roster reading

Not bad for a college just south of $50,000 per year, if they don't make the team and they transfer they may have to sit out next year, similar to a PAC 10 school close by where they have many more than the 35 limit, but it is a little less costly until they raise the tuition over 30% next year.

Over recruiting still happens at many levels without any effect to the school but hurts the player.

But then again, there is a DII school close by that brought in 11 DI transfers this year and has 150+ players looking for one of the 35 roster spots. If some of the 4 year transfers don't make the roster, they are really up the creek and if they want to get some PT somewhere else they have to go to NAIA.

NCAA continues to implement rules that benefit the colleges and don’t do much benefit for the athletes.

.
I like watching trends...

Increasing Upperclass cuts? Scholarship pulls? Huge recruiting classes? Tons more walk on's....

Not to worry! Relax! Everything is just fine!...

...my fellow posters have assured me repeatedly in a previous thred that it is not a problem and the NCAA has the players and the families best interests at heart.

Don't worry! Be Happy! Trust me and the NCAA!

44
.

Agree O44 and fanogame.

Waiting for the folks who disagree with the comments like "you made the choice", "If you have the talent, no need to worry" or "how about the coaches who need to cover their arses from the draft....etc".

All have SOME validity, but bottom line is the athlete is screwed much more often and their best interest is not served by the NCAA.

Is this a west coast thing?
My sons former school had 31 show up. They may not all have scholarships, but they will be on the spring roster.

I don't think that many coaches like the 35 man roster limit for D1 and most don't like the 27 max scholarship, I think a lot think that they are getting screwed also. They plan on 35 (give or take) showing up, lose many newcomers to the draft a few days before class is to begin or the recruited non scholarship player goes somewhere else because he is not legally bound to his commitment. Coaches have their issues about this. So working hard, I must be one of those you speak of. There are a lot of parents here who will tell you their kids went to school before the new rules and there were still way more than they expected. There are some who will tell you that numbers weren't ridiculous before the new rules and afterwards as well. It is what it is and do your homework early.

I agree with fan as I would never encourage my son to be a walk on anywhere, and I have spoken out against the perils of walking onto popular successful programs.

You have to have played on the 35 man spring roster to be considered cut and have a negative impact on grad rates, the roster doesn't count until spring and I do beleive those that count are those under scholarship (correct me if wrong).

If a player signed an NLI or been on he team, he should be guaranteed a roster spot when he shows up in the fall, if he is a recruited walk on, he should have a more than fair opportunity to compete for a spot on the roster, if he is just a walk on (came to try out), he should know and understand that he most likely won't likely make that team but they can come to practice or perhaps may be needed if fewer attend than expected of if some players are ineligible.

Anything not made clear to any of the above players is unethical (from the coaching staff)IMO, if you ask way more to come than you actually need, with the intent to cut the scholarship players that is unethical as well. A coach should have taken care of business after season ended.

There are some coaches who willingly tell players they can come for the fall only and where the colors with no intention of ever putting them on the spring roster.

I don't place blame on the NCAA for a coach asking 150 to show up. Regardless of new rules that can also affect other divisions, that's just plain greedy and poor recruiting.

quote:

I don't place blame on the NCAA for a coach asking 150 to show up.

No, but how about placing blame on the NCAA for penalizing a student athlete by making them sit a year. Not talking the guy who just wants greener pastures, I'm talking cut!

real question here:

How many should a coach invite in the fall if he wants to carry a 35-man spring roster?

I would think that he has to over-recruit to a point. There will always be those players that can't play do to injury, talent, grades, etc. I would think that 45 players should cover him, but I'm really not sure.

quote:

Originally posted by workinghard:

quote:

I don't place blame on the NCAA for a coach asking 150 to show up.

No, but how about placing blame on the NCAA for penalizing a student athlete by making them sit a year. Not talking the guy who just wants greener pastures, I'm talking cut!

You only have to sit a year if you transfer to another D1 or go from another division to D1.

Coaches don't really need 35 players, I think no more than 40 would be considered fair. JMO.

It's buyer beware baby... The only assurance of a roster spot is BB money for schools who offer it, and that's only for a year. I don't blame the coaches for " collecting" as many players as possible. A. It's their job. B. It's their livelehood.

