Any thoughts on how common it is in the Pac12 and West Coast Conference for schools to overrecruit with verbal commitments so that for many players a verbal commitment is more akin to an invitation to try out? Also, any chatter on what schools may be the biggest offenders in those conferences, recognizing there are always two sides to every story and the chatter may not be accurate?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Top programs draw verbals from top prospects. The program has to evaluate whether the player will play college ball or sign. The program will recruit an additional player if another player is likely to sign. Every "likely to sign" who decides to play college ball creates an over recruiting situation. It's an understandable business decision by a baseball program. But it screws players.
RJM is correct. All of the top programs over recruit to some extent. It is probably less likely at a high academic school like Stanford, or possibly Cal, but they all do it. What you need to be more comfortable with is whether you can compete at that level, vs whether the program has too many recruits. You also need to understand the depth chart at the position you are being recruited for, but know that even with a better probability of getting on the field, there will be a very talented player from the next years recruiting class plans on taking your spot. College baseball is hard and knowing going into a program where you fit will help you chose one that has the potential to work out for 3-4 years. Also if your not getting athletic $$ at a top program then the odds are stacked against you as the reality is that the coaches already think someone is better than you and gave them $$.
At the D3 level, there could be many deciding factors.
Does the school use Baseball as a tool to get Male students? Does the administration give the coaches targets to hit?
How many of the class are likely to be admitted AND show up in the fall?
How many of those who show up, will be prepared for college and do the work necessary to get through to Spring Semester, AND qualify Academically to play?
Go to a school that you are loved and are at the top of the recruiting class and you know you can play. Don't go to a team where you will be Just Another Guy. (This can work out, if you have incredible work effort and untapped talent.) It is very important that you understand the level of play of the team plays, and where you fit. You do not want to be fighting for the last travel roster spot.
Go in with your eyes open. If you do and you are honest with your ability to play at that teams level, it reduces the issue with over recruiting.
Son just had an opportunity to watch a D1 practice this past weekend. Very good experience in terms of seeing what the competition was like. Watching BP a kid can pretty quickly get a sense of how he compares.
BOF posted:Also if your not getting athletic $$ at a top program then the odds are stacked against you as the reality is that the coaches already think someone is better than you and gave them $$.
I don't disagree with this but there are definitely exceptions. My son and I spent time with a HC this past weekend. Some of the conversation included how they recruit and how the athletic money is allocated. Obviously they want to entice the players who are on the top of their recruit board so those players are going to get larger athletic percentages. If a player is at the bottom of the board and ends up factoring in to the mix...then obviously this type of player is going to get a smaller percentage or in some cases....no athletic money. I thought this coach put it best when he said..."I don't care if a player is getting a higher percentage, a lower percentage, or nothing at all...I am in this to win games. I am going to take care of the players who are going to put the team in the position to be successful."
I know this to be true because one of the players that showed us around was originally recruited as a roster spot...so no athletic $$ but did receive academic $$. Another top recruit chose to attend a different school (don't know what his percentage was) and the roster spot kid received 25% athletic before even stepping foot on the campus.
My son is currently looking at a couple of options and one would be a roster spot with academic $$$ only. There is no doubt about the risk with this opportunity but with great risk there is the opportunity for great reward. If he decides to go this route and falls short...at least he won't have to second guess wether or not he was good enough to play with the big dogs. Obviously, there are a lot of other factors he will need to consider but we feel much better about a roster spot only opportunity then we did before meeting with this HC.
I understand this is not the rule but more of an exception. I just think it made perfect sense when he said...percentages are meaningless to him when evaluating the performance of players on the roster. Why should it? He won't be around long enough to see how those high percentage players turn out, if he is not winning games.
