Recruiting - Are Times Changing?

PG

You really think so?

By the way we have your up rain here I hope-- you have had enough this year

Have a great event this week and may the sun shine on you

PG,

You're right. I do tilt at windmills.

I will take your post as a signal to bow out of this debate. It has been fun, at least to me!

I deleted my original. I'll just say that I'm not happy with the new landscape of youth baseball and how it has evolved without thinking about the good of the player.

Calbb,

Not too sure we would agree on all the details, but I respect your concern. This thing IS heading downhill!

I don't think those who see no problem, are against the kids. In fact I think they feel they are helping them. I just disagree.

Calbb,

Rob, I think you might have meant to post this in a different forum, but I think people would have to be crazy not to respect your thoughts on the matter.

Wow,
Bee> and TR agreeing in the same thread!

Glider,
I have been reading over your suggestion and I think that you have a right to your opinion. I have heard the same theory a few other times.

The reason one goes to college is to get an education. The reason one works hard to get decent grades, and participate in an extra curricular activity is to help pay for that education.

There are scholarships given for just about anything you can think of, not just baseball.

I remember reading an article in US news and World Report a few years back regarding the changing of admissions requirements for schools. No longer is the student who spends all day and night studying to get A's and wonderful GPA's always considered a good candidate for the school. One reason, the student is not considered "well rounded".

So therefore if your system would be put into place, I do believe that no one would be able to get into any school based on any other skill they may have acguired growing up.

I understand you are zeroing in on athletics, but think about it, it would have to pertain to everyone in the end.

By the way, maintaining a "C" average at college is sometimes difficult for many who go to college with no other skill. I do believe that for many athletes and scholarship students because of the tough schedule they have to work much harder to maintain a GPA that is not only acceptable to the school but the coach as well.

I don't know if you have a child who is a college athlete. Mine worked hard all of his life, solid A's, so that he could earn a scholarship to play D1 baseball. It kept him focused and out of trouble. He EARNED that right to get signed and he earned that right to get accepted to that school.
Do NOT assume that every college athlete can't make the grade.

JMO.

I finally understand the "retro aspect" for the "Glider model"

aknowledged that - - they WILL keep score

but, regarding other details and for the sake of "fairness"


would the coach choose the team, or a neutral committee from the school?

would each player be required to play each game? (if his classwork was done)

would there be pitch limits?

could a batter who strikes out have an extra swing?

can everyone get all-conference awards?

would the school or parents bring the treats?



just wondering


.

Bee,

I wouldn't spend too much energy wondering about my approach. It is MORE competitive than your approach, because the kids would actually have to EARN their spot in a serious tryout. There would be no favorites, based on past history in HS. What are you afraid of?

interesting views, and some bogus logic

but I can understand the frustration of some who don't like or understand how things in the real world work. and if they are helping or advising young men and having limited or no success it might be easy to blame a "flawed system", when in reality their responsibility should be to thoroughly understand and work within that system to help the kids



that said,
RE:

quote:

could a batter who strikes out have an extra swing?

IMO, FRESHMEN ONLY

quote:

There would be no favorites, based on past history in HS.

Glider, I wasn't aware that HS history was a significant factor in a college evaluating players


here is a fact,

1- all current college players (student athletes) are there because they enrolled, were admitted, and are academicly eligible

for you to say "in your opinion" some really don't belong is irrelevant, they ARE there

under the Glider plan they would ALL STILL BE THERE
however, they would be distributed randomly and NOT WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED OR WANTED
as they could not determine where they are needed or wanted until during the school year
your plan would regularly see large numbers of 4-4, 4-2, and 2-4 transfers EVERYWHERE to balance things out - it would be a mess


YOUR fairness factor??

schools would win on each end of a transfer in fees, lost credits, & extended graduation timeline
landlords would win on broken leases, deposits forfeited
bookstores would win on buying new books back at 20% on the dollar

well gee, then who would lose?

there is only one guy left to be the loser - the guy you're helping



.

quote:

under the Glider plan they would ALL STILL BE THERE
however, they would be distributed randomly and NOT WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED OR WANTED

Bee,

They would be there IF they were motiviated to be there as students in the first place. Under my plan they would all be wanted and needed. They may not all be strong enough to make the cut, but they would get a very fair shot at it through head-to-head competition. If their notion is that they would transfer from the school if they weren't good to make the team, well then they weren't at the school for the right reasons in the first place. Transfer costs and fees are not really relevant to discuss under my system.

