I understand that D1 rosters are limited to 35 beginning this year. Is there a similar limitation for D2 or others?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
No limitation but in general they tend to carry about 35 players and about 25 in their travel squad.
As the parent of a 2010 grad, how will we need to adjust to these changes? Should we look harder at Junior College as a route to a good DI program?
Starting in August 2008, D1 baseball rosters will be capped at 35 players with no more than 30 on financial aid. Each player on aid must receive at least 25 percent of a scholarship. The cap on scholarship players decreases to 27 in 2010. The rule will force players to JUCO's and D2 that would have red-shirted at D-1.
I think redshirting will become a thing of the past.
Yes red shirt.....no more.quote:Originally posted by fanofgame:
I think redshirting will become a thing of the past.
Dad, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that the 27 scholarship's go into effect 2009, not 2010....??
Just trying to clarify is all.
Vamom, because of various changes in the NCAA this past year you will see recruiting so much differently than most others. You asked about looking at the JUCO route to eventually end up at a D1 is probably not a bad idea at all.
Just trying to clarify is all.
Vamom, because of various changes in the NCAA this past year you will see recruiting so much differently than most others. You asked about looking at the JUCO route to eventually end up at a D1 is probably not a bad idea at all.
quote:Originally posted by Dad04:Yes red shirt.....no more.quote:Originally posted by fanofgame:
I think redshirting will become a thing of the past.
WHOA! Is part of the whole "reform" the elimination of redshirts (other than medical)? Or that just speculation that coaches will redshirt LESS often?
JT,
I just stated that I think it will be less. with roster caps and scholarship limits , it will be difficult to have freshmen scholarship players redshirting.They will need to use their money for guys that can contribute right away. JMO.
I just stated that I think it will be less. with roster caps and scholarship limits , it will be difficult to have freshmen scholarship players redshirting.They will need to use their money for guys that can contribute right away. JMO.
Just a couple of clarifications...
1. Dad04 commented: "Starting in August 2008, D1 baseball rosters will be capped at 35 players with no more than 30 on financial aid. Each player on aid must receive at least 25 percent of a scholarship."
The cap at 30 is correct. Just clarifying that the "financial aid" mentioned refers to athletic scholarships only. The other 5 players filling out the roster to the 35 limit can receive any other type of scholarship besides athletic (academic, leadership), plus financial aid if the family income warrants it.
2. The 27 max athletic scholarship cap will go into effect in the fall of 2009.
1. Dad04 commented: "Starting in August 2008, D1 baseball rosters will be capped at 35 players with no more than 30 on financial aid. Each player on aid must receive at least 25 percent of a scholarship."
The cap at 30 is correct. Just clarifying that the "financial aid" mentioned refers to athletic scholarships only. The other 5 players filling out the roster to the 35 limit can receive any other type of scholarship besides athletic (academic, leadership), plus financial aid if the family income warrants it.
2. The 27 max athletic scholarship cap will go into effect in the fall of 2009.
fanofgame wrote...
And therein lies the bottomline beauty of these changes. We can all complain about the NCAA... but isn't it better for every player on a team to be expected to contribute? Don't we all want our sons to have the opportunity to play, rather than sit? Coaches have been pulling the stockpiling shenanigan for years and now they will have to actually try to field an entire team that can play rather than stashing away freshman. I know they will still over recruit and bring in too many in the fall... and that should be stopped as well. Frankly, the roster limit should apply from day one of the school year, not just day one of the spring season. But these changes put the pressure on coaches to make good choices in recruiting and then make do with the players they have rather. That's not a bad thing.
quote:with roster caps and scholarship limits , it will be difficult to have freshmen scholarship players redshirting.They will need to use their money for guys that can contribute right away.
And therein lies the bottomline beauty of these changes. We can all complain about the NCAA... but isn't it better for every player on a team to be expected to contribute? Don't we all want our sons to have the opportunity to play, rather than sit? Coaches have been pulling the stockpiling shenanigan for years and now they will have to actually try to field an entire team that can play rather than stashing away freshman. I know they will still over recruit and bring in too many in the fall... and that should be stopped as well. Frankly, the roster limit should apply from day one of the school year, not just day one of the spring season. But these changes put the pressure on coaches to make good choices in recruiting and then make do with the players they have rather. That's not a bad thing.
I dont think its a bad idea either. lthough some kids with good grades could end up at JUCOS becuse they are not ready to step in as a freshmen and contribute although academically the 4 year school would of been a better fit. But it is what it is and everyone has to try and find the right fit and not much any of us can do about the changes. I see good and bad.
quote:Originally posted by JT:quote:Originally posted by Dad04:Yes red shirt.....no more.quote:Originally posted by fanofgame:
I think redshirting will become a thing of the past.