If a player with other oportunities does not do his homework or buys into the "We can really see you here". With no comittment on the schools part, than you deserve to sit out a year.

[quote]With no comittment on the schools part, than you deserve to sit out a year.


I do agree with committment from the school.But who knows what coaches said to recruited walk ons.I think any kid cut should be allowed to leave and not sit.If he did all what he was suppose to do, and wasnt a discipline problem, he should be able to go somewhere else.The only ones deserving to sit are players that have had problems that deserve punishment.
I think walking on is such a HUGE risk.Wouldnt do it,not with whats going on.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
It's buyer beware baby... The only assurance of a roster spot is BB money for schools who offer it, and that's only for a year. I don't blame the coaches for " collecting" as many players as possible. A. It's their job. B. It's their livelehood.

If a player with other oportunities does not do his homework or buys into the "We can really see you here". With no comittment on the schools part, than you deserve to sit out a year.

Hey swann, since you're so hellbent on thinking the young man deserves to sit out, tell me exactly what it hurts if the coach cuts the kid and another school (D1) feels he can play and decides to offer BB money. Who is it hurting? Who is it helping?.
What is accomplished by him sitting out a year other than the NCAA say's so?

USC is been his dream school since childhood, wants to give it a shot and he walks on and gets cut. Cal Poly offers and the kid agrees, who in the world got hurt, USC because they are losing his tuition money?

It is very obvious that the NCAA has to adjust the transfer rule. It really doesn't make sense in some ways. Why further punish the player (student/athlete) who gets cut or loses his scholarship?

Understood that rules are very important... But rules should be based on fairness. There is nothing fair about punishing a young kid who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Futhermore, in some cases the NCAA is actually hurting its member institutions because the best transfer option for these players is sometimes a non-NCAA school.

What a cluster!

Couldnt agree more PG.

The new rules were established for many reasons, with the grad rates used as a smokescreen. It now prevents revolving transfer doors, and forces schools to give 25% minimum, force schools that didn't fund to fund, to prevent coaches from just giving books or perhaps 5% (that was a big discussion here for years), which some considered not a strong commitment. I remember parents rejoicing here that your son's would now have an opportunity to get MORE money, but what it has created is less opportunity.
In order to create fairness, for those schools that didn't have as much money to keep 40+ on the roster like the bigger powerhouses, they imposed roster and scholarship limitations. As an example this was so that Big State U, wouldn't keep 20 arms on the roster, while Little State U might have a fighting chance to make post season with less arms in the pen.

Some programs were doing it the way it should be done before they imposed the new rules, while the ones who continued to over recruit in the fall, still contine to do so. Big lesson, stay away from those programs. I remember son being recruited to a school here in FL, 48 on the roster, and we stayed away from those programs with larger rosters, not because he was afraid he wouldn't make the team, but just because we didn't beleive in the large rostered programs who don't get anywhere (losing programs).

The sit out rule exists for other sports in D1 and has been for many years. Over recruiting for fall is not knew in baseball or other sports.

For those parents who feel the need to be involved in the recruting process and make calls, how many have asked the coach in discussion, "how many players that play my sons position are you expecting in the fall? How large or small is your typical fall roster? What are your reasons for cutting players? Will you honor his NLI for the first year under any circmstances?". These are very important questions for YOU to ask, if you have doubts. If he tells you more than you are comfortable with, or don't trust the man, then look for other opportunities. If your son feels he can overcome these obstacles, then allow him to make his choice, but know the implications. But I'll bet many don't ask, are afraid to ask, then reality hits when your son shows up and there are many more than expected. This is a VERY important to find out, do your homework. If the guy says 35 and 50 show up, how honest will he be later on?

The only thing I am opposed to is the 27 scholarship limitation. Too little, I'll bet some people wish they would scrap the 25% and give less now. All this does is create a situation where the coach will invite more than he has to, creating a sense of doom for parents (not always the players)when the player shows up and there are 45-50 on the field when everyone knows he can only keep 35, and redshirt opportunities rarely exist anymore due to scholarship minimums(in the past they redshirted the xtras).