An analogy would be the student who is good at math in high school, and is convinced that he will be a math professor as an adult. Then the kid gets to college and has to compete against much stronger math students for the few graduate school slots in math. He takes a serious look at himself, and realizes that he needs to change his major. If he is mature, he will accept his reality, make the changes and get on with his life.

quote:

by glider: (under my plan) They would be there IF they were motiviated to be there as students in the first place.

eh . . . signs of motivation?? . . . how about 12+ yrs of formal education including HS, 10-20 hours of prep & ACT/SAT tests, the college selection & application process including essays, packing up & moving away from Mom & Dad's "safe zone" and "open meal plan".

quote:

by, (sigh) who else but glider again: If their notion is that they would transfer from the school if they weren't good to make the team, well then they weren't at the school for the right reasons in the first place.

eh . . . and "YOUR" right reason is what?? Sports?? Finances?? Location?? Chicks??
or Academics?? (all good reasons, btw)
but, if academics - - well a Wisconsin college teaches the same Math as a Florida college - - and a Maine college teaches the same English as a Texas college (except for the "drawl" of course) - so kindly explain the "tragedy" in a transfer -

btw, the Math student whom YOU advise QUITTING pursuit of his goals - would be better served by selecting & applying to a grad school MORE SUITED TO HIS LEVEL - there are 1000's to choose from, DO THE HOMEWORK & FIND A FIT (sound familiar??)


if you're observant you'll see alot of guys running a 6.4 60 yd straight away from you and your plan


.

quote:

if you're observant you'll see alot of guys running a 6.4 60 yd straight away from you and your plan

Bee,

If I was the college coach, they probably would have made my team, unless, of course, they were there for the wrong reasons.

Glider-After reading this whole thread I find it curious that you haven't advocated
getting rid of competitive athletics altogether amongst educational institutions.
Why have intercollegiate sports at all? Afterall, colleges and universities were not founded on athletics were they?

You advocate having all teams being comprised of students that "try out" for the teams once they have been accepted first academically and are officially a member
of the student body so it will be "fair".

Please explain why it is necessary for colleges and universities to have athletic
teams in the first place.

I'm not sure how you can justify your position by not taking all the way to its logical conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Moc1:
I'm not sure how you can justify your position by not taking all the way to its logical conclusion.

Actually, I think he would.

I find his posts thought-provoking...makes us think outside our accepted model. Nothing wrong with that IMO. I do have to wonder if he's pulling our collective chains at least a little bit too.

My mother used to tutor athletes at a basketball-factory school in the Midwest (although now I suspect you might call them "Big East." ). Some of them could barely read as they entered college.

My father was a university professor and a huge sports fan as well. He took me to so many college football, basketball and baseball games...as well as pro games...its hard for me to imagine he didn't have a big impact on me being such a sports nut. But he too lamented over the direction collegiate athletics has taken. I remember him once saying that the colleges had become nothing more than a free minor league system for the pro sports...that maybe the colleges should just pay the kids to play and not require that they go to classes at all.

Now this is an over-simplication of the big picture and he knew it too...but his point to me was similar in some ways to Glider's. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for college athletics to get back to something closer to its original intent. I don't fully buy Glider's argument (or my father's...but neither did he really), but I do understand and respect this line of thought for its purity.

Keep posting Glider...I don't agree with everything you say, but I sure enjoy the fresh perspective on this.

Moc1,

Intercollegiate competitive athletics CAN be part of a rounding out process for college kids and fans. Unfortunately, in too many cases, it has become an end in itself. In those cases, I would, indeed, support getting rid of it, if it cannot be reformed. For those schools that still have things in the proper balance, I am all for it!

The simplest way to get real reform is to end recruitment of HS players, end sports-based scholarships and end redshirting (all things I have already mentioned).