WHOA! Is part of the whole "reform" the elimination of redshirts (other than medical)? Or that just speculation that coaches will redshirt LESS often?
A team can only have 35 players, 30 on scholarship dropping to 27. There are no more "books only" guys waiting for next year. Everybody on the team will need to contribute now. Teams can't play 60 games, resembling baseball, in 3 months with 25 or 30 players. If you get hurt you will redshirt. If you stay healthy you will get 4 years and out.
Kids won't sign to sit around and hope to walk on or get a scholly "next year". Won't happen. They'll go to JUCO and play now, develop and hopefully transfer to a 4 year, or just go D2.
quote:"Sure, you no longer have the benefit of scouts helping players they have under control make their way to your school. But even when you did, you had to do your own work to sell your program and make the player see how playing there was going to help," Walters State (Tenn.) JC coach Dave Shelton said. "You still work with scouts to find players that fit your program, you just have to make sure you develop a relationship with the player so they know the benefit of playing at the junior college level.
"If anything, the roster limits have made the biggest difference. Those players who might have been going to the (Atlantic Coast Conference) or the (Southeastern Conference) might be looking at their only scholarship offers coming from the mid-majors now. We’ve taken the approach of saying, ‘Hey, your dream has always been to play major college baseball, don’t give up on that dream. The mid-major school will still be there in two years (in junior college), but the ACC or SEC offer might be there, too, if you develop the way we think you can."
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=306
Got it...thanks for the clarification.
I find it amazing that forum posters understand the situation while the college coaches are still trying to figure it all out
For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
quote:For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
What do you mean by "do the same"? If you mean play as well - they may or may not. Probably not because they will have to split those up among players they really want and then invite others to walk on. My son's head coach has done this - splitting their scholarships so everyone gets 25% no more, no less. They will have to do more with less - but this has always been the case
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
I find it amazing that forum posters understand the situation while the college coaches are still trying to figure it all out
For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
It ain't exactly quantum physics, rocket propulsion application or neuro-surgery. Not all coaches are clueless. 3 Scholly's? Just put a more water in the soup. Umm, they won't be as talented as the fully funded team, all else being equal (that never is).
Natural
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN----4 times 25% equals I scholarship and for three scholarshops you have 12 players meeting the 25% requirment---what do they do with the other 15 or 18 players required to be on a scholarship
The math does not work !!!! And the NCAA cannot force school to change their policies regarding scholarships
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN----4 times 25% equals I scholarship and for three scholarshops you have 12 players meeting the 25% requirment---what do they do with the other 15 or 18 players required to be on a scholarship
The math does not work !!!! And the NCAA cannot force school to change their policies regarding scholarships
Dad04 if your statement about talent is true ,how do players get drafted from D111 with no BB scholarships.
D1 teams that give an NLI MUST give a minimum 25%.
It's not too hard to figure out, teams that never fully funded just won't give out too many scholarships, just like they did in the past. This lessons the talent pool.
The whole object of the minimum was to force those that only fund a few scholarships in Divison 1 to get better committments from their athletic departments for more funding for baseball. I wonder if this just forces more walk ons in some programs.
I think that Dad04 was refering to D1.
It's not too hard to figure out, teams that never fully funded just won't give out too many scholarships, just like they did in the past. This lessons the talent pool.
The whole object of the minimum was to force those that only fund a few scholarships in Divison 1 to get better committments from their athletic departments for more funding for baseball. I wonder if this just forces more walk ons in some programs.
I think that Dad04 was refering to D1.
I have heard that if a college offers a scholarship and the player opts to sign with the MLB club who drafts him that the offer goes un-used; in other words, the college or university cannot offer those same scholarship funds to someone else.
I hope I have this wrong. That would seem very unfair.
I hope I have this wrong. That would seem very unfair.
TPM
Read what is posted---the decree from the NCAA says all teams must give 25% and have an amount of 27/30 scholarships all at least 25 %
You tell me how a school with only 3 full scholarships can do the same as a school with 11.7
I dont consider myself a genius and perhaps you have different way of figuring it out---show me your mathematical formular---
I am waiting
Read what is posted---the decree from the NCAA says all teams must give 25% and have an amount of 27/30 scholarships all at least 25 %
You tell me how a school with only 3 full scholarships can do the same as a school with 11.7
I dont consider myself a genius and perhaps you have different way of figuring it out---show me your mathematical formular---
I am waiting
quote:Originally posted by 2Fast:
I have heard that if a college offers a scholarship and the player opts to sign with the MLB club who drafts him that the offer goes un-used; in other words, the college or university cannot offer those same scholarship funds to someone else.
