@atlnon posted:My son's school just put up their 2024 roster. 43 total in the roster. 15 Fr, 3 R-Fr, 2 So, 7 Jr, 10 Sr, 2 5th, 4 Gr. From what I can tell, 6 of the upper classmen are transfers (3 jucos and 3 from transfer portal). If you add the 15 freshmen, almost half of the roster are new. Roster limit is 40? So I'm assuming there will be cuts after fall?
This is the current fall LSU roster, 47 players. God Bless NIL $$.
@Master P posted:This is the current fall LSU roster, 47 players. God Bless NIL $$.
Now it's 46. Maybe one of them saw that and decided to leave. lol
@atlnon posted:My son's school just put up their 2024 roster. 43 total in the roster. 15 Fr, 3 R-Fr, 2 So, 7 Jr, 10 Sr, 2 5th, 4 Gr. From what I can tell, 6 of the upper classmen are transfers (3 jucos and 3 from transfer portal). If you add the 15 freshmen, almost half of the roster are new. Roster limit is 40? So I'm assuming there will be cuts after fall?
That would be my guess, but it's possible they are listing medical redshirt players who won't be on the 40-man roster in the spring.
Over recruiting is hard to judge in P5's to me. Some bring in a few extra because they know some will not make it and they also know some will need to grow, mature, some will get hurt, some will not pass, and so on. I know there are those who say why do you need more but why would you not get use every spot you can and why would you not redshirt those who are not going to help you right now. In son's 5 years at UT, we have had at least 2-4 every fall or summer that did not make it because of multiple reasons. One came in this summer and left before fall ever began because he did not want to do the workouts every day. His statement to the other players was this is not what I signed up for and it was only summer. Some just get in over their heads and others see the writing on the walls. I think there are very few who are truly told you have to leave but there are those who are told you will not be on the roster in the spring or you need a year to grow and get better. To many parents and players that is being told to leave but redshirting a player is not asking them to leave. Our society is just not a patient one anymore. No one wants to wait their turn.
@PitchingFan, all of what you said is true. However, some over-recruit a little (like Tennessee) and some over-recruit a lot. The wait your turn argument held water until the transfer portal materialized. Now it doesn’t as there is little to no loyalty to those that wait. At this point in time a kids best attribute better be the ability to accurately read his situation and make good decisions based on that read.
@CollegebaseballInsights posted:As you are aware, they have been bad for a long time
Since 2017, 31 - 247
They have struggled to get in-state players, especially from South Jersey
They've been terrible forever. Their last winning season (by one game) was 1990. I met a dad who was bragging his son was an early commit to Saint Peters. I turned to my friend and rolled my eyes. As if anyone needed to commit early. The dad even ran to the local newspaper to get an article done on his son. What an embarrassment.
@RJM posted:They've been terrible forever. Their last winning season (by one game) was 1990. I met a dad who was bragging his son was an early commit to Saint Peters. I turned to my friend and rolled my eyes. As if anyone needed to commit early. The dad even ran to the local newspaper to get an article done on his son. What an embarrassment.
Yeah, I didn't want to be that blunt. lol.
@PitchingFan posted:Over recruiting is hard to judge in P5's to me. Some bring in a few extra because they know some will not make it and they also know some will need to grow, mature, some will get hurt, some will not pass, and so on. I know there are those who say why do you need more but why would you not get use every spot you can and why would you not redshirt those who are not going to help you right now. In son's 5 years at UT, we have had at least 2-4 every fall or summer that did not make it because of multiple reasons. One came in this summer and left before fall ever began because he did not want to do the workouts every day. His statement to the other players was this is not what I signed up for and it was only summer. Some just get in over their heads and others see the writing on the walls. I think there are very few who are truly told you have to leave but there are those who are told you will not be on the roster in the spring or you need a year to grow and get better. To many parents and players that is being told to leave but redshirting a player is not asking them to leave. Our society is just not a patient one anymore. No one wants to wait their turn.
But isn't the roster size (35 or 40) designed to account for this already - meaning, out of 35 to 40 kids, surely you can field enough to be really competitive even if some of the 35 to 40 kids are not as good as you thought they were when you recruited them, or get hurt and can't play? I guess I'm alright with medical redshirt. But asking a kid you recruited to be on the team to then redshirt bec he turned out to not be as good as you thought, or not developing as fast as you thought, sounds wrong. Allowing this could give coaches an incentive to not work harder to help these kids bec they can always redshirt these kids and still get their full 40 man roster...
