Recruiting - Are Times Changing?

quote:

Originally posted by bbscout:
The "Great college recruiter" is the guy who signs the kid who is a very hard "pro" sign, or the kid who is going to be about a 10th rounder that won't get offered enough to pass up a good college. That coach knows how to scout and will have solid recruiting classes every year.

quote:

I'm not positive about much, but one thing I'm absolutely certain about is that the more information you have... the better the decisions you make.

PG,

I'm not against information, as long as it not used to exclude someone. I would say that scouts need to go see the players, then, possibly, look at the database. When the order is reversed, and filters are used, some good ones will get excluded.

I don't understand why you object to local chatter - that's how most guys were found in the old days. Perhaps I could have used a more dignified term (e.g. "discussion"), but I like the feel of the word.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by bbscout:
The "Great college recruiter" is the guy who signs the kid who is a very hard "pro" sign, or the kid who is going to be about a 10th rounder that won't get offered enough to pass up a good college. That coach knows how to scout and will have solid recruiting classes every year.

BBScout,

It is amazing how certain programs recruit the kids that actually end up on campus. It is definitely an art.

However, what about the recruiters who are signing kids early, but then the kid comes on strong and becomes a 1st rounder by the following June? Is this a great evaluator of talent (scout) rather than a poor recruiter.

There is a program in the southeast that has successfully recruited many future first round picks in the past 4=5 years. Very few of these recruits would have been considered 1st round picks at the time when the college signed them. It's amazing how many this particular college has lost to the draft over recent years. I do know the recruiter has proven he is one of the very best at recognizing talent. I tend to think they are snakebitten. This is a college that someone posting here is very familiar with.

I think a lot of the ability to recruit and actually have players show up on campus has to do with the individual program. For example a certain school in California with extremely high academic reputation doesn't lose many recruits to the draft. They've even had 1st rounders end up in school. This is a college that someone posting here is very familiar. Actually more than one poster here.

We have seen college recruiters notes from certain events. Lots of notes about several players. Then by the name of the very best players is two words "High Pick"! No other notes, just "High Pick". Almost reminds us of the brief 2 letter discription scouts use for those they have no interst in.

Glider,

I like the feel of that word too.

Actually in our business you'd be surprised to know... often that is how we first hear about players. Of course, then we see them and take down the data.

quote:

It's amazing how many this particular college has lost to the draft over recent years.

...and they have done very well in spite. Sorta makes you wonder how they would have done if the kids had played there.

Dad04,

Thanks for mentioning that true statement. Yes, they have done very well inspite of that. Those they didn't lose were also very good.

I dont think eckstein was an early sign- I belive he was a walkon that got very littl eplay time as a freshman

Wavehog,

Who said anything about an early sign? Last I noticed they did not miss him!

There are many ways to become successful. People like Brooks Robinson and David Eckstein figured out a way!

sorry, I thought this thread was on the trend toward earlier and earlier signings by the colleges

PG,

Yes, those two guys with a lot of talent found a way. Beautiful, and the way it should be!

If there was a true meritocracy in college baseball, teams would be formed via fair tryouts. The fact that walkons are at a real disadvantage, compared to recuited ($$) players, is proof that the table is tilted against true merit.

My daughter says that I am "a complete retro". She is pretty observant. So, here is my 'retro' view of the way it should be:

1. No sports recruitment allowed, period. Limited advertising and promotion (e.g. websites) is OK, but no direct or indirect contact with a HS player.

2. The student picks his/her college based on overall adademic/social/extracurricular (e.g. sports) criteria.

3. After the kids start attending their college of choice, the sport coach holds a tryout for interested student-athletes. He chooses the best players, and then just plays ball.

4. Scholarships are based on financial need.

5. Professional clubs are not allowed to speak to a kid until after he/she graduates (or would normally graduate in four years). The kid who decides to skip college can get his shot immediately after HS.

6. Red-shirting would be banned. The player would have a normal four-year period in which to play sports.

Such an approach would not only get back the 'game' of baseball, at the college level, but would eliminate the issue that started this thread, namely ever-earlier recuitment in the high schools. It would also eliminate much of the high-pressure stuff that parents, kids and coaches now face.

