Possible reason for lack of talk?

The answer is yes.

I am convinced these new rules have slowed offers down a bit (and talk).

Might be different after the meeting this week.

If things remain as they are, it's gonna be tough. Those players who normally would only receive a small scholarhip normally, will most likely become walk ons. The blue chip players will receive 33% or higher, with most of it going to pitchers. The pitcher who might receive a very large scholley will most likely get less. Might want to consider looking elsewhere other than D1.

College coaches have formulas they have worked for years trying to make it all fit with 11.7, I think they need time to adjust their finacial planning.
The more you try to demand more for your player, the less attractive he will become, money will now determine who will go where. Sort of like the draft.

If I were a parent whose son was close to approaching the college experience and wants to play D1, I would be writing letter (s) to the NCAA.
For those that think that the 33% was going to mean less you have to pay for school, you are mistaken.

The early signs tend to be pitchers, catchers next, other position players/hitters to follow.

The pitchers are often above the 33% line anyway, so I don't know that they will see a lot of changes.

But I do agree with TPM that the rules changes have people taking it slowly, thinking it through, and maybe waiting to see if the rules become final -- and hoping against hope that they don't.

One recruiter told me flat out about a boy on our summer team that they would like to have him but couldn't budget 33% for him. "He's a kid we would've given maybe 20% to in years past." Now that kid gets nothing. Way to go, NCAA!

Another school I noticed took on a kid who is a pure utility player. That's a different approach to the new rules, and one that makes a lot of sense really.

At some point the schools will have to take their best shots at living with the rules, however they emerge from this week's vote. I'm betting by late October, things will be on pretty much the same schedule you would've seen in years past.

This legislation just doesn't make sense to me and I wonder if it could be subject to legal interpretation. The rule is gonna hurt the fully funded schools a lot but it may have even bigger implications on the many that don't have the full 11.7 and I am pretty sure there is a pretty good number of them out there. I also believe the one year transfer rule is completely unfair. If schools don't have to commit to 4 years for the scholarship why should the athelete be forced to sit out a year. I can see players that get the 33% and things don't work out for whatever reason being told the following year they are not getting anything and they have no recourse but to comply, move down to Div 2, Div 3 or Juco. How is legislation that is so one sided allowable or even legal.

I see this legislation really tying the hands of coaches that keep thier jobs by winning and forcing them to make decisions that they would never make if the rules at least remained the same. In my opinion this will hurt the student athelete and no legislation should ever be passed that does more harm than good. I hope they overturn the whole thing.

I don't want to "hi-jack" this topic, but I thought the question fit appropriately here after reading Midlo Dad's post. What was the motive behind the NCAA ruling that the minimum individual scholarship for one player should be 33 percent? In situations where a player who would get money for 20% or even room and books, etc, why take the chance away from them?

yes , I too would like to know the reasoning behind the 33% minimum.

Ditto! It sure has gummed up the works.

I'm not sure but I think the whole thing is about graduation rates and the NCAA's feeling that frequent transferring is at the root of baseball's problem in that area. A kid with a low % may be inclined to shop himself around year to year. A kid who commits without any money is hopefully committed to that school long term. And those who do get money are getting more, so they have less incentive to look around.

But if that's the reasoning, it all unravels. A kid getting zero has no commitment from the program and might still shop around, esp. if he produces on the field. A kid who was getting 33% and gets cut down to zero the next year (and that can happen!) will definitely want to look around.

But wait! The NCAA wants to make you sit out a year now if you transfer. So if you hope to better your lot, tough luck!

When the coaches can cut your % from one year to the next, punishing a kid for transferring is just heinous. The school can break its word to him and he has no real recourse.

Midlo Dad, you are right, any defense they take seems to unravel into a mess. This legislation is very one sided and I'm not really sure if anyone benefits, including the NCAA.

It might prove difficult for many players at the DI level to drop into many of the DIII's because of the more stringent academic requirements. Agreed that they are painting these kids into a corner.