Actually I do not know of anyone personally, or anyone here whose son has been actually cut from the team, a few who could afford full tuition had their scholarships taken away or reduced(a whole new discussion), but not cut loose, does anyone?

I am not defending the NCAA, I don't agree with a lot of what they do, especially for baseball, but in reality, this is how it is, do your homework, make good decisions for a good fit (which may not include your dream school).

I will ask again, if my grandfather went to USC, my father went to USC and USC is my dream school, I'm offered a recruited walk-on spot and then get cut, what is the harm in me going to a school that say's come on over, we have some newly discovered money and we want you. Where is the logic in sitting out a year other than it's the rule.

TPM, I do know of only one that was cut and decided to stay at that school and give up baseball. Then again, I don't know all 45 kids at Georgia, or 47 at Arkansas, the 50 at University U. It does happen and more often than you think.

It happes alot. Everyone of those kids listed in the fall over the 35 limit - It happens to everyone of them. They have a choice to make. Give up baseball and stay at their current school. Or transfer. Should they be punished for wanting to continue to play the game?

I say punish the program for bringing in more players than they could roster. And leave the player alone and let him pursue his dream somewhere else. If these programs were punished for bringing in more than they could roster they would stop doing it and using the fall as a tryout process for the roster. These kids wouldnt be in this situation in the first place they would be where they were truly wanted and all of this bs could be avoided.

Dont blame a kid for wanting to pursue his dream if he is offered that opportunity. Blame the coaches that dangle that dream in front of so many knowing full well they are using them. Then the player gets punished.

Homework? I say the coach needs to do his homework. He needs to stop bringing in more than he can roster. He needs to be honest with these kids in the first place. Your asking a 17 18 year old kid to turn down something he has dreamed of his entire life. He is a competitor. He believes he can do it. He wants to try to do it. And the coach knows all along that many will not make it. And now the player has to be punished while the coach moves on with his season?

Sorry but the rule is bs. NO players that is cut , asked to leave a program under these type of circumstances should be punished anymore than he already has. You want to stop this - tell these coaches that they can only bring in the number they can actually roster. I bet they will work a little harder on doing their homework then.

And it can be done. Because many already do it this way.

quote:

Originally posted by workinghard:
I will ask again, if my grandfather went to USC, my father went to USC and USC is my dream school, I'm offered a recruited walk-on spot and then get cut, what is the harm in me going to a school that say's come on over, we have some newly discovered money and we want you. Where is the logic in sitting out a year other than it's the rule.

TPM, I do know of only one that was cut and decided to stay at that school and give up baseball. Then again, I don't know all 45 kids at Georgia, or 47 at Arkansas, the 50 at University U. It does happen and more often than you think.

If the player makes that decision only to walk on because his family were alumni, was offered other opportunities in the process, that was a chance he decided to take, he still has the opportunity to go play at another program. Now another player should lose out on another opportunity because a player had a whim to try something first, if it didn't work out, go play somewhere else. Lots of thought has to go into this process.

We are talking about players that have been asked to come because they felt the coach needed them and gave them a scholarship and they said no somewhere else, that I agree is not fair. There has always been the perile of being a walk on, most don't make the team.

FWIW, some coaches love it when children's alumni want to come play, others don't care who you are, but regardless, they have to have the talent necessary to make the team, not just a free pass because his family attended. BTW, there are funds available for those like your son to pay for his education, if the family has given back to that program.

Coach may,
There is a whole group of really honest coaches who were not happy that the rule didn't place limits on fall rosters. I agree, their are some still over recruiting, that is really what the NCAA has to deal with.

quote:

If the player makes that decision only to walk on because his family were alumni, was offered other opportunities in the process, that was a chance he decided to make, he still has the opportunity to go play at another program. We are talking about players that have been asked to come because they felt the coach needed them and gave them scholarships.

TPM, I don't think you read properly. We are not talking about scholarship kids. I specifically stated a "recruited walk-on" to USC. Yes, it is a choice made by the kid. I didn't work out so punish him. Why? The kid was asked, gave it a shot at his dream school with no guarantees. Time to try elsewhere but wait, not so fast. You are untouchable at any other D1 for a year. Crazy!!