The kid would get a fair try at making the team, be a true STUDENT-ATHLETE (not the other way around) and the benefit that this concept entails would become real, as it once was in the past.

Glider,

You make some good points.

Think the zillion dollar revenue producing football programs will do it too?

I think you’re proposing a change that would turn college baseball into a type of recreational activity.

I respect your interest in fairness, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time or effort working to get people to make those changes.

PG,

I pretty much accept your verdict. A $Zillion (or even many billions less) is pretty tough to overcome. However, yes, I include the football programs in my critique. The current system IS about $$$.

I express my views in the context of a high school message board, one that is about the best for HS players. I expect that the current system will continue for another couple of decades, then it will implode on itself - the parents/coaches/players will just go take a family vacation, and enjoy it much more than the current rat-race. At that point, the 7-8 year old future college/pro players will have been pre-selected by the tools at hand (nanotechnology, performance testing, databases and DNA?), and dads can just go out and play catch with their sons - then get in the SUV (hybrid/electic/hydrogen only!) with their wives and kids for a camping trip in the middle of the baseball season. But Dad and Son will still take their balls and mitts with them, because it IS a great game!

Didn't mean to issue a "verdict".

Glider,
You might be way ahead of your time.

I hope you're not an "end timer"

I've often wondered why anyone would go on record as predicting the world coming to an end at such and such time.

I always want to bet that guy everything I got that he is wrong. Best bet in the world!

PG,

I enjoy your wit! Believe it or not, I like humor.

If I am still around in 20 years, I will bet you a signed baseball that I am right. If I am wrong, I will not only sign the ball, but buy you a good dinner, anywhere in the lower 48.

It might be a tad hard to figure out 'right' or 'wrong', but there will probably be a number of national polls that figure out everything. Doesn't matter, really - I will let you be the judge.

Merry Christmas

quote:

Originally posted by Glider:
If there was a true meritocracy in college baseball, teams would be formed via fair tryouts. The fact that walkons are at a real disadvantage, compared to recuited ($$) players, is proof that the table is tilted against true merit.

At most colleges I believe that a talented walk on would get just as good a chance as anybody.

My son has a teammate who was a freshman the same year he was.....a true walk on......during that freshman season he had about 100 plate appearances, which was more than several scholarship guys got......sophomore year same thing, and batted cleanup for the bulk of the season until he had an injury......Division I baseball......that walk on doesn't feel he was at a disadvantage.

quote:

by Glider: My daughter says that I am "a complete retro". She is pretty observant

she's not being observant, just kind to her Dad

recruiting is simply preparation & planning



however, YOU can easily test your model on a (YOUR) travel team



hold your tryout

- if 25 studs show up and are not cut they MUST play on your team, even if some ALWAYS sit

- if 15 OF, 15 1B, & zero pitchers show up, that's what you pick your team from

- if 8 guys show up, NO TEAM this year


use YOUR model & let us know how it works


hmmm, your competion will likely use a model where they plan, prepare, & invite some key guys they could build a team around



ps - it's only a "rat race" if you make it one, to some it is fun, and does not exclude vacations, fishing, camping, golf, and playing catch with Dad

pps - you wrote "meritocracy", but described "mediocracy"?

pps - if you stick with your model, my $$ says Mom will be taking your kids to someone elses tryout


good luck


.

Now, now, try to breathe.

The basic tryout I have described is what currently happens at most public high schools. The students, who are interested, sign up for ball, get observed for a while, and the coach makes his choices, according to the needs of the team. I would describe it as a fair thing, and a basic meritocracy, whether the teams ends up being mediorcre or great.

glider, you're dodging, will your travel team use your model

quote:

by glider: I would describe it as a fair thing, and a basic meritocracy, whether the teams ends up being mediorcre or great.

so - -
now you aknowledge your model would make college baseball mediocre, but in your opinion fair(er)
since "great" could only be by chance?? and not by preparation or planning


btw - do those you are trying to help often run away fast?? that may be telling



.

quote:

by PGStaff:



It is amazing how certain programs recruit the kids that actually end up on campus. It is definitely an art.