There are always exceptions and in the end a player has to show he belongs. The difference is usually a player with more athletic $$ has a longer rope; he will get more AB's, Pitches, etc, and more opportunities to show he belongs. If a walk on gets injured in practice, or has a slow start, or stumbles the coaches don't have any "equity" in that player. He can look in the mirror and say to himself honestly " I gave him a shot and he did not cut it" move on. If there is a coaching change it is even worse as the player is not officially part of the program until practice starts. What does a "roster spot" mean? He will be on the team during the fall and if he makes the cut he is part of the 35? Of course any coach is going to say he does not care how much athletic money a players has once the season gets going and he has to win or lose, it is what happens up to that point that matters.
Rule number one in recruiting: The coach is going to tell you what you want to hear. The thing players and their parents have to be aware is that this is the case and understanding going in the odds are tougher for a walk on vs one on athletic scholarship.
I agree in part but what is your basis for saying that player with athletic scholarship is going to get more AB's, pitches, etc? I understand that happening very early on but if the frosh scholly kid is struggling on the field (sometimes it can be off the field or in the classroom) and the frosh non scholly kid is killing it...you are telling me that the scholly kid is more likely to make it? I 100% disagree. I get that the top programs in the country have continued success because they know how to recruit the right players and do their homework. However, we all know or have heard of the countless stories of the right players not making it all 4 years for a variety of reasons. These guys are not going to keep non-performing kids or knuckleheads around and let a talented, performing player go simply because one has an athletic scholarship and the other does not. That makes no sense at all and you would probably see a lot more coaches getting fired at the top schools if that was a regular occurrence.
I also get rule # 1 but disagree that all coaches are only telling players what they want to hear. If you had been part of this particular conversation, you would probably not make a blanket statement anymore. There was a good chunk of it that was real...no bs...that did not have either my son or I walking away with starry eyes!
I love the info shared on these message boards but what I struggle with sometimes is blanket statements. There are most definitely trends and commonalities during the recruiting process but unless you have spent time at every college program and with every HC, I think it is unfair to make it sound like they are all exactly the same.
What does a roster spot mean at this particular school. It means that a player is one of 35 who are considered good enough to play. They will bring in another 4-5...so players 36-40 who have an opportunity to bump somebody along with an open walk-on tryout for students already enrolled.
One thing not mentioned is that any player with athletic $ is automatically counted in the 35 so to your point of a coach keeping the best player (walk on or scholly) that could be true, but the scholly player counts for the year no matter if the coach keeps on the team or not.
So there are not too may spots left for the walkon's to compete for.
I Agree, from experience, the kids with money will get much more opportunity to rule themselves out, vs the walk on better be on fire from day one.
Both of our sons played in the Pac12, both were recruited to WCC schools as well - just background, nothing more.
It is virtually impossible for a school not to over-recruit. In any sport. I read the percentage of college football QBs that actually stay at the first school and the number was shockingly low. Every year players are discouraged, run off or for some other reason never make it to campus...in every conference, in every sport. Its just the way it is.
Some exits are encouraged, some are forced. Many/most of the ones I saw were just as much or more the player's choice. Wasn't getting on the field, didn't like the coach, didn't like the school, couldn't cut it in the classroom, got in trouble for something, etc...
Is it more common with some schools and/or some coaches? Yes. Stanford would be less likely, big public schools more likely.
This is a reality of college athletics. Don't have your eyes closed going in.
Don't be afraid to ask about it - we did. The body language with the answer seemed more important than the answer itself. I'd ask in person.
My question, to every coach was, "If my son ends up not being as good as you and I think, what happens? Will he be asked to leave?"
But the next question to yourself (and to your son) would be, 'If you aren't playing, will you want to stay?'
Playing time related to scholarship? Sure, there's a factor there, but the truth is the coach wants to win and will put the best players on the field ultimately.
I am glad 2018 committed where he did. The information we were provided with about athletic money, academic money, financial aid was much different than any of these cases. After talking to many , as in 20 of so that played at this school they confirmed the same thing the coaches were saying.