By the way, I think you misunderstood the USC scenario. Wasn't wanting a free ride, don't even have a son there. Just using it as an example for why a kid might pick his dream school and not school B. But again, the punishment does not fit the "crime".

quote:

Actually I do not know of anyone personally, or anyone here whose son has been actually cut from the team, a few who could afford full tuition had their scholarships taken away or reduced(a whole new discussion), but not cut loose, does anyone?

We get contacted by many who are looking for transfer information. It has become more difficult. I am of the opinion that unhappy young kids should be able to transfer. It used to be simply getting a release. We know of many cases where players were cut. It really does happen, in fact, it has happened to kids who have parents who have posted here. And it will happen in the future for some kids who have parents who post here now.

Thinking in advance can be helpful. Players who feel that there is any possibility of being cut should already have a good idea about what their next move would be... Juco, NAIA, etc. I don't see anything wrong with shooting for the moon so long as there is an alternate plan in case things don't work out. Regarding asking coaches about how many recruits or how many at a position or how likely playing time is... In baseball people make mistakes and change their mind all the time and that includes coaches. What he might truthfully think today could be all together different than what he thinks 6 months from now. Players change, coaches change their mind, very few things stay the same. That coach could see you as a freshman starter before you get there and wish he wouldn't have recruited you a few months later. It's not just being less than honest with you, he is being honest both times. There is no coach on earth who hasn't changed his opinion at times about a player he has recruited.

Everyone has their own opinion about who gets hurt the most by NCAA rules. The transfer rule is unfair to the kids. I'm all for regulating college sports. I do wish someone could regulate the NCAA. The truth is that innocent people should not receive the brunt of any punishment. If the kid didn't break any rules he should not be punished.

I just don't get it... Kid loses scholarship, Kid gets cut, Kid is unhappy, whatever... No one is out anything except the kid. If the college makes a bad decision, they simply eliminate the kid, they don't lose a thing. Maybe the kid made a bad decision which is even more likely to happen due to inexperience. Why is it that the kid who has done nothing wrong is the only one to suffer from this? Why should that kid be held back in any way and be limited from persuing other options? Especially here in America! Maybe it's just me being stupid, but I just don't understand this. If the rule was to keep student/athletes from transfering at will, it might make more sense. I think "adjusting" the rule to allow those who got stung the ability to transfer without losing eligibility makes sense. I don't think it would be that difficult to change that rule and include exceptions. College coaches might complain about roster limits, or scholarship changes because that pertains to them directly. They can (and some are) fighting that. It's just the unfair transfer rule that irks me the most.

workinghard,
I don't know how to answer your question, because you are talking about a different set of circumstances, we are talking about those that are under the assumption and told they will have a roster spot. Walking onto a program has always had it's pitfalls, and because he didn't make the roster at one D1 program doesn't necessarly mean he could at another. Should the program be punished under those circumstances? Now you have created a situation where if it didn't work because you took a big chance (no commitment), now you go to another program and the coach cuts the player in front of you to make room for that player, how does that hit you as a parent? You want to have your cake and eat it too? I don't buy that stuff.
Where do you draw the line in being "fair".

Programs should be punished when coaches are dishonest, recind NLI and cut upper classman because they goofed in recruiting, not because they gave an alumni's child a walk on opportunity and it didn't work out.

Choose a school where you feel the coach has made a commitment and where you will best be served (play) and be aware of the implication for walk on.

The bottom line is to go to school and get an education, everything else is secondary, sometimes some have to just get their priorities in order if baseball is a priority.

PG,
There are coaches who make mistakes and players who do too.
You all are not happy with the sit out transfer rule, which only applies to transfering to another D1 program. You do not have to sit out at a D1, D3, JUCO, NAIA program.
I don't beleive that D1 programs are in every players interest, there are many other fine division programs that are attainable for many players, it's just that players and parents don't WANT that option.

TPM, what I'm talking about is what this whole thread is about. A kid going to a school and for whatever reason getting cut. Then having to sit for a year. You have me totally confused.

My point is exactly what PGSTAFF and others above have stated. Why are you differentiating mine from the others. They all have said the exact same thing.