However, what about the recruiters who are signing kids early, but then the kid comes on strong and becomes a 1st rounder by the following June? Is this a great evaluator of talent (scout) rather than a poor recruiter.

There is a program in the southeast that has successfully recruited many future first round picks in the past 4=5 years. Very few of these recruits would have been considered 1st round picks at the time when the college signed them. It's amazing how many this particular college has lost to the draft over recent years. I do know the recruiter has proven he is one of the very best at recognizing talent. I tend to think they are snakebitten. This is a college that someone posting here is very familiar with.

TPM, it took you long enough

.

Glider,

Welcome! I am finding your posts interesting to read, but I would also disagree with the merits of the complete open tryout scenario you described at the college level.

From the perspective of the player, a big part of the reason they research various college programs, contact coaches, ask the coaches to watch them play while they are still in HS, etc., is because they really love playing baseball and want to find a college where they have a very good chance of doing just that.

It's not all about scholarship player vs. non-scholarship. My 04 son plays for a small DIII in Minnesota, obviously no scholarship players, but the majority of the players who get significant playing time were recruited, not walk-ons. The coaches identified them in HS or at a JUCO, as players who were likely to be able to help the program, AND fill needs they had in the roster. As you mentioned, the academic fit is also very important, but for many players (including my son), they may have identified several colleges which were a good fit academically, and several good baseball matches, and then chose one that was a good combination of both.

Glider

What you are describing is a Division III program.

There are a few schools of thought on recruiting potential MLB draftees. Some schools will sign them and if they get enough high profile players they will make Baseball America list of top recruiting schools. There is value in making the list. The recruiting is done much like airlines in that seats are over sold, so are scholarships because the schools know that kids will not attend school. If something goes wrong and the ist round draft pick falls and does attend school, than the schools have to scramble and run other kids who have been recruited and offered a scholarship off to JC's or to other schools. That's a whole other topic
but trust me it happens at all of the top D1 programs

Glider,
That is a good idea but doesn’t even exist at the high school level. Young players virtually give up their parents during the summer so they can play on a select team. I’ll pick on Team Florida because they use Florida in their name. The only thing “Florida” about the team is where the home field is located. There are players from all over the US on their team. This is not that uncommon. This is only a problem if you see it as a problem. Let’s make this a lot more retro than you suggest. If players were not given scholarship and every player was found at a tryout this wouldn’t help the less talented player. All this would do would make tryouts really tough. The coach is still going to select the best players no matter how it’s done. Sorry, won’t work!
Fungo

No, I mean when college sports first got going. It was about students forming sports clubs, which developed into playing other schools. At some point, the alumni demanded a winner, and things got out of control. That's why the U. of Chicago got rid of football - it was too corrupting to the basic educational mission of the school.

The current situation with basketball, with very low graduation rates or mickey mouse diplomas is deplorable. Top basetball prospects are being identified in grammar school, then directed into various recruitment pools. Baseball is not nearly as bad, at this point, but it is slipping in that direction.

It should not be the purpose of college sports to be a minor league for the professional game. But it has slowly been heading in that direction.

If the changes I suggest were to be instituted, the sky would not fall. There would still be an interesting, competitive and exciting game. It would just be played by more kids who have a serious notion about the purpose of going to college.

Bee,

Sorry, not trying to dodge your question about the travel team I was involved with.

It grew out of a LL fall ball league, with initial tryouts, then by asking selected top level players in the area. It lasted five years. So, it was a mixed system, with respect to recuitment. It was a pretty successful team at the national level. We never made cuts, and tried to get kids into each game, although that did not always happen.

I see private travel teams, of all stripes, as fundamentally different than HS and college teams. Most of these teams are about parents wanting to get a special baseball experience for their kids. Sometimes it is about better competition, other times it is more social. Either way, it is usually not a level playing field, because parents run the thing for their own kids.