I would be concerned if I was a player at a school that had 20 commits and 8 at my position and I was a late commit. If the signable ones don't sign....your in trouble
coachld posted:I agree in part but what is your basis for saying that player with athletic scholarship is going to get more AB's, pitches, etc? I understand that happening very early on but if the frosh scholly kid is struggling on the field (sometimes it can be off the field or in the classroom) and the frosh non scholly kid is killing it...you are telling me that the scholly kid is more likely to make it?
I’ve seen this at most of the schools that I follow (where the local kids have ended up). Again, there are exceptions like you describe, but there are other more likely scenarios. For hitters, baseball guys know that hitters get in slumps. So when the highly recruited freshman CF is batting .150 after 10 games, they don’t panic. If they believe in the kid (and more importantly in their own ability to evaluate), then they’re going to give that kid a bunch of ABs before they go in another direction. But the more likely scenario is probably the scholly guy hitting .260. Maybe the walk-on could hit .285, but we’ll never know because he’s not going to get an opportunity just based on killing it in practice.
IMO, the situation is a little better for pitchers because almost every pitcher will get an opportunity in a real game. There just isn’t enough good pitching to get through the weekly grind. So if you get a weekday inning and do well, you’ll probably get more opportunities.
Baseball is tailor-made for confirmation bias. Your prized SS has a lousy average? He’s hitting the ball hard, but not finding any green. The pitcher you don’t like has a tiny ERA? He’s getting hit hard, but right at the defense. This isn’t just for scholarship guys, you see it in D3, too. It’s ego. If I recruited a kid that I know is a stud, and I brag about him to my staff, you’d better believe I’m going to stick with him longer than the kid who I didn’t rate as highly. That’s just human nature.
123ABC posted:One thing not mentioned is that any player with athletic $ is automatically counted in the 35 so to your point of a coach keeping the best player (walk on or scholly) that could be true, but the scholly player counts for the year no matter if the coach keeps on the team or not.
So there are not too may spots left for the walkon's to compete for.
I Agree, from experience, the kids with money will get much more opportunity to rule themselves out, vs the walk on better be on fire from day one.
123, many D1 programs are not fully funded. Of those which are, a number of them won't spread the 11.7 across 27 players. One prominent WCC program is noted for allocating most of their 11.7 to around 15 or so players. At the D1 level, most programs will have close to 15 spots on a 35 player roster who are not receiving athletic $$$$.
As he most often does, justbb is right on the mark here. College coaching, especially at the D1 level, is about winning. For anyone wanting clear evidence of that as a top priority, read the recent comments of the President of the University of Nebraska when he replaced their AD. In effect, he stated that nothing short of "winning" at the highest levels is acceptable and he intended to find an AD who would get that done throughout their athletic program.
Necessarily, with a message of that type from the President to the AD, that message echos to each coaching staff. College coaches play their best 8, bat their best 9 and pitch their top 7-8.
Necessarily, each of those is not the same from season to season. Especially at the D1 level, players and pitchers are competing every practice and every game and every season and many times it is not against the players on the roster.
I was talking with a very good college coach recently who told me of 3 scholarship players at Power 5 schools who were pretty early verbal commits, and each got innings as freshman. At the year end exit meetings, each were told there were no spots for them as a sophomore. Yes, their scholarship would be honored but they would not play.
In my view, this "intensity" and "focus" on winning is only going to increase into the future. Recruits and college players cannot escape that reality. Early verbals benefit the colleges, The NLI benefits the colleges. Being able to honor a scholarship while telling a player he does not belong and won't see an inning benefits the colleges. More early verbals shifts the pendulum even more in the favor of the colleges and their coaching staffs. On the other hand, the financial pressure on D1 college coaching staffs is ever increasing through the message from the top down to over-recruit. To have some sense of "immunity" from this powder keg spiraling ever more out of the control of the player, he, and his parents have to realize it is a business (and a game) but one where production is paramount and he never gets to rest on a college baseball diamond at the D1 level.
