you imagine what would happen if they TOOK away percentage of a basketball or football scholarship? Riots. BTW who needs 80 football players anyway? Do they all play?
The government makes me be accountable for paying taxes every year, but they do not have the right to tell me how to spend my money. I look at it the same way. NCAA can make schools be accountable for athletes graduationg (yes that is what they are there for), all schools, but what gives them the right how to tell a school how to spend their money? I don't get it.
I can't speak for SEC schools or any other large conference schools, but if you check rosters for most ACC schools, they are very small, most smaller than smaller D1 schools. And if you check the APR scores for most ACC schools you will also find the GPA's to be higher than most schools.
Top programs will still recruit top prospects. Who is going to be hurt by this, in the end?
If it is stockpiling they want to stop, then place a cap on roster size, but don't take the opportunity away from those who might get some money to now get nothing, because in the end, it will be the average player who will be hurt financially.
BTW, there is only a cap on scholarship players.
Also for the record, in most programs it IS about winning, it's about winning at every school, every division. At son's school it is about winning, but it is also about accountability in the classroom. You are not allowed to cut ONE class, class reports are handed in on each player and you better do your best to maintain a 3.0 or above. So don't want to hear about how at the larger programs is is all about winning.
BTW, Leggett gave a solution, "11.7 by fall not spring. This eliminates open fall tryouts some schools employ and force coaches to be pickier about whom they recruit."
I would imagine this protects players from being "run off", if that is the purpose of the scholarship reduction.
lots of opinions out there on this, probably some misinformed or uninformed...mine being at the top of both lists.
From some of the articles I've read the whole goal is to improve graduation rates. I understand the transfer rule, I don't agree with it but understand the rationale. Make it tougher to leave and less will leave and coaches will recruit less players.
The scholly of minimum of 33% does not make sense. First off it is an arbitrary number. They could have picked 10, 20 or 30...just throwing a dart at a number.
This is going to have an impact on all schools large and small.
A few people mention that players can still walk-on but IMO if they were throwing the player something there was a little more (not much) of a commitment to the player. Doesn't this encourage you to invite more walk-ons to fill the roster who wont make the team.
Also at my Son's school currently walk-on get no preferential treatment with admission, which means that even if they are qualified due they may not get admitted due to # of freshman applying.
In regards to underpreforming in the classroom as HHH suggests I think there is a difference between graduation rates and academically being eligible. My impression is that kids are not "not" graduating due to poor classroom performance, but the APR is effected by the number of players that transfer, or leave for other reasons that has a negative effect on the APR.
How increasing scholarship % and not increasing the number of scholarships will improve APR I don't get. (I realize some schools can not in theory afford more schollys).
I think one impact will be the top programs will have no choice (due to need to win to keep their jobs) but to run off players and just not renew scholarships of players that do not fit in their plans, of course they will have to balance that with APR but if you look at Clemson with and South Carolina they both have APR's over the minimum, which says they are graduating their players.
From some of the articles I've read the whole goal is to improve graduation rates. I understand the transfer rule, I don't agree with it but understand the rationale. Make it tougher to leave and less will leave and coaches will recruit less players.
The scholly of minimum of 33% does not make sense. First off it is an arbitrary number. They could have picked 10, 20 or 30...just throwing a dart at a number.
This is going to have an impact on all schools large and small.
A few people mention that players can still walk-on but IMO if they were throwing the player something there was a little more (not much) of a commitment to the player. Doesn't this encourage you to invite more walk-ons to fill the roster who wont make the team.
Also at my Son's school currently walk-on get no preferential treatment with admission, which means that even if they are qualified due they may not get admitted due to # of freshman applying.
In regards to underpreforming in the classroom as HHH suggests I think there is a difference between graduation rates and academically being eligible. My impression is that kids are not "not" graduating due to poor classroom performance, but the APR is effected by the number of players that transfer, or leave for other reasons that has a negative effect on the APR.
How increasing scholarship % and not increasing the number of scholarships will improve APR I don't get. (I realize some schools can not in theory afford more schollys).
I think one impact will be the top programs will have no choice (due to need to win to keep their jobs) but to run off players and just not renew scholarships of players that do not fit in their plans, of course they will have to balance that with APR but if you look at Clemson with and South Carolina they both have APR's over the minimum, which says they are graduating their players.
quote:Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
If it is stockpiling they want to stop, then place a cap on roster size, but don't take the opportunity away from those who might get some money to now get nothing, because in the end, it will be the average player who will be hurt financially.
BTW, there is only a cap on scholarship players.
No, there is a roster cap of 35. 'Ship players limited to 27.
A cap is a cap, something new. Won't they still red-shirt outside the roster cap?