D1 Baseball reports just tweeted that the proposal for a third paid assistant in college baseball has failed. Very frustrating news. No word on how conferences and their member schools voted as of yet, but D1 plans to communicate it when available. According to them the Big 12 and Big 10 were 'no' votes.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Walk ons are free to transfer without restriction though so at least one good thing came out of the votes.
This is disappointing.
Not surpised. Third coach is a competitive advantage but only if you are the only one who has it, if everyone has it it just costs more.
So colleges are essentially colluding against coaches exploiting free labor because of "the dream", quite similar to minor league baseball were a lot compete to qualify for few high profile jobs
Hurts the student athlete. Limits instructors and teaching man hours. Hurts college baseball. If you want to draw quality coaches, you have to be able to pay them. Good coaches are better off going to an academy. Many will.
Bad vote.
bandera posted:Hurts the student athlete. Limits instructors and teaching man hours. Hurts college baseball. If you want to draw quality coaches, you have to be able to pay them. Good coaches are better off going to an academy. Many will.
Bad vote.
Good point about the student athlete. It is far too common that a freshman player shows up to a program in the fall and finds that the amount and quality of instruction and the overall organization does not meet expectations. College rosters are typically much bigger than HS rosters yet college programs frequently work with less coaches and have to rely on recently graduated volunteers (who can find it difficult to command the necessary respect of the players) to fill the gaps. Additionally, college coaches have far more responsibilities to fill their hours outside the lines - recruiting, travel, more players to track academically and personally, more games, more extensive conditioning program, scholarship issues, more uniforms and gear, more extensive compliance concerns, etc. This is an unfortunate turn.
d-mac posted:Walk ons are free to transfer without restriction though so at least one good thing came out of the votes.
Does this include baseball or just football?
Looks like it is all sports. Here's the press release: http://www.ncaa.org/about/reso...justs-transfer-rules
d-mac posted:Walk ons are free to transfer without restriction though so at least one good thing came out of the votes.
How is “walk on” defined? Is that any non-scholarship athlete, or are some players designated as walk on where others are just non-scholarship?
This is unfortunate for college baseball and its coaches. I think it had more to do with the fact that AD's were concerned about the prospect of it creating a precedent for funding the compensation of "volunteer" assistants in other sports, as well. A good compromise might have been to continue paying baseball's "volunteer" assistants as they have been, but allowing them more recruiting responsibility.
CTbballDad posted:d-mac posted:Walk ons are free to transfer without restriction though so at least one good thing came out of the votes.
How is “walk on” defined? Is that any non-scholarship athlete, or are some players designated as walk on where others are just non-scholarship?
Great question and I hope someone finds the answer to this. Here is the excerpt.
Additionally, walk-on student-athletes on teams that provide athletics aid and nonrecruited walk-ons can transfer and play immediately without a waiver. Those rules are effective for students who transfer to new schools this fall.
I read it as if you aren't getting any athletic money, regardless of if you are a recruited or non-recruited walk on, you are free to transfer.
Prepster posted:This is unfortunate for college baseball and its coaches. I think it had more to do with the fact that AD's were concerned about the prospect of it creating a precedent for funding the compensation of "volunteer" assistants in other sports, as well. A good compromise might have been to continue paying baseball's "volunteer" assistants as they have been, but allowing them more recruiting responsibility.
My understanding is that very late the proposal was changed from an additional paid assistant for baseball to converting a volunteer position to a paid assistant and including softball. This was partially from an interview with the Oregon State AD, who voted no on the proposal. I will look for my source and post. Whether that was the real driver, hard to say.
Watch carefully for the redirect from the no voting AD's "we need to address other things like scholarship numbers".
Here you go. Bob Lundegren, author
Go44dad posted:Prepster posted:This is unfortunate for college baseball and its coaches. I think it had more to do with the fact that AD's were concerned about the prospect of it creating a precedent for funding the compensation of "volunteer" assistants in other sports, as well. A good compromise might have been to continue paying baseball's "volunteer" assistants as they have been, but allowing them more recruiting responsibility.
My understanding is that very late the proposal was changed from an additional paid assistant for baseball to converting a volunteer position to a paid assistant and including softball. This was partially from an interview with the Oregon State AD, who voted no on the proposal. I will look for my source and post. Whether that was the real driver, hard to say.
Watch carefully for the redirect from the no voting AD's "we need to address other things like scholarship numbers".
According to Kendall Rogers the softball was added because the AD's were using Title 9 as a reason to vote against it. They weren't voting for it either way. Dave Van Horn pretty much said the same thing. If you add softball, they blame softball for not voting for it. If you don't add softball, they blame not having softball for not voting for it.
d-mac posted:Go44dad posted:Prepster posted:This is unfortunate for college baseball and its coaches. I think it had more to do with the fact that AD's were concerned about the prospect of it creating a precedent for funding the compensation of "volunteer" assistants in other sports, as well. A good compromise might have been to continue paying baseball's "volunteer" assistants as they have been, but allowing them more recruiting responsibility.
My understanding is that very late the proposal was changed from an additional paid assistant for baseball to converting a volunteer position to a paid assistant and including softball. This was partially from an interview with the Oregon State AD, who voted no on the proposal. I will look for my source and post. Whether that was the real driver, hard to say.
Watch carefully for the redirect from the no voting AD's "we need to address other things like scholarship numbers".
According to Kendall Rogers the softball was added because the AD's were using Title 9 as a reason to vote against it. They weren't voting for it either way. Dave Van Horn pretty much said the same thing. If you add softball, they blame softball for not voting for it. If you don't add softball, they blame not having softball for not voting for it.
By reading Rogers tweets, he is melt-down mad and probably not really concerned with understanding why some schools voted no, just at embarrassing them on social media. I thought the Bob Lundgen dude did a good job of trying to understand via his questions to the OS AD.
I don't know how college politics works, but I am assuming the AD sits on a school board and they vote on issues of how Oregon State will vote, including NCAA proposals. I'm sure power structures are different at different schools.