MIDATLANTICDAD - you see it in pro ball too... Kid hitting .320 in AAA never gets called up because he was an 11th Round pick with a $10,000 signing bonus. The big name prospect 1st Round pick gets the call up even though he's hitting .262
happens all the time
I agree with infield Dad. spot on with everything. My experience is that once the spring comes and season starts, the best players will play, walkon or scholly. Its the fall where if you're a walk on, and there's an abundance of players at your position, it will be extra hard to get your equal reps. You've got to make it through fall in order to get on a more level playing field in the spring. Fall is crucial for the walkon to even get a chance in the spring. IMO.
Doesn't it depend on the kind of walk on? Some random kid shows up and wants to try out, well, I'd imagine the odds are very long. But a preferred walk on may have an equal opportunity to compete for playing time.
2019Dad posted:Doesn't it depend on the kind of walk on? Some random kid shows up and wants to try out, well, I'd imagine the odds are very long. But a preferred walk on may have an equal opportunity to compete for playing time.
By and large, the answer to your question is yes. From everything I know, the random player (or even not completely random) who shows up for the walk-on tryout isn't even going to make the Fall roster. From a pretty wide net, I know of one LHP who made a college roster through the walk on tryout procedure (he was 85-87mph at the time who transferred from a top D3.)
2019Dad posted:Doesn't it depend on the kind of walk on? Some random kid shows up and wants to try out, well, I'd imagine the odds are very long. But a preferred walk on may have an equal opportunity to compete for playing time.
Yes, it certainly does and I have seen different types of "preferred" walk ons. Agree with IFDad and everyone else... a true walk-on generally has an extremely slim chance. I have seen other walk ons asked/encouraged to come and try out in the fall (I guess you could call that preferred to an extent), others guaranteed a roster spot thru the fall, and others guaranteed a roster spot in the Spring. These all are quite different in positions of leverage and importance of constantly exceeding expectations with fall performance.
Great info by others... only thing I will add... there IS also pressure on HC's to get it right with recruits. If there is a pattern of non-scholy kids beating out the guys getting $$, questions will start to come.
2019Dad posted:Doesn't it depend on the kind of walk on? Some random kid shows up and wants to try out, well, I'd imagine the odds are very long. But a preferred walk on may have an equal opportunity to compete for playing time.
I would say it doesn't depend so much on the type of walk-on, as it does the coach's opinion of the walk-on. There's no official definition of a preferred walk-on. To me, it means that they expect you to make the spring roster in some capacity (incl RS). However, it might not mean that to every coach. Some coaches might bring in more preferred walk-ons than they have room for on the spring roster.
But I agree with you that not all non-scholarship players will be given the same opportunity. For example, a coach may love some local late-bloomer who more-or-less falls in his lap, but he can't offer him any money because it's all been allocated. Coach is going to try to keep that kid happy, especially if he does well as a freshman.
Sorry for taking this on another direction.
However a freshman needs to look at the company he keeps. Look at which upper class men they are hanging out with. I am sure many teams have malcontents. Young men who thought they did not get a fair shot. If you find yourself with these players off the field, you may have problems. Many times these types are not at voluntary work outs. It doesn't make a difference any way, right? Coach is already against you. The extra work won't help anyway!
Or are you with the teammates that spend their extra time studying, in the weight room or batting cage?
Look at which of those groups are getting playing time, and do what they do. The coach will notice and the other players will to.
justbaseball posted:Both of our sons played in the Pac12, both were recruited to WCC schools as well - just background, nothing more.
It is virtually impossible for a school not to over-recruit. In any sport. I read the percentage of college football QBs that actually stay at the first school and the number was shockingly low. Every year players are discouraged, run off or for some other reason never make it to campus...in every conference, in every sport. Its just the way it is.
Some exits are encouraged, some are forced. Many/most of the ones I saw were just as much or more the player's choice. Wasn't getting on the field, didn't like the coach, didn't like the school, couldn't cut it in the classroom, got in trouble for something, etc...