On the subject of transferring or shopping around...

Wouldn't it be possible to transfer from a D1 to a JC, play a year with the JC, and then "reup" with a D1 (or become eligible for the draft for the high end players) under the new NCAA rules? It seems like the rule change would actually encourage some players to go the JC route if dissatisfied. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Brod,

I don't know if that is allowed BUT, you can't keep transfering, you could lose too many credits. The object is to go to school and get a degree, not play musical chairs (I got that one from FO).

I know some players who went to D1, tranfered to Juco and got drafted.

Just a thought.

.
Brod...

That is how I see it...

...one by product that no one has brought up much is the amount of humanity moving from DI into the other divisions...

...Di roster sizes trimmed (by some cases by 10-15 players), 2 year comittments...Or Player gets unhappy...

...he's not likley to transfer and have to sit out a year, he is likely to drop to DII, DII, or JC....some at mid year.

Few coaches from other divisions are going to turn down a talented player...

...going to make for some VERY interesting and wholy unexpected roster moves at the other levels...as the DI's adjust.

44
.

quote:

Originally posted by UpstateNY2008:
What was the motive behind the NCAA ruling that the minimum individual scholarship for one player should be 33 percent?

If you review the report, I'm pretty sure it specifies how they came up with the roster size and scholly limit. I posted the link a while back.

EDIT - I couldn't find my previous link but found the report on NCAA's website for you:

NCAA's Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group - Final Report

I'm not suggesting musical chairs, nor do I think that would be advisable for the vast majority of players, but I just think that when the NCAA locked a player into a four year D1 with or without a scholarship, and imposes a penalty of sitting out a year if he transfers, there will potentially be problems for a talented player who is dissatisfied or has academic issues he can't resolve. I know there was a huge movement in baseball of unhappy players before this year. I doubt that the unhappiness will stop. The unintended beneficiary of NCAA rulemaking may be the DII or DIII programs as well as the JCs.

quote:

Originally posted by jmepop:
I also believe the one year transfer rule is completely unfair.

I personally feel it should be waived if no scholarship is involved. Walk-ons should be allowed to transfer without penalty.

One of my former players (MIF/OF)received a call from a top 25 program yesterday. The call was something like: we just want to stay in touch and we will talk with you after the NCAA meeting. We need tons of pitching and have no idea how we are going to be able to divide the funds if the rules don't change. Please hang with us and we will try to work something out but this is just a nightmare for us at this time.

cbg

He is echoing what I was told by a couple of D-I coaches yesterday.


In addition nobody seems to have any idea what the final outcome will be on Thursday

Beez

quote:

I personally feel it should be waived if no scholarship is involved. Walk-ons should be allowed to transfer without penalty.

Take it a step further, a kid gets the proposed 33% first year, if the coach doesn't renew the scholarship the next year the player is still forced to sit out a year, how can that be legit? This legislation is just too one sided.

QUESTION (policy and practical related):
While I realize it is rare, how many DI football and basketball players walk-on? (i.e. receive no athletic $$$, for this discussion let's exclude the IVIES).
If these individuals transfer to another DI school, do they have to sit out a year? I THINK, the answer is yes. (PLEASE correct me if I am wrong).
While I think this legislation is skewed in favor of the institution(as a parent of an 08, I am very much against it), not sure why baseball walk ons should be treated differently than football or basketball walk ons........thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by jbbaseball:
While I think this legislation is skewed in favor of the institution(as a parent of an 08, I am very much against it), not sure why baseball walk ons should be treated differently than football or basketball walk ons........thoughts?

I agree with you 100%. I'm not sure what the answer is either but if they aren't under scholarship, they should not be penalized regardless of the sport.

As far as answering your question regarding the number of walk-ons in baseketball or football, you can easily figure that out. Go to any school's website and count the roster spots. Football has 85 scholarships and basketball has 13. The rest of the roster would be walk-ons.