I disagree. I wouldn’t want to burn a year for a kid who isn’t going to contribute. You only are going to use about 9-11 pitchers and 12-14 fielders. A few others will get limited play but why burn a freshman’s year if it is not going to amount to significant playing time. I reckon I have seen it be very beneficial for son’s teammates and friends who were patient and used that year wisely.
@PitchingFan posted:I disagree. I wouldn’t want to burn a year for a kid who isn’t going to contribute. You only are going to use about 9-11 pitchers and 12-14 fielders. A few others will get limited play but why burn a freshman’s year if it is not going to amount to significant playing time. I reckon I have seen it be very beneficial for son’s teammates and friends who were patient and used that year wisely.
Good point. I see what you are saying, but something still doesn't sound right. Appreciate your patience as I try to work through my thoughts and your graciousness in helping me understand.
You only use 9-11 pitchers, and 12-14 fielders, but you still have 40 men rosters. You will still have 15 people getting very limited or no playing time, and getting their eligibility burnt. Why not give these roster spots to the people who are still developing and "not as good as the coaches thought they are" to better develop them more?
Isn't college designed to be completed in 4 years and staying for 5 years the exception (rather than the rule)? Maybe this assumption is off base and what is throwing off my whole thinking. The approach of "if a kid is not as good as I thought, let's redshirt him" is only valid assuming that a kid would stay in college for 5 years (to maximize their eligibility). The more we do this, the more we perpetuate the problem by creating a backlog for HS kids bec there are more young adults staying in college due to extra years of eligibility where if not for this extra year(s) of eligibility, they would have been done with college (the reason they are still in college is to play ball).
In my naïve world, you have a roster of 40 kids and that's it. No redshirting (except maybe for medical reason). You are forced to use a roster spot even for kids who are not as ready as you thought they are. Hopefully, this will incentivize the coaches to invest more in these kids. This would help their development bec it gives them opportunity to play limited innings as part of the 40 men roster. After 4 years, you are done, and that creates more opportunity for new HS kids to be part of the 40 men roster (as opposed to HS kids getting redshirted bec there are 5th year upper classmen still on the team).
Even if you are not that ready yet that first year, you still can be patient and wait your turn, and then be a contributor in your junior and senior year. Being put on a roster may actually put you in a position to contribute earlier as you may have developed faster. How would this be different compared to being redshirted, other than allowing you to play for a 5th year (in which case you create more backlogs for HS kids, and potentially giving you an excuse to extend your college stay unnecessarily)?
I get it. Don’t confuse my rationale with agreement that it is the right or best thing. I do think there are players that do not show up ready for college ball, especially at elite P5s that coaches let stay and redshirt rather than cut. If/when these guys are patient it works out for them, or at least it has with the ones I know. The coaches bring them along slowly and they contribute eventually. If they stay five years they leave with a masters.
@atlnon, your post can be summed up in 4 of your own words. “In my naive world..”
@adbono posted:@atlnon, your post can be summed up in 4 of your own words. “In my naive world..”
LOL! That's what this discussion board is for, right? To dream and pontificate of a better, more ideal (and naïve) world?
Seriously though, allowing me to ask these type of questions helps me better understand the realities of college baseball and the best way to navigate it. It helps me understand reasons/rationale for taking a redshirt and how to deal with it, in case this is a decision my freshman son has to face at the end of fall season (I hope not).
There's yet more nuance. If a freshman is on athletic scholarship and is told he is being "redshirted", then he will not use up eligibility, but he will be on the roster. If a freshman is not on athletic scholarship and is told he is being "redshirted", then he will not be on the roster, and (I think) not allowed to practice with the team in the spring.
In either case, if whatever he does in the way of development doesn't pan out, or if the coach feels he has recruited better new freshmen or transfers, then that redshirted freshman can just be told he won't be getting time next year. And then he is looking for a new school without any actual playing time since high school. In many cases, it's not a good sign to be told you are redshirting freshman year.
Altnon, I agree with what you say, but it's not how it currently works.
I do not believe in burning a year of eligibility. There are good coaches out there that will not let that happen. There are some that don't care.
PitchingFan is correct. In any program, there are only a certain amount of players actually needed. That usually comes out to the amount allowed to travel. I don't know if that's changed.
Has the travel roster expanded?