I am so retro that I still believe:

“For when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name, He writes - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game” (Grantland Rice).

Glider has some pretty interesting views and opinions. Some are already incorporated into DIII goveranance of sports, and are proven to be workable.
Personally I think the likelikhood of DI heading the DIII direction is, unfortunately, nil. As college baseball becomes more and more either a revenue sport or at least a revenue neutral sport, it seems it will be more influenced by what we already know happens on the football/basketball end.
Where does that leave parents and players who will be confronted with the trend PGStaff has observed?
I cannot see any tangible/measureable benefit to the student athlete. Not one. Sure there will be the "peace of mind" type things. Those will last only until the coach leaves or finds someone believed to be a stronger player, injury, poor grades, high school disclipline and the like.
Won't this create interesting dilemma's for the very strong student athlete who might be a Stanford/Vanderbilt, Ivy type recruit. Little doubt the Ivy application process will not be changed. Could also be an issue for schools like Stanford/Vanderbilt unless they can change the application process. Just read an article this morning suggesting one reason Stanford does not have any position recruits for the Fall 2006 year is: more stringent requirements and controls in the admissions office. Assuming the strong private academics, and maybe schools like UC Berkeley, will not alter their admissions, this process of "early committments" would seem to present a very serious challenge to the continuing viability of their programs.
I assume this process will similarly cause more parents and players to showcase, and showcase more often at an earlier age with the corollary negative impact on multi sport athletes in high school.
Finally, won't this have the same impact of creating the haves and have nots that we see in DI football/basketball. Seems to me the transition of power will go to those with bigger budgets for baseball who can have their recruiting and committments done two years in advance with the players and their families absorbing the risk if things change. Until now, a school like San Jose St. is DI in all sports but is fodder in football and basketball. In baseball, however, they have done some wonderful things including a recent trip to Omaha. The trend toward early committments, IMO, will increase the chances considerably that their baseball program will follow the others.
I fail to understand how this is good for the athletes or for college baseball...unless my long held belief is legitimate.
That belief is that many young men do not really physically mature until ages 16/17 and beyond. These players are very unlikely to be early signees no matter how much they showcase and travel team. If that is true, there may be enough "late bloomers" to overcome the talent gap that early bloomers and committments should create.

Another excellent post infielddad.

Among the other very accurate things (IMO) you have stated, it IS in fact one of the methods used to recruit against the "Stanfords/Vanderbilts" as you say it. That is, get a commitment early, before the application process at those schools because most schools believe that if they wait for the student athlete to be actively recruited by such schools...they will lose too much of the time.

Infielddad,

Very thoughtful post.

How can it be a "rounding out process for college kids" when you propose to
eliminate many who would love to be on the teams but been have been "cut"
after tryouts?

For instance, a college like Ohio State with and enrollment of 40,000+ may have 1000 try out for the baseball team(give or take a few). What do you say
or do for the 970 that do not make the team? Remember that they do not get cut from math, English, history, science classes.

They all have paid their tuition and dues so if academics and athletics are
all going to be on equal ground do we have tryouts for math classes or just
add more baseball teams?

Yes, I'm being ridiculous with my analogy but I think we're talking apples
and oranges here. To suggest that things have gotten out of hand when it comes to the recruiting process is naive at best. My father was recruited
in 1946 by a number of colleges for football(Auburn,Ohio State,WVU, to name a few). He ended up going to Wake Forest because that was the best option for him financially. He had just gotten out of the service after WWII and had 3 young children to take care of. Wake paid for everything for him including furnished apartment, open tab at the grocery store, clothes for
the whole family, trips back home to the "hills" of West Virginia, and a number of other benefits. All out in the open. Would that happen today?
No need to answer.

Would it be great if college teams were picked from the student body made up
of students who were there already? Sure would. How're you going to change something that's been going on for decades and decades?

Yes, this is a thought provoking thread but IMO it's about the same as asking what would you do with the money if you won the lottery?

quote:

Originally posted by Moc1:
Yes, this is a thought provoking thread but IMO it's about the same as asking what would you do with the money if you won the lottery?