I thought the new ruling met if you transfered from one D1 to another D1, then you would have to sit out a yr. If you transfer from a D1 to a D2, D3 or Juco, you wouldn't have to sit out. Is this how ya'll see it?

quote:

by jbb: While I think this legislation is skewed in favor of the institution(as a parent of an 08, I am very much against it), not sure why baseball walk ons should be treated differently than football or basketball walk ons........thoughts?

I think what jbb meant is that football & basketball walk-ons ARE required to sit a yr w/transfer, why should baseball be different

Bee is 100% correct as far as the intent of my post.
Thanks!

Although this thread has been OBE somewhat due to limit decrease to 25% with blending, I want to address two issues I have much direct past experience with.

1. Transfer to lower classification schools...beware of the JC. A D1 kid who goes to a JC used to (3 years ago) have to then graduate from the JC before being eligible to go to another D1. Also, there were some "minimum" hours to finish as well, can't remember how much. Buut for instance, a kid who transferred with 45 credit hours of D1 might have to spend at least a whole year (30 hours)at the JC even though he only needs 15 hours for an AA degree to finish JC. The point is, for the poster who said they can go to lower level then go back...I'm pretty sure that loophole is not avialable.

2. Which brings me to my second point. Much is made of motivation and the NCAA not being fair to the student athlete. Well, the motivation is the image the college President's feel they must maintain as an "academic group" whether Johnny baseball gets treated fairly is not really high on their list. Once they started down the road of "graduation rate improvement" it was analogous to the "inquisition." The little people will be sacrificed and that's because as many have observed, they have no recourse.

For those that said this or that can be challenged in court...it cannot. I beleive a very high court, maybe even the Supreme court has ruled that the NCAA is basically not a "public" domain. it represents an enforcement mechanism of the body of Universities it represents and they are, for lack of a better term, exempt from public challenge on how they make their rules for athletics.

I'm sure their are many posters like me who've fought the NCAA, even had them admit error and acknowledge it wasn't fair for this or that, but they rarely make exceptions to any ruling not supported by the member institution. What to read here is, if it's good for the school screw the player, even if the school is wrong.

Any Lawyers out there. Here's a money making idea. The only way for the NCAA to be challenged IMO, is for the NCAA athletes to unite, form a union and challenge rulings as a group. Until you have that kind of resources available to pursue and fight the institutions legal power you have little chance on an individual basis...they just blow you off.

Think about it! If each NCAA athlete contributed $50 per year at about 100,000 athletes. Well you'd have a tidy little fund to challenge a few rules a year. Eventually, promises to kids would have to be kept and kids whose talent generates $millions in revenue for the school would at least be recognized as having the right to get 4 year promises in any school.

Bottom Line, the rule ought to be simple, in any sport. Kid gets a 4 year deal for whatever they are offered 25 percent whatever. He can't be replaced for any reason other than academic non performance.

Why not, it's greed from the president's wanting to have a Nationally recognized program which in turn keeps the Alums giving and the bucks flowing vs. havinga "clean" academic program which the "educational purists" who have unions push. Caught in the middle is the kid - the pawn.

Sorry for so long...but you can see i hate the system...the sad part...schools have planty of money at the D-1 level...really money isn't the problem it's athletics vs. educators within their own system.

Here's a question for anyone with legal knowledge and may spur some thinking. Can a collegiate athlete belong to a dues paying union that represents their rights? this may sound strange but I thought I would ask.

quote:

Originally posted by RYNO:
Here's a question for anyone with legal knowledge and may spur some thinking. Can a collegiate athlete belong to a dues paying union that represents their rights? this may sound strange but I thought I would ask.

This may sound strange, not a union, BUT the NCAA IS SUPPOSED to protect you as a student athelete.

I beleive I can produce a signed NCAA document that says. "Participation in athletics at the NCAA level is a privaledge not a right."

Just checked the NCAA regs - up to 453 pages.

If you ever want to have some morbid fun look at some of the NCAA appeal decisions. Basically 1 out of 100 are allowed!