No, if the player is drafted, the unused funds are available to other players. So in a sense, if there is an issue with fairness, the college is in a less favorable position. The college gambles that the draftable player will enroll at their school, so they reserve money for him, and in the process lose the opportunity to recruit a slightly less skilled player. When the drafted player opts to sign a pro contract, the college now has money available, but they'll probably have to spend it on a player or players with less potential.
Actually, there is a sort of inverse process that can occur which is, in my opinion, very unfair to the player. There is a recent thread in this forum which alledges that the University of Georgia over-recruited this past year, and they are now asking players who signed a NLI last November to release the school from the obligation. UGA is said to be doing this because fewer than expected of their players or recruits signed pro contracts, and they want to use the scholarship money for players already on the UGA roster. Less charitable observors suspect that UGA also wants to keep very talented players from signing with rival schools.
Of course UGA cannot force the players to do this--they have a NLI. But if the player decides to exercise the NLI, they can expect no playing time this spring, and no scholarship next year. If the player enrolls at UGA, and then transfers to a D1, they'll have to sit a year. So, for the player, the better part of Hobson's choice is to try to find a different school at which they can play--with or without scholarship. Not so easilyh done in late July or on August 15th.
More than one lesson can be drawn from this situation, but one that should be taken to heart by highly rated HS seniors is that the affected players who are being uninvited to UGA are among the very best in the country. Apparently signing an early NLI with a substantial scholarship to a top baseball program (they did pretty well in the CWS!) provides no assurance that the NLI player will actually ever have an opportunity to play or demonstrate that they can play. Being really good doesn't help!
Clearly, before selecting a college, a player needs to carefully investigate the college's past behavior.
quote:Clearly, before selecting a college, a player needs to carefully investigate the college's past behavior.
It's interesting. There's a large, highly successful D1 a few hours from here that has always landed the cream of the crop. The past couple of years, the school has jacked around some players -- both current players and NLI signees -- and word has spread about the hardball tactics of this school. Among all the announcements of verbal commitments this summer, I have yet to see one for this particular school, which is highly unusual. Am wondering if its practices are finally coming back to bite.
Unfortunate situation that has happend at UGA.
The coach needs to sit down early in the fall with his sophmore draft eligible and juniors to discuss their position on the draft and his as well before he signs players. Many coaches indicate to players if drafted they might lose their scholaship as they have incoming signees they have to accomodate first. Other coaches don't say anything working on numbers hoping it will all even out in the end. It's called roster management and some are better at it than others. It didn't matter before because there was no roster limit.
Unfortunetly when a program is successful and heads to Omaha and has a chance to return with experience all rules go out the window. HS players drafted want to come and current players want to stay.
The coach needs to sit down early in the fall with his sophmore draft eligible and juniors to discuss their position on the draft and his as well before he signs players. Many coaches indicate to players if drafted they might lose their scholaship as they have incoming signees they have to accomodate first. Other coaches don't say anything working on numbers hoping it will all even out in the end. It's called roster management and some are better at it than others. It didn't matter before because there was no roster limit.
Unfortunetly when a program is successful and heads to Omaha and has a chance to return with experience all rules go out the window. HS players drafted want to come and current players want to stay.
quote:Originally posted by Infield08:quote:Clearly, before selecting a college, a player needs to carefully investigate the college's past behavior.
It's interesting. There's a large, highly successful D1 a few hours from here that has always landed the cream of the crop. The past couple of years, the school has jacked around some players -- both current players and NLI signees -- and word has spread about the hardball tactics of this school. Among all the announcements of verbal commitments this summer, I have yet to see one for this particular school, which is highly unusual. Am wondering if its practices are finally coming back to bite.
This may have many who committed to your Texas schools. Texas is on page 15...
http://www.pgcrosschecker.com/hsprospects/2008/college_...lass.aspx?gyear=2008
I have found not all are reported especially late walkons.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
Natural
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN----4 times 25% equals I scholarship and for three scholarshops you have 12 players meeting the 25% requirment---what do they do with the other 15 or 18 players required to be on a scholarship
The math does not work !!!! And the NCAA cannot force school to change their policies regarding scholarships
You know you don't have to give a minimum number of athletic scholarships. If you want to give full scholarships to a few players, that just make less money to give to others, causing more to be walk ons. What it is saying, if you are going to give a player a athletic scholarship, it has to be at least 25%.
HomeRun04 is correct. There need not be a minimum number of players on scholarship. If, as TRHit calculates, 12 players are each on 25% athletic scholarship and there are only 3 full athletic scholarships to dole out, all the other players on the team will get either no scholarship or other types of scholarship. There is no mandate that a school give more athletic scholarships than it is funded for.