Why throw in a kid getting cut to make room for another. TPM, I said if a school wants a kid that was cut from school A, then he should be able to go without sitting out a year PERIOD!



Again, there is no difference from what I'm saying.
We were not just saying kids on schollys.

The twist and turns have me dizzy. I'm done.

workinghard,
You have me confused to, again a player does not have to sit out for a year if he transfers to another type of program. But you all keep insisting he is being punished by having to sit out, but only if he transfers to a D1. IMO, those being punished are those that chose D2,D3, etc. and can't move up to D1. But I think that there are exceptions to that rule, I am sure.

Is it where he might want to transfer that only makes the rule a bad one?

PG makes good points, know the implications and understand the alternatives.

The whole problem is, there are just too many players and not enough opportunities, that won't ever go away.

Of course DI are not for everyone, but there are players who were recruited walk ons at one DI school who turned down money from another DI school. It happens a lot. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm fairly certain that most everyone understands the importance of education. That doesn't make baseball less important to some. Obviously there are many that end up happy both with education and baseball experience. I'm guessing that being this is a baseball site, that's the way most feel here. It's not education vs. baseball. Baseball players can want an education too. And students can want to be athletes. Besides that, there are millions of people who have some priorities that they might rank above education. It is easy to tell someone what my priorities are. It's pretty difficult to tell someone else what their priorities should be.

quote:

Originally posted by workinghard:

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
It's buyer beware baby... The only assurance of a roster spot is BB money for schools who offer it, and that's only for a year. I don't blame the coaches for " collecting" as many players as possible. A. It's their job. B. It's their livelehood.

If a player with other oportunities does not do his homework or buys into the "We can really see you here". With no comittment on the schools part, than you deserve to sit out a year.

Hey swann, since you're so hellbent on thinking the young man deserves to sit out, tell me exactly what it hurts if the coach cuts the kid and another school (D1) feels he can play and decides to offer BB money. Who is it hurting? Who is it helping?.
What is accomplished by him sitting out a year other than the NCAA say's so?

USC is been his dream school since childhood, wants to give it a shot and he walks on and gets cut. Cal Poly offers and the kid agrees, who in the world got hurt, USC because they are losing his tuition money?

workinghard

It's a NCAA ruling that's totally unfair. But it is what it is.

The only positive I see for the walk-on is that a coach may be able to waive acceptance requirements, so potentially a kid who may not be accepted under normal circumstances could be admitted into a school that he would not typically qualify for.

With respect to your USC dream school scenario. Kudos to those who could roll the financial dice (50k) for a years worth of tuition at USC on the slim chance of making the team as a walk-on.

Virtualy all the schools the boy had looked at, the coaches were taken back by our level of interest in the classrooms, facilities, attrition, incoming recruits, majors of players, grad rates, diversity, etc... For most recruits by their addmission, it came down to how much playing time, strength of schedule and the facilities.

Personally. I think it's O.K to be smart and research the schools your interested in and base a decision on facts and current trends of the coaching staff. Many were sincere, some disengenious and many fell into the "collector category".

With that being said it still just a **** shoot.

quote:

workinghard

It's a NCAA ruling that's totally unfair. But it is what it is.

swann,

PG,
You and I seem to be close to the same page, but regardless, here, at the HSBBW, many of us in he past have never supported the D1 walk on opportunity under any circumstances. I know for me, I have always stated, go where they gave you $$. That shows commitment.

But the term "walk on" and commitments has changed, with 27 only on scholarship, it creates more walk on opportunities, and therefore it becomes confusing, most people who have told me their sons have had walk on invites, attend meetings where there are 20+ or more when they come to "walk on" meetings. Some players know well in advance of what may or may not happen, then their player gets cut, and everyone is unhappy.

Unfortunetly, we all have to live in a world with rules, and they are ok for the moment, until it affects us in a negative way, then it's not "fair".
The only ones I truely feel sorry for are those who are not told the truth, an example is, you will be a walk on but we are guaranting you a place on the roster, but they forget to mention that is only IF you make the cut. That is what the NCAA has to address.