I think the school teams should be (largely)free of parental involvement, thus choosing the players on the basis of their pure abilities, should be much easier, compared to travel teams. I think this is largely true at the HS level. However, at the college level it is very difficult for a walk-on to get the same consideration as the scholarship player. Why not just hold a tryout, and pick the best players, independent of any $$ involved?

quote:

by glider: . . . the sky would not fall. There would still be an interesting, competitive and exciting game. It would just be played by more kids who have a serious notion about the purpose of going to college.

maybe I just get lost easily in the "Glider Plan" - how would MORE kids play??

re: "your" serious notion of academics??

there ALREADY IS a body that assures an athlete's academic attention & progress -
it's called NCAA compliance - - will you re-invent it??

so - -
same number of teams??
same number of roster spots??

is there some type of "new math" I should know about??

and - EVERY PROGRAM holds tryouts open to the student body

quote:

by glider: I think the school teams should be (largely) free of parental involvement, thus choosing the players on the basis of their pure abilities

uh, in college they already are, the tryout/evaluation just takes place before they arrive on campus as students - which is actually better for the student athlete, as he can find a level of competion that suits him BEFORE he enters school, minimizing several "failed tryouts" and the resulting transfers (lost credits, lost eligibility, & costs)


retro?? uh - - in 1907 Jim Thorpe was a "recruited student athlete" (evaled off campus to boot)

hope that helps, it's no fun to be mixed up




ps - I forgot to ask, but would they still keep score in the "Glider Plan"??


.

Glider

Plain and simple it will never happen to colleges across the board, at least in my opinion--that is why we have three divisions of NCAA baseball , JUCO's Community Colleges and NAIA schools.


All of these have their own ideas as to operate their programs

And please do not include football or basketball in this discussion--they are horses of another color and coloe is GREEN--quite unlike baseball--can you imagine baseball have a full roster of scholarship players like college football and basketball

VERY INTERESTING THREAD!!! GREAT STUFF!

Are times changing? My girl just got "invited" to a (college) showcase. This showcase is both a showcase and a tryout for an elite team. Twenty girls will be kept from 4 showcase events. Those 20 will then play for their summer teams but practice and play an end of the year tournament with this super team. My daughter is 12 and a gentleman that helps coach that "super team" has come to watch her a couple of times this year driving more than 70-80 miles to do so. UNBELIEABLE. Yes, times are changing. JMHO!

I think it continues to revolve around " our parents wanted better for us and we now as parents want better for our kids"

Bee,

You misinterpreted my quote. More of the kids playing would be serious students, compared to the current situation. In other words, they would have gone to school primarily to get an academic education, not primarily to play sports.

The NCAA academic compliance rules were forced on the colleges because the situation was horrible at some schools. Even these rules are a very low bar. The fact is that a lot of colleges recuit athletes, not students who would also like to play ball.

Under my plan there would probably be about the same number of teams (and slots), so no need for fancy math.

Tryouts for potential walk-ons are pretty much a formality to satisfy college rules. Players have already identified and recruited and paid well before the tryouts. It was refreshing to me to hear a D1 college coach tell a group of parents that last year. I appreciated his honesty.

Since my aprroach is actually MORE competitive than yours, scores would be kept and wins would matter. And yes, there would still be a College World Series in Omaha. And believe it or not, there would still be players drafted into the pros after their four years in college.

quote:

by glider: You misinterpreted my quote. More of the kids playing would be serious students, compared to the current situation. In other words, they would have gone to school primarily to get an academic education

LOL, you ARE talking baseball, right??

baseball CARRIES the GPA in men's sports at most schools


ya really think the "Glider Plan" will field competitive teams from guys who play as an afterthought or hobby??



Also, from the info you provided, a case could be made that the "Glider Plan" will be an attempt to create a "class" system in colleges & universities - would that be the "retro" you mentioned??

1- favoring college for elite & affluent families who have the most re$ources
and
2- discouraging college for the less affuent, blue collar, and disadvantaged minorities who need help with college costs

hmmm??


ps - the NCAA athlete's academic requirements are higher than for regular students -

.