TRHit
I thought I had thought through most of how the changes would have an effect. But, you bring up a great point if a program is not fully funded ( less than 11.7 scholly ).
Looked at from the math side 30 schollys at 25% is 30 x .25, which is 7.5 . That means that to have a D1 program under the current rules, any D1 program will have to have 7.5 full scholly's available to the program. Unless there is some exception written in to the changes.
There are probably very few D1 programs not funded to 7.5 scholly. But, I bet when they changed the rules they never even thought your point !!!!!
This I don't know but, are the Ivy league schools considered D1 schools ?????? No athletic schollys, right...?
I thought I had thought through most of how the changes would have an effect. But, you bring up a great point if a program is not fully funded ( less than 11.7 scholly ).
Looked at from the math side 30 schollys at 25% is 30 x .25, which is 7.5 . That means that to have a D1 program under the current rules, any D1 program will have to have 7.5 full scholly's available to the program. Unless there is some exception written in to the changes.
There are probably very few D1 programs not funded to 7.5 scholly. But, I bet when they changed the rules they never even thought your point !!!!!
This I don't know but, are the Ivy league schools considered D1 schools ?????? No athletic schollys, right...?
These are not my rules---the NCAA has declared that Division I programs have 30/27 players on at least 25% scholarship
As for the IVIEs they march to a differenct drummer and do not fall under this NCAA edict
As for the IVIEs they march to a differenct drummer and do not fall under this NCAA edict
TRhit and hacker,
The rule is different. The 30/27 number is the maximum number of counters, not the minimum.
15.5.4 Baseball Limitations. During the 2008-09 academic year, there shall be a limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and a limit of 30 on the total number of counters, in baseball at each institution. During the 2009-10 academic year and thereafter, there shall be an annual limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and an annual limit of 27 on the total number of counters in baseball at each institution. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08)
15.5.4.1 Minimum Equivalency Value. An nstitution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08 for student-athletes who initially enroll full time at any four-year collegiate institution on or after 8/1/08, Revised: 8/9/07)
The rule is different. The 30/27 number is the maximum number of counters, not the minimum.
15.5.4 Baseball Limitations. During the 2008-09 academic year, there shall be a limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and a limit of 30 on the total number of counters, in baseball at each institution. During the 2009-10 academic year and thereafter, there shall be an annual limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and an annual limit of 27 on the total number of counters in baseball at each institution. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08)
15.5.4.1 Minimum Equivalency Value. An nstitution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08 for student-athletes who initially enroll full time at any four-year collegiate institution on or after 8/1/08, Revised: 8/9/07)
If you are a "counter", you must receive some athletic-based aid, at least books or $400. Counters arriving on campus starting now, or 8/08 must receive at least 25% of 1 equivalency.
As rosters evolve over the next few years and those under the old rules leave the program, teams will be comprised differently.
Coaches may seek kids who qualify for large academic-based aid and designate them as non-counters. Coaches will try to use any exceptions/exemptions granted by the bylaws.
Number of counters x .25 equals minimum amount required by rule that must be spent when the rosters turn fully after 2011 season, the grad year for the 2007 class under the old rules.
I started a thread in recent past about what happens when a monkey-wrench happens, such as players expected to be drafted aren't, and the monies the coach spent feeling it would be freed up wasn't.
Can a team in the future be competitive with an equal distribution of 11.7?
Can a team be competitive with maybe 22 kids splitting the pot and the rest as non-counters?
Will rosters shrink even more by choice versus by rule?
Schools already have an acting "Capologist" using Excel spreadsheets with if/then scenarios.
As rosters evolve over the next few years and those under the old rules leave the program, teams will be comprised differently.
Coaches may seek kids who qualify for large academic-based aid and designate them as non-counters. Coaches will try to use any exceptions/exemptions granted by the bylaws.
Number of counters x .25 equals minimum amount required by rule that must be spent when the rosters turn fully after 2011 season, the grad year for the 2007 class under the old rules.
I started a thread in recent past about what happens when a monkey-wrench happens, such as players expected to be drafted aren't, and the monies the coach spent feeling it would be freed up wasn't.
Can a team in the future be competitive with an equal distribution of 11.7?
Can a team be competitive with maybe 22 kids splitting the pot and the rest as non-counters?
Will rosters shrink even more by choice versus by rule?
Schools already have an acting "Capologist" using Excel spreadsheets with if/then scenarios.
quote:Originally posted by hacker:
Looked at from the math side 30 schollys at 25% is 30 x .25, which is 7.5 . That means that to have a D1 program under the current rules, any D1 program will have to have 7.5 full scholly's available to the program. Unless there is some exception written in to the changes.