Is it more common with some schools and/or some coaches? Yes. Stanford would be less likely, big public schools more likely.
This is a reality of college athletics. Don't have your eyes closed going in.
Don't be afraid to ask about it - we did. The body language with the answer seemed more important than the answer itself. I'd ask in person.
My question, to every coach was, "If my son ends up not being as good as you and I think, what happens? Will he be asked to leave?"
But the next question to yourself (and to your son) would be, 'If you aren't playing, will you want to stay?'
Playing time related to scholarship? Sure, there's a factor there, but the truth is the coach wants to win and will put the best players on the field ultimately.
JustBaseball, I love your question to the Coach. That's clutch. And the student can ask the question too.
BishopLeftiesDad posted:Sorry for taking this on another direction.
However a freshman needs to look at the company he keeps. Look at which upper class men they are hanging out with. I am sure many teams have malcontents. Young men who thought they did not get a fair shot. If you find yourself with these players off the field, you may have problems. Many times these types are not at voluntary work outs. It doesn't make a difference any way, right? Coach is already against you. The extra work won't help anyway!
Or are you with the teammates that spend their extra time studying, in the weight room or batting cage?
Look at which of those groups are getting playing time, and do what they do. The coach will notice and the other players will to.
Bishop, spot on. Bad attitudes are infectious and become a habit. And coaches can spot them a mile away. Doesn't matter if the coach is great or not so great, he controls your son's playing time.
I haven't read the entire thread, but the information given from those that have been through the process ( one or two times) is spot on.
At the college and professional levels keep in mind one thing. Those identified as top prospects, those with large scholarships and those paid hefty bonuses, will get multiple chances to fail. The walk on, or the lower drafted prospect won'the.
Apologies if this was covered.
Recruiting is like dating, coaches, just like your new boyfriend or girlfriend, want you to like them. They want you to come and play at their program. They will tell you aLL the things that you want to hear.
This isn't true in every case, but understand probably in way more than people think.
Coaches award scholarships based on players parents financial situations. So the player with no scholarship might actually have better reason to be at that program than the player on a 50% scholarship. It's not something that is usually discussed betweven players or even here on this board. So no one really would know that info and players don't discuss it. And again if the program doesn't fund, everyone could be a walk on.
Bottom line, many programs over recruit because they have to. Don't go by the committment list you see on sites, because chances are they are that many for a reason.
JMO
BishopLeftiesDad posted:Sorry for taking this on another direction.
However a freshman needs to look at the company he keeps. Look at which upper class men they are hanging out with. I am sure many teams have malcontents. Young men who thought they did not get a fair shot. If you find yourself with these players off the field, you may have problems. Many times these types are not at voluntary work outs. It doesn't make a difference any way, right? Coach is already against you. The extra work won't help anyway!
Or are you with the teammates that spend their extra time studying, in the weight room or batting cage?
Look at which of those groups are getting playing time, and do what they do. The coach will notice and the other players will to.
This is good advice for HS as well.
Iowamom23 posted:BishopLeftiesDad posted:Sorry for taking this on another direction.
However a freshman needs to look at the company he keeps. Look at which upper class men they are hanging out with. I am sure many teams have malcontents. Young men who thought they did not get a fair shot. If you find yourself with these players off the field, you may have problems. Many times these types are not at voluntary work outs. It doesn't make a difference any way, right? Coach is already against you. The extra work won't help anyway!
Or are you with the teammates that spend their extra time studying, in the weight room or batting cage?
Look at which of those groups are getting playing time, and do what they do. The coach will notice and the other players will to.
This is good advice for HS as well.
I was thinking the same thing. Great advice.
Midwest Mom posted:justbaseball posted:Both of our sons played in the Pac12, both were recruited to WCC schools as well - just background, nothing more.
It is virtually impossible for a school not to over-recruit. In any sport. I read the percentage of college football QBs that actually stay at the first school and the number was shockingly low. Every year players are discouraged, run off or for some other reason never make it to campus...in every conference, in every sport. Its just the way it is.