True, but I think thats fun to think about too. We even have such 'debates' around our dinner table from time to time. Just for fun.

Moc1 - Your post too has some good points. I'm really enjoying this thread.

Before I'm told that 1000 kids at a tryout is foolish remember we're assuming that there are no guarantees and noone has made the team at this point.

"We even have such 'debates' around our dinner table from time to time. Just for fun."

So do we.

Glider,

Although I do not agree with your line of reasoning, I sincerely want to applaud you

... for being so persistent and committed to your thesis, while remaining civilized. A very interesting discussion.

.

Would second that and add...wonderful to see such an emotional topic discussed over 8 pages without a single personal attack...nicely done gang...

.

Moc1,

If a kid does not make the team, he can be a fan. I enjoyed going to football, basketball and baseball games when I was in college. I definitely felt like it was a good 'rounding out' experience. In fact, I still go to college games and enjoy them. The kid might also be able to play club ball.

Your analogy to academic classes is an interesting one. In large lecture classes, the college can usually accomodate, but with smaller classes, students are often turned away. If they are smart about it, the students will not cry in their milk about it - they'll just find another class to take, maybe something interesting away from their major (another possibility for becoming more rounded).

You seem to think, as I do, that it would be a good thing if the athletic teams could simply be chosen from the student body, but you think it is a near-impossible thing to achieve, given the entrenchment of the current system. One hopeful sign I see is the growth of club teams that play at the intercollegiate level. One step at a time....

Glider

such an Idealist !!!

May the force be with you !

Glider

Using your reasoning I guess those players who are not recruited to play on the varsity teams should not "cry in their milk about it" but find a club team to play
on.

Moc1,

Another Grantland Rice quote I like is

“You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch on your own objective approach to life.”

If a stud HS player does not get recruited (I assume you mean because it would be banned, under my plan, right?) to play ball in college he will just need to decide if he wants to go to college as a student. If he does then he can tryout for the team. If he doesn't, he can play semi-pro ball, club ball, adult league, etc. Of course, he can also do like most of the rest of us and get a job.

I apologize if any comments amped this up some, but when I was talking about the trend toward early admission, I wasn't talking about athletes, not by far.

It's all students, in many colleges of every division.

What percentage of most high schools' top 10 percent of the senior class DOES NOT know by now where it will go?

The truth is, a lot of schools have already made their picks on large percentages of their merit money, funds having nothing to do with athletics. The competition for scholarships extends well beyond the athletic field.

Let's remember, a merit scholarship, whether it be sports or fine arts or business, is a gamble: Colleges gamble that you'll be somebody someday and that you'll remember who helped you get there.

Colleges do expect returns on these investments.

So it's not just sports we're talking about here. Costs aren't going down, so the scramble for these funds might be at an all-time high.

My father went to college under the GI Bill. I went to school when most of the money was awarded on a need basis -- How much do you need to say yes? Those were the good ol' days.

That kind of money isn't around anymore. Not for most of us, anyway. So let the games continue.

Glider,


Not sure where "stud" hs player came from-I never used that word or banning recruiting
either. I'm referring to the status quo. From your post:

"In large lecture classes, the college can usually accomodate, but with smaller classes, students are often turned away. If they are smart about it, the students will not cry in their milk about it - they'll just find another class to take,"

Again, why can't a player NOT recruited, play club baseball or another sport("find another class to take")?

BTW Grantland Rice was a 6'2", 135# ss for Vanderbilt and played minor league baseball.
I agree with the quote-"Play it as it lies"-I think it applies very well to this thread.

kinda like the party game "whispering a pleasant thought down the line & ending up with giberish"

Glider has jumped the track and IFdad took a siding to another universe (Lionel talk)


FYI, this topic of earlier commitment was the trend toward "the early signing period NLI",
which btw - is November of HS SENIOR year - not the 8th grade or earlier implied by some

Glider maintains "the plan" will be more COMPETITIVE, then recommends "legit players" forced out by the numbers game QUIT and become fans making the game less competitive
(like happened to him - hmm, might that be a telling factor in his plan?? )
I had profs in college who percieved their duty was to fail a percentage of students out of college

and then glider is commended for thinking outside the box (or padded room?)