The 2024 rules allows a 40 man roster to compensate for the overload of players due to covid. Its temporary. It now can include 32 max players getting a piece of the 11.7, (if even fully funded).
Remember that a player is not considered a RS until the championship season is over.
Years ago most programs didn't give out RS because they didn't want to pay for grad school. Now they can just let you go and you can join the portal with thousands of others and do your RS years somewhere else. Its brutal out there. Be careful what you wish for.
I dont know what the argument is, no program needs 40 players on their roster and anyone not having a piece of the pie is considered a walk on. There are some programs that love having big fall rosters for the competition. Most coaches already know which freshman are going to be on the team. Many programs bring in their scholarship players early so they are ready to roll when fall practice begins. Smart.
IMO, unless injured, it's not a good idea to have an eligible year burned by one or two appearances. If you are not on athletic or even academic scholarship, that's another year that you have to come up with $$$$ for your education.
JMO
@anotherparent posted:Altnon, I agree with what you say, but it's not how it currently works.
Agree.
This is all extremely overwhelming.
Short answer that ones who have been on here for a while always say, but very few believe is always have a plan. B, C, and D. Do your research
@atlnon posted:Good point. I see what you are saying, but something still doesn't sound right. Appreciate your patience as I try to work through my thoughts and your graciousness in helping me understand.
You only use 9-11 pitchers, and 12-14 fielders, but you still have 40 men rosters. You will still have 15 people getting very limited or no playing time, and getting their eligibility burnt. Why not give these roster spots to the people who are still developing and "not as good as the coaches thought they are" to better develop them more?
Isn't college designed to be completed in 4 years and staying for 5 years the exception (rather than the rule)? Maybe this assumption is off base and what is throwing off my whole thinking. The approach of "if a kid is not as good as I thought, let's redshirt him" is only valid assuming that a kid would stay in college for 5 years (to maximize their eligibility). The more we do this, the more we perpetuate the problem by creating a backlog for HS kids bec there are more young adults staying in college due to extra years of eligibility where if not for this extra year(s) of eligibility, they would have been done with college (the reason they are still in college is to play ball).
In my naïve world, you have a roster of 40 kids and that's it. No redshirting (except maybe for medical reason). You are forced to use a roster spot even for kids who are not as ready as you thought they are. Hopefully, this will incentivize the coaches to invest more in these kids. This would help their development bec it gives them opportunity to play limited innings as part of the 40 men roster. After 4 years, you are done, and that creates more opportunity for new HS kids to be part of the 40 men roster (as opposed to HS kids getting redshirted bec there are 5th year upper classmen still on the team).
Even if you are not that ready yet that first year, you still can be patient and wait your turn, and then be a contributor in your junior and senior year. Being put on a roster may actually put you in a position to contribute earlier as you may have developed faster. How would this be different compared to being redshirted, other than allowing you to play for a 5th year (in which case you create more backlogs for HS kids, and potentially giving you an excuse to extend your college stay unnecessarily)?
"The Shift" by Walter Beede outlines where baseball is trending.
@TPM posted:I do not believe in burning a year of eligibility. There are good coaches out there that will not let that happen. There are some that don't care.
PitchingFan is correct. In any program, there are only a certain amount of players actually needed. That usually comes out to the amount allowed to travel. I don't know if that's changed.
Has the travel roster expanded?
The 2024 rules allows a 40 man roster to compensate for the overload of players due to covid. Its temporary. It now can include 32 max players getting a piece of the 11.7, (if even fully funded).
Remember that a player is not considered a RS until the championship season is over.
Years ago most programs didn't give out RS because they didn't want to pay for grad school. Now they can just let you go and you can join the portal with thousands of others and do your RS years somewhere else. Its brutal out there. Be careful what you wish for.
I dont know what the argument is, no program needs 40 players on their roster and anyone not having a piece of the pie is considered a walk on. There are some programs that love having big fall rosters for the competition. Most coaches already know which freshman are going to be on the team. Many programs bring in their scholarship players early so they are ready to roll when fall practice begins. Smart.
IMO, unless injured, it's not a good idea to have an eligible year burned by one or two appearances. If you are not on athletic or even academic scholarship, that's another year that you have to come up with $$$$ for your education.