It's 27/30 MAX scholarships and 25% minimum $$ given. The NCAA KNEW when they changed the rules that many schools do not fund 11.7. There is nothing that states that they MUST give out a specific number of scholarships, other than those that they have funded for and that has to be 25%, and it can be in a combo that adds up to 25% (atheltic aid and academic).
There was a letter from the working group, in it mentioning that after their decision, while they realize that all schools do not fully fund, programs might need to reevaluate their commitments to their baseball programs (fund more athletic dollars).
Setting a minimum scholarship amount may now force schools to reevaluate their programs. You can't expect your program to compete in a conference with other schools that fully fund, can you?
3FG,
I was posting while you were, I knew that you would be here shortly to post the rules.
I hope that posting that clears up any misunderstanding regarding the rule BEFORE IT BECAME AN ARGUMENT.
D1 schools dpn't have to give any BB money if they choose not to. The colleges choosing not to give countable money and there are some good ones can continue to not give out BB money. There are many schools that have less than 5 full rides and the only difference is that they have to choose who will get BB money wisely. Academic money based on GPA and other academic scores are not countable. Academic money can be used to bring the total package up to 25% if BB money is included. Most underfunded schools (your term) do so at their own choice. Many top academic schools don't have to offer BB money.
I once talked to a parent at a Brown U game and he was almost insulted when I asked if his son received BB money. He said it was a priviledge to go there and only got academic money.
I once talked to a parent at a Brown U game and he was almost insulted when I asked if his son received BB money. He said it was a priviledge to go there and only got academic money.
BTW, Ivy League schools have to comply with all NCAA D1 rules as well as all D1 schools have to.
They just don't fund their baseball programs (and don't have to) so they don't give NLI. They can get more money for their players for academics as well as need based scholarships. My own player was recruited to an IVY school, it would have cost him essentially nothing but he did not meet all academic requirements for academic money(SAT scores).
They just don't fund their baseball programs (and don't have to) so they don't give NLI. They can get more money for their players for academics as well as need based scholarships. My own player was recruited to an IVY school, it would have cost him essentially nothing but he did not meet all academic requirements for academic money(SAT scores).
quote:Academic money can be used to bring the total package up to 25% if BB money is included.
only if exempted
Not sure what you mean by if exempted OS.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Academic money based on GPA and other academic scores are not countable. Academic money can be used to bring the total package up to 25% if BB money is included.
Seems like these two sentences are simply not compatible with: (from Bylaw 15.5.4.1, quoted a few posts above)
"An institution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency."
Based on the bylaws, aid needs to be countable to be included in the 25%. The only exception I am aware of is in 15.5.4.1.1. Institutions which give "aid based solely on demonstrated financial need" are exempt from the 25% requirement.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
D1 teams that give an NLI MUST give a minimum 25%.
......
The whole object of the minimum was to force those that only fund a few scholarships in Divison 1 to get better committments from their athletic departments for more funding for baseball. ....
I hadn't seen this rationale before, and as you say, it isn't likely that objective will be met. The rationale written in the original (as amended) proposal was:
"The average number of baseball student-athletes receiving athletics aid among Division I baseball programs is 27, however, there are some programs that annually exceed as many as 40 baseball student-athletes receiving some portion of aid. A minimum award of athletically related and other countable financial aid at 25% of an equivalency ensures an appropriate balance between addressing student-athlete well-being for those reluctant to serve a year of transfer residence and the ability of baseball coaches to effectively and efficiently manage distribution of 11.7 equivalencies. Requiring the 25% minimum helps ensure the baseball program is truly committed to the student-athlete, thereby encouraging more responsible recruiting and making it less likely for coaches to facilitate transfers of student-athletes to whom they are significantly committed financially. Coaches will be less likely to employ a "run-off" strategy of squad size maintenance after having what amounts to a fall term tryout if the number of counters is limited at the outset. Encouraging a student-athlete who is one of 27 counters to transfer during the academic year will not only cost that institution NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate points, but the institution will not be able to replace that student-athlete with another counter."
We'll see how well the rule cuts down on "run-offs". I'm optimistic that it will, but I certainly hadn't imagined that a college (e.g. UGA) might employ a run-off strategy before the player had even enrolled!
Academic money based on GPA is not countable unless the student receives BB money. It then can be counted towards the 25% minimum. If the student get academic money only it stands on its own as long as it can be supported by academic marks.
There are many guys who only get academic money. It is not countable.
There are many guys who only get academic money. It is not countable.