I'm going back to the relative sanity of the Sci-Fi channel, or "Space Jam"


I'll discuss this further with Captain Morgan, as it seems many others have sought his consel all thru the night




.

quote:

by IFDad: Some are already incorporated into DIII goveranance of sports, and are proven to be workable.

Captain says, care to elaborate on that??

quote:

by IFDad, again: I cannot see any tangible/measureable benefit to the student athlete. Not one

well, I've got half my brain tied behind by back so, here goes -



1) normal students would LOVE to have firm college acceptance mid-Nov of Sr yr
2) some regular students get NO finacial aid, NONE
3) normal "aid eligable students" would LOVE to have firm "grant in aid" $$ numbers Nov of Sr yr
4) early NLI signed SA's can focus on academics during their Sr spring
5) early NLI signed SA's can focus on graduation during their Sr spring
6) early NLI signed SA's can play their sport without recriuting pressure during their Sr spring
7) early NLI baseball players can begin college conditioning in HS
8) early NLI baseball guys continue building a relationship with coaches
9) early NLI baseball guys are not pressured to commit by time running short
10) some early NLI guys can manage a summer work schedule before classes begin

should I continue??


.

Bee>...infielddad was talking about commitments during the Junior year (like now or even before now)...not early Senior year.

This is the paragraph in the PG article that keyed many of us into this...

quote:

Talented high school players are committing earlier every year. In fact, there have been several top players who are verbally committing to a college before they enter their Junior year of high school. If this trend continues and it probably will, more and more top colleges will be active in the doing the same thing.

This thread seems to have gotten under your skin for reasons I don't understand.

quote:

FYI, this topic of earlier commitment was the trend toward "the early signing period NLI",
which btw - is November of HS SENIOR year - not the 8th grade or earlier implied by some

Bee, Seems there might be some misunderstanding of the article from PGStaff. I read it in a context that players are committing as early as their sophomore year in high school on a verbal commit basis. This focus is not the NLI but verbal commits being sought at a very early stage and whether that is good/bad for college baseball. Check this section which I have cut and pasted.

"Just a couple years ago we would have agreed completely with that thinking. However, we have and are seeing some major changes take place. Talented high school players are committing earlier every year. In fact, there have been several top players who are verbally committing to a college before they enter their Junior year of high school. If this trend continues and it probably will, more and more top colleges will be active in the doing the same thing."

Stand by my views.

JBB, it's not under my skin? didn't you notice the smiley faces in my post?

some new readers WILL mistake gibberish for fact tho


what is a Junior commitment?

The topic at hand was/is early NLI signing - Nov of Sr yr


.

quote:

what is a Junior commitment?

The topic at hand was/is early NLI signing - Nov of Sr yr
.

Depends on how you read the article I guess...as pointed out above. I took the article to be focused on the Junior commitment trend...sounds like infielddad did too. Thats what I find ridiculous. You?

Really is an interesting topic.

I think - when you net it all out - the early sign player assumes more risk than the college does. (The potential rewards for an early sign are there as well - just not guaranteed)

So much can change in 9 months.
If you start committing even earlier - I think the student athlete will be exposed to even more risk.

It is much easier for a college to find another player - than it is a player to find another college.

Interesting risk/reward decision either way IMO.

Bee, I am not sure we are talking about the same article that PGStaff posted to start this thread. Justbb is correct. I posted in reference to verbal commits being sought and obtained as early as the sophomore year from one local player.
Not sure why we would now have 9 pages of this thread if we were only discussing the current NLI process. Geez!

agreed, one paragraph DID note isolated case(s) of commits before the jr yr - - they always surfaced occsionally in college sports

however, the context of "Entire Article" was
"the trend toward more schools finishing off that yrs recruiting in the Nov Early NLI Signing Period - with NO recruiting afterward"

or am I missing something??



added: - IFDad, the commitment of ONE soph is not a TREND, nor a topic I'd have an opinion on, that would be to the player and family to weigh out.

.