JMO
I think the argument is whether teams should recruit only up to their roster limit (40 max) then if they really deem that a kid won't be able to contribute, then redshirt him. You should still have way more than you need even without overrecruiting. Don't ask them to redshirt bec you are over the roster size. Recruiting to get 45 people in the team knowing you can't roster all of them is an issue. Recruiting to get just 40 people on the team, and then not playing kids so that they can have an extra year of eligibility is not an issue for me.
BTW, what is the travel roster size limit?
@PitchingFan posted:Short answer that ones who have been on here for a while always say, but very few believe is always have a plan. B, C, and D. Do your research
exactly..
90% of the College players should always have alternate plans somewhat thought out.. A..B..C..D..
The extremely gifted(the freaks) don't usual have to worry other then injury or coaching issues..(they may need a plan B at worst..)
always start early on the "What-If's ? scenarios just in case .
what if I have a mediocre fall?
what if I get redshirted?
what if I get cut ?
what if they tell me little or no playing time?
what if I dont like the school or area?
would I consider to stay,transfer and , if transfer, then where... JUCO? another D1 ,2 or 3?
It is better to have options at the ready then be blindsided last minute and scrambling during the holidays..
btw- we are on Plan S or T tight now...but whose counting?
@atlnon posted:I think the argument is whether teams should recruit only up to their roster limit (40 max) then if they really deem that a kid won't be able to contribute, then redshirt him. You should still have way more than you need even without overrecruiting. Don't ask them to redshirt bec you are over the roster size. Recruiting to get 45 people in the team knowing you can't roster all of them is an issue. Recruiting to get just 40 people on the team, and then not playing kids so that they can have an extra year of eligibility is not an issue for me.
BTW, what is the travel roster size limit?
Once again, redshirt status doesn't happen until the season is over. It could be a discussion the coach has with player before season but things change.
Everyone gets the same chance and quite often freshman win a spot over returning players. It's amazing and it happens.
The NCAA allows max 40 for the spring. Coach can bring in as many or as little as he wants for the fall. Coaches get paid a lot of money to make these decisions, every program is different, so I am not to say what's the right or wrong way but I don't care for large rosters in season. I have learned that guys get hurt, guys are exhausted so you need to have reserves. I have seen guys who didn't play much all year be superstars when needed post season. You will understand this eventually.
As far as the P5s having a larger fall roster, programs lose players over the summer from the draft, high school, portal. So it can become a scramble you don't expect.
That's why I like the portal.
JMO
@atlnon posted:LOL! That's what this discussion board is for, right? To dream and pontificate of a better, more ideal (and naïve) world?
Seriously though, allowing me to ask these type of questions helps me better understand the realities of college baseball and the best way to navigate it. It helps me understand reasons/rationale for taking a redshirt and how to deal with it, in case this is a decision my freshman son has to face at the end of fall season (I hope not).
You are assuming coaches care about development. Most don’t. They care about winning and it is much easier to pick up plug and play guys from the portal. Most coaches could care less if you graduate from the school that recruited you, and most don’t.
Look at Deion Sanders. I have zero respect for what he did, but he is getting praise everywhere. “What great coaching.” No, coaching is making players better…getting the most from them. More like what Kansas is doing with their football program. Cutting everyone and replacing with proven guys is roster management. Money talks and the majority listen. The sooner you realize you are a trading card, the better. I’ve also seen several times where the coach tells them to develop a year at Juco and they will pick them back up. I’ve never seen a kid come back. “Develop, just not on my roster.”
I disagree but I understand. The really good ones know how to develop but it is still tough. When you only have so much time and so many players, you can only do so much. To be successful. You have to develop a few and bring in a few but you will never keep everybody happy. There will always be the player or parent without their kid should get more time to develop. But that is also the parent and kid that doesn’t want to wait.
mine with Deion is he had nothing to work with and brought the guys he had already developed. Why would you keep players who couldn’t win rather than bring ones who you knew could.
I love the new Dr Pepper commercial where they criticize everything going wrong with college football - transfer portal, conference realignment, etc. i wonder how long the NCAA will let them run it during ther games?
@PitchingFan posted:I disagree but I understand. The really good ones know how to develop but it is still tough. When you only have so much time and so many players, you can only do so much. To be successful. You have to develop a few and bring in a few but you will never keep everybody happy. There will always be the player or parent without their kid should get more time to develop. But that is also the parent and kid that doesn’t want to wait.
mine with Deion is he had nothing to work with and brought the guys he had already developed. Why would you keep players who couldn’t win rather than bring ones who you knew could.