Bee
I think I read it the same way you do

TRhit and Bee,

If both of you read my quote in a different way than what I meant it, then it is my fault for poor writing. At any rate, I think you both now know what I meant. In terms of number of teams and slots, there would be no significant difference. The slots would just be filled with kids who are students first, and athletes second.

Bee: You indicate that such a situation would produce less competitive teams. Since my system would apply across the board, it would assure that student-athletes are competing against student-athletes (not athlete-students or, cutting to the chase, just athletes). You also seem to imply that serious students are less athletic than non-serious students; if so, then just have the team selected by tryout, and let the chips fall where they may.

The current system is very much a 'class' system in much of this country. This subject has been discussed by many posters on various sites, so I won't rehash it here. However, under my plan, all students with financial need would get it - thus it would be less class biased than the system that you like. Assuming the kid is going to college to be a serious student, your logic just doesn't hold.

With respect to the NCAA academic standards, there was an article in the paper the other day about how low the standard was - yet some of the programs are complaining. A student-athlete should be able to maintain a solid C average, or better, otherwise he either isn't a student, or he is not studying.

I hope you are not saying that college athletes should have some sort of independent track, with sports being their main interest. I already see too many kids saying they are going to college to "play ball". The adults shouldn't be reinforcing this attitude.

TRhit: I do agree with you that football and basketball are more guilty of corrupting the educational mission, by a long shot, compared to baseball. However, baseball is creeping in that direction, with ever more recruiting pressure. Even the JUCOs and lower divsion NCAA schools actively recruit, although without scholarships.

My view, in a nutshell is that a student-athlete is attracted to a given school first because of the academics, then also because he/she likes the sport program (e.g. the coach or the approach or the facilities, etc.). The student goes to a fair and competitive tryout. If he does not make the cut, he accepts his fate and moves on with his life. He might also want to try playing club baseball, which a number of colleges now have. He could also tryout the following year.

GLIDER

I do not think that the education system is corrupted--college baseball is simply not the money sport that college football and basketball are---are you aware that for many schools there would be even more severe limitation son college baseball if it were not for the money from football and basketball ?

Another aspect===part of the college experience is the fun and enjoyment of a great Saturday Football game or March Madness for hoops-- I think they give memories and friendships forever.

I also do not agree that academics is the first thing that attracts a student--perhaps for the excellent student but not the average student athlete. Sir, everything is relative to the individual student athlete

Glider I am confused. We are talking about playing college baseball not debate Team etc ?
The athletic team selects the best athlete in that particular sport and the athlete has an academic standard which I understand is the same as any regular student. He then has to maintain a level of academics or he is not eligible to play. How much fairer can that system be. The student athlete has to practice, travel and play ball at at level to maintain his position. I salute these guys who do both at a high level.
I also would like to point out that academic excellence is no guantee of success in the real world but being a well rounded individual helps.

quote:

by glider: However, under my plan, all students with financial need would get it -

huh? where does it come from, now glider is minting $$??

the base for your discussion involves accepting 2 things as fact

1- coaches are unable to evaluate properly off campus
2- today's student athletes are not really students


neither is true



.

This is really becoming fun and I have Bee as an ally

I read this a bit differently.

Glider appears to be a stickler for fairness and he’s a big proponent of education being more important than athletics in all academic institutions. Agree or not, these are admirable thoughts. Glider is the guy we want fighting for us in areas like equal rights and fair trade. Or anything else that starts with equal or fair!

I think he has an interesting concept, but he knows it will never happen. There are zillions $$$$ of reasons!

Perhaps we should have a poll. Maybe it will slow Glider down and allow him to work on other great things that could benefit the world. Things that might have a chance to actually happen someday.

Glider, if you are confident in accomplishing this mission… I need to apologize for a previous remark. I now think it is possible that “false hope” really does exist.

quote:

The athletic team selects the best athlete in that particular sport and the athlete has an academic standard which I understand is the same as any regular student

Bobblehead..,

Exactly!!!

The coach is just limited to doing that within the context of the kids who show up to attend his school. No favorites!!! My way is the most comeptitive for true student athletes.