Some exits are encouraged, some are forced. Many/most of the ones I saw were just as much or more the player's choice. Wasn't getting on the field, didn't like the coach, didn't like the school, couldn't cut it in the classroom, got in trouble for something, etc...
Is it more common with some schools and/or some coaches? Yes. Stanford would be less likely, big public schools more likely.
This is a reality of college athletics. Don't have your eyes closed going in.
Don't be afraid to ask about it - we did. The body language with the answer seemed more important than the answer itself. I'd ask in person.
My question, to every coach was, "If my son ends up not being as good as you and I think, what happens? Will he be asked to leave?"
But the next question to yourself (and to your son) would be, 'If you aren't playing, will you want to stay?'
Playing time related to scholarship? Sure, there's a factor there, but the truth is the coach wants to win and will put the best players on the field ultimately.
JustBaseball, I love your question to the Coach. That's clutch. And the student can ask the question too.
I asked the coach a similar question when my son was going through the process. This was two years ago, when the power 5 schools were just starting with the guaranteed multi year scholarships . we sat down with the head coach of a non power 5 school, and he made my son an offer. I asked him something like "Coach, a couple of other schools have offered guaranteed scholarships, do you do that?" His response: "Lets all be honest with each other here- if this doesn't work out for your son, he's not going to be happy here and he's going to want to go play ball somewhere else". I very much appreciated his directness and honesty.
This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
JCG posted:Iowamom23 posted:BishopLeftiesDad posted:Sorry for taking this on another direction.
However a freshman needs to look at the company he keeps. Look at which upper class men they are hanging out with. I am sure many teams have malcontents. Young men who thought they did not get a fair shot. If you find yourself with these players off the field, you may have problems. Many times these types are not at voluntary work outs. It doesn't make a difference any way, right? Coach is already against you. The extra work won't help anyway!
Or are you with the teammates that spend their extra time studying, in the weight room or batting cage?
Look at which of those groups are getting playing time, and do what they do. The coach will notice and the other players will to.
This is good advice for HS as well.
I was thinking the same thing. Great advice.
I think the better college coaches understand this dynamic very well. One explained it to me this way: Each Fall is a brand new season and brand new team with its own dynamics. As part of those, on a roster of about 35, 5 will stand out in their efforts to lead the team in a positive manner starting with lifting, captain's practices and extras. About 5 or so will stand out by taking actions and showing attitudes which, deliberately or not, make everything about them while often times painting the coaching staff in a negative light.
Roughly 20-25 teammates are in the middle being tugged by those on each side. The college coach is aware of this but normally wants the team to solve the dilemma and determine with faction prevails. On occasion the coach will take some actions which he thinks will help seal the direction those in the middle take.
One example a great college coach told me about was bringing in a very inspiring former player when he thought the faction of discontent was "winning" and taking the middle group to a place where the team could not win. That former player gave a fiery and inspirational presentation about the history of the program, the fact every player with a number was playing for every player before him who wore that number, cutting very much to the "pride" of playing for that program and all those who set the bar for success. He literally challenged each player to look internally and measure their efforts in the context of what it took to win. From that coaches perspective, if a coach made the presentation, it could have fallen in deaf ears. The fact it came from recent graduate and former player made all the difference in setting expectations and getting buy in for them.
Literally, the 20 in the middle aligned on the spot with the "leaders" and that team ended up one game short of the CWS.