You really think the guys at CU stood a chance? They were obviously not coached well before. If he is a great coach, he wouldn’t have had to zero-base the team. Kansas was arguably one of the worst programs in the country, and their coach has made great gains with the guys that were there when he arrived. That is coaching.
People’s opinions are primarily shaped by their own personal experiences. I think that sometimes gets lost in the discussion. I agree with all that @baseballhs says about over-recruiting and lack of player development. I know a lot about the P5 program her son plays for and she has, on many occasions, very accurately described how it is being run. It boggles my mind that people disagree with her comments about her own son’s experience. Lack of teaching & lack of development (they go hand in hand) are the biggest problems in college baseball IMO. Same can be said for HS and travel ball. Most players want to learn and want to get better. It’s very frustrating for them to be criticized for their performance without getting help from the critic about HOW to get better. There is much more to it than “get bigger, stronger, and faster. Players have a different level of respect for the coaches that teach, instruct, and invest in their players. There just aren’t enough coaches that do it. If your son plays for a coach that teaches the game consider yourself fortunate.
I just think today’s world has changed coaching so much and even recruiting. Coaches have to worry about keeping their players as much as getting players. I just know if I was a coach in today’s culture. Why would I work so much harder than I had to, especially as a new coach in a losing program? I would evaluate the talent, let some probably many, go, and bring in those tthat can help me win. I’ve just never been one to say that a new coach should have to keep the players they did not recruit.
@PitchingFan posted:I just think today’s world has changed coaching so much and even recruiting. Coaches have to worry about keeping their players as much as getting players. I just know if I was a coach in today’s culture. Why would I work so much harder than I had to, especially as a new coach in a losing program? I would evaluate the talent, let some probably many, go, and bring in those tthat can help me win. I’ve just never been one to say that a new coach should have to keep the players they did not recruit.
Because they are trading cards. Not kids who committed at 16, made friends, signed leases, are pursuing degrees, etc. Not to mention adding a year or so onto your graduation date. I’ve just seen it done to too many talented kids. I hope there are better experiences out there and I hope that there are coaches that balance caring for players with winning.
@PitchingFan posted:I just know if I was a coach in today’s culture. Why would I work so much harder than I had to, especially as a new coach in a losing program?
Then I would ask, why are you coaching baseball at all?
Y’all are just dreaming and being unrealistic. You have to win. I’m not talking small schools. I’m talking big schools. You don’t win, you get fired. Why would you keep players you don’t think can compete. That makes no sense. I get what you want but that is not realistic.
Adbono;
Does the word "Entitlement" define the current situation with College Coaches and players seeking playing time? Does the # of showcases attended effect the development of a young player? Can a young player learn to ask questions?
Bob
No, I'm quite serious. Why does someone choose to become a college baseball coach? Is it because they love the game, and they love the challenge of fitting together a team and coaching it to win games?
Or is it just because they have learned skills over many years, and there is an opportunity to be paid to use those skills? Without love of the challenge, that sounds quite depressing.
But honestly, if you're getting paid to coach a game, then why would teaching players how to improve be considered "work harder than you have to"? Wouldn't that be part of the challenge? i.e. part of the job?
The good ones love the game but they also have to compete to keep their job. There is only so much time to develop players. It takes time and I don’t think most players are willing to invest their time just like y’all don’t think coaches are willing to invest. I think it is a combo of players and coaches. I don’t think there is a perfect answer for everyone. Not every player and parent will be happy.
For 13u, 14u and 16u I put together a travel team with three other dads who played college ball (two pro). We had all the instruction covered. We even had a catching coach. The pitching coach made it to AAA. My son and the other kids who went D1 said they received a lot more instruction on our team than college ball. My son’s perspective would be slanted by all the individual work I did with him. It was the kids who went D3 who said they got instruction in college ball.
When I played college ball (PAC 8) in the 70s I struggled at first. I started 0-16 with 7 whiffs. I was worked with on making adjustments. I hit over .400 as a part time player the rest of the season. I was expected to be a starter soph year. I’m not sure in today’s culture I would have received the help I got and would have transferred. I might have walked away from the game given it was the right place for me academically.
@anotherparent posted:No, I'm quite serious. Why does someone choose to become a college baseball coach? Is it because they love the game, and they love the challenge of fitting together a team and coaching it to win games?