In my view, the dynamics of a college baseball team can be fascinating.
pabaseballdad posted:This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
Some examples from this fall --
USC: 42: http://usctrojans.com/roster.aspx?path=baseball
Vanderbilt: 39: www.vucommodores.com/sports/m-...nd-m-basebl-mtt.html
Duke: 40: www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbm...1850&SPSID=22852
Arkansas: 43: www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/sport/m-basebl/roster/
2019Dad posted:pabaseballdad posted:This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
Some examples from this fall --
USC: 42: http://usctrojans.com/roster.aspx?path=baseball
Vanderbilt: 39: www.vucommodores.com/sports/m-...nd-m-basebl-mtt.html
Duke: 40: www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbm...1850&SPSID=22852
Arkansas: 43: www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/sport/m-basebl/roster/
I wouldn't be totally certain those are examples. For instance, at least one school I'm familiar with typically has the walk-ons who actually ARE trying out for the team on the Fall roster online. In other words, there may be 2 or 3 open spots with 7 or 8 player vying for them, but everyone knows the situation.
I wouldn't exactly call that an over-recruiting situation. Fine line? Perhaps, but not the same as kids signed on scholarship and then being told not to show up because there is no spot for them.
justbaseball posted:2019Dad posted:pabaseballdad posted:This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
Some examples from this fall --
USC: 42: http://usctrojans.com/roster.aspx?path=baseball
Vanderbilt: 39: www.vucommodores.com/sports/m-...nd-m-basebl-mtt.html
Duke: 40: www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbm...1850&SPSID=22852
Arkansas: 43: www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/sport/m-basebl/roster/
I wouldn't be totally certain those are examples. For instance, at least one school I'm familiar with typically has the walk-ons who actually ARE trying out for the team on the Fall roster online. In other words, there may be 2 or 3 open spots with 7 or 8 player vying for them, but everyone knows the situation.
I wouldn't exactly call that an over-recruiting situation. Fine line? Perhaps, but not the same as kids signed on scholarship and then being told not to show up because there is no spot for them.
I didn't mean that they are examples of over-recruiting. I just meant that they are examples of the number of players in fall camp, per pabaseballdad's question.
2019Dad posted:justbaseball posted:2019Dad posted:pabaseballdad posted:This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
Some examples from this fall --
USC: 42: http://usctrojans.com/roster.aspx?path=baseball
Vanderbilt: 39: www.vucommodores.com/sports/m-...nd-m-basebl-mtt.html
Duke: 40: www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbm...1850&SPSID=22852
Arkansas: 43: www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/sport/m-basebl/roster/
I wouldn't be totally certain those are examples. For instance, at least one school I'm familiar with typically has the walk-ons who actually ARE trying out for the team on the Fall roster online. In other words, there may be 2 or 3 open spots with 7 or 8 player vying for them, but everyone knows the situation.
I wouldn't exactly call that an over-recruiting situation. Fine line? Perhaps, but not the same as kids signed on scholarship and then being told not to show up because there is no spot for them.
I didn't mean that they are examples of over-recruiting. I just meant that they are examples of the number of players in fall camp, per pabaseballdad's question.
the fall ball rosters on line can be misleading as well. some schools only list returning guys, with no incoming, some don't list walk ons even if they are on field, completely at the schools discretion.
Justbaseball is correct. These numbers represent more than likely recruited walk ons, trying out for maybe 3 spots.
I wish people would stop worrying about numbers. Get yourself a solid commitment, sign your NLI and prepare yourself for some tough competition.
JMO
pabaseballdad posted:This may be an interesting question. Informal survey for those that have sons playing college ball now. What is your son's teams division ? How many players in fall camp ?
My answer below:
ncaa Div I. 47 in fall ball. 35 is roster limit.
NCAA Div 1.....39 in Fall Ball
My son's previous D1 had 40 one Fall and 42 the second year. Only one kid who tried out ever made the team, a LHP when the team had only one other leftie. Coach rostered 33-35 depending on the year.
At my 2016's D3, they had 40 last Fall and 37 this year. Only 2 were cut last year.
At JCG's and my local D2, they had over 90 last Fall. Per my 2016's buddy, they have a similar number this year. Endless scrimmages, then they'll get to ~35.
Sons old D3 roster is usually around 40. Some non recruited players make the roster every year. Class size is usually 7-12. One year there was 25. Coincided with a year when they changed Football coaches and the recruiting class for Football was down because the time of the change.