My son became a coach because he loves the game and just like you, loves to teach, instruct, whatever you want to call it and enjoys the rewards it brings, not just the salary and benefits. There are good coaches and mediocre coaches at every level and every sport. The most successful are the ones that care about what they do and the young people they work with.
It's a hard gig, but rewarding one as well. And yes, I agree that there are many programs with coaches that don't develop their staff as they should. I know some coaches that have gone from program to program and still are pretty meh. I don't get that.
For those not familiar, end of last season, quite a lot of mid D1 coaches lost their job. Good coaches. The problem IMO, if you dont win, donors, alumni, advertisers don't give the money that programs need to be successful. They demand change and hold back on giving if it doesnt happen. So this is not a phenomenon that occurs in just big programs.
IMO, the secret to success is in the recruiting. I know of quite a few coaches who were once scouts for ML teams. If a coach doesn't have the proper staff to recruit successfully than he needs to go find players that are a good fit for the program somewhere else. The portal is now being used, perhaps in some cases, as the primary tool to recruit.
Coaches will never tell you that they have no time to develop players. If they do, stay away.
As far as the issue of over recruiting, blame the system.
@Consultant posted:Adbono;
Does the word "Entitlement" define the current situation with College Coaches and players seeking playing time? Does the # of showcases attended effect the development of a young player? Can a young player learn to ask questions?
Bob
I’m not sure I’d call it entitlement. I’d lean more towards survival when it comes to their college career. I think if players had confidence they’d get a chance at playing time without the coach always looking to bring in someone better, you’d have more kids stay. Players are forced to take a chance or find a place they can play to build their resume to keep moving up. For the coaches, if they don’t use the portal they won’t be able to compete with the best
So as TPM said, blame the system.
@TPM posted:My son became a coach because he loves the game and just like you, loves to teach, instruct, whatever you want to call it and enjoys the rewards it brings, not just the salary and benefits. There are good coaches and mediocre coaches at every level and every sport. The most successful are the ones that care about what they do and the young people they work with.
It's a hard gig, but rewarding one as well. And yes, I agree that there are many programs with coaches that don't develop their staff as they should. I know some coaches that have gone from program to program and still are pretty meh. I don't get that.
For those not familiar, end of last season, quite a lot of mid D1 coaches lost their job. Good coaches. The problem IMO, if you dont win, donors, alumni, advertisers don't give the money that programs need to be successful. They demand change and hold back on giving if it doesnt happen. So this is not a phenomenon that occurs in just big programs.
IMO, the secret to success is in the recruiting. I know of quite a few coaches who were once scouts for ML teams. If a coach doesn't have the proper staff to recruit successfully than he needs to go find players that are a good fit for the program somewhere else. The portal is now being used, perhaps in some cases, as the primary tool to recruit.
Coaches will never tell you that they have no time to develop players. If they do, stay away.
As far as the issue of over recruiting, blame the system.
Agreed with this, especially the last sentence (blame the system).
I went back and reread the thread. I think most of the answers/info were already posted and shared in this thread. To summarize:
Regarding overrecruiting: "It's morally wrong, but there are no rules against it." and "At the end of the day it is up to the student athlete to make an informed decision."
"If the rule were that you could only have 35 in the fall and not add any mid-year transfers, coaches would adjust to that, too. Guess what, there would still be competitive baseball games. The problem is that the coaches are better at working the rules than the recruits are."
"There is plenty of info available to know which schools over recruit. Buyer beware. Tons of players and parents don’t think it can happen to their kid…. until it does."
My conclusion - it is what it is. No amount of rules can stop coaches from maximizing the value they get out of players. The best thing families and players can do is to be as informed as possible, and this site is one of the best source of real world info. Thanks to the amazing people here who continue to answer the same questions over and over again...
As a parting shot regarding over-recruiting I will add this. I hate it that it goes on as much as anyone. But in some cases the ire shown to the coaching staff is misdirected. Many school administrators give quotas to the AD for every sport on campus. Meaning the AD is give a minimum number of players to bring in each year for each sport. Every player brought in above the scholarship allotment for each sport pays full tuition to the college or university. Some underfunded schools need to do this in order to operate their athletic programs. Some do it because it’s a revenue boost and they can get away with it. Some coaches are given a bonus if they exceed their minimum. So besides blaming the current system (as TPM) says, IMO you should also blame administrators that are using hopeful athletes for financial gain.