Interesting, not to mention any school by name, but there is one that supposedly keeps what he calls a "developmental" squad. That means you get a uni in the fall, get cut in spring, but still can work out in the gym to stay in shape in case they need you. some kids have been in this "developmental" squad, wasting eligibility. BTW, this is for the many kids whose parents are alumni, where the player wants to not go anywhere else to get his degree. Many have different priorities.

Great posts by PG and Coach May.Good thread.I think the issue that makes no sense as I mentioned before.The NCAA wants kids to transfer less, keep graduation rates up.So if a kid is cut, he transfers.what did that accomplish? He gets punished, but the school still will be effected by the graduation rate.
So the kid has to sit out a year? what does that to for anyone?it punishes the kid for wanting to play after he is cut.Just makes no sense.

PG:you have a PM

quote:

PG,
You and I seem to be close to the same page

TPM, I totally disagree. What PG and others (including me) are saying is that the rule is unfair if a kid wants to transfer D1-D1 if he is cut.

You are saying that they have the option to go D2-D3, NAIA therefore making the rule fair.

How can you say you and he are on the same page.
You must be on the same page with everyone else because they are saying the same as PG.
The rule is unfair and needs to be adjusted.

PG Quote-
It is very obvious that the NCAA has to adjust the transfer rule. It really doesn't make sense in some ways. Why further punish the player (student/athlete) who gets cut or loses his scholarship?

Understood that rules are very important... But rules should be based on fairness. There is nothing fair about punishing a young kid who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Futhermore, in some cases the NCAA is actually hurting its member institutions because the best transfer option for these players is sometimes a non-NCAA school.

What a cluster!

TPM Quote-
The only thing I am opposed to is the 27 scholarship limitation.

quote:

Originally posted by fanofgame:
Great posts by PG and Coach May.Good thread.I think the issue that makes no sense as I mentioned before.The NCAA wants kids to transfer less, keep graduation rates up.So if a kid is cut, he transfers.what did that accomplish? He gets punished, but the school still will be effected by the graduation rate.
So the kid has to sit out a year? what does that to for anyone?it punishes the kid for wanting to play after he is cut.Just makes no sense.

PG:you have a PM

fanogame- What am I wood? Just kidding

Fanofgame,
You make a good point, but those showing up in the fall with no scholarship and get cut, does not affect the grad rate.
The dilemma is showing up for the first time and seeing way more than the roster allows.
You can ask some parents here whose sons showed up and there were way more than they expected, and their kids did ok, they had scholarships, and were able to keep their spot for 3-4 years, while the walk ons very rarely got opportunities.
There is no rule, and probably will never be one that limits walk ons, the NCAA has to allow that opportunity to non scholarship players.

workinghard,
You are the first to state the rule is unfair because one can't transfer D1 to D1 without sitting.
I didn't see that anyone else posted that, but I may have missed it. I didn't see anyone say it wasn't fair that a D2, D3 might have to sit out if transfer to a D1, so I guess it's just not fair for only those who beleive that D1 is the only way to go, not thinking how it hurts everyone. How come there are no D2,D3 parents complaining about that rule?

Ok so I am going to go with this thought, regardless of public opinion, I don't feel the rule should be changed because a walk on, who knows the implications, can't transfer to another D1 without sitting.
I do beleive, there should be exceptions, ex., for a scholarship player who shows up and the coach renigs on his NLI. Or cuts a scholarship player going into his senior year. That's unfair.

quote:

I do beleive, there should be exceptions, ex., for a scholarship player who shows up and the coach renigs on his NLI. Or cuts a scholarship player going into his senior year. That's unfair.
Posts:

TPM I understand that walk ons dont count into the APA rating.But thanks for clarifying that for others who may be reading.I can understand your opinion as stated above.I think walk ons are taking a huge risk, and would not ever allow my son to do this.
I do agree with the scholarship players being cut is totally wrong.If you recruited him and thouhgt he was good enoug then he should have a spot.

Playing the devils advocate here: senior guy, hasnt hit well, had plenty of opportunity, not cutting it in the line up.On a small scholarship:do you keep him? That is adilemna many coaches are facing as well. Before he could finish out his senior year.The landscape of baseball now is he will get cut.So he is a senior at a great academic school, close to getting his degree.What does he do??.

To transfer and sit out a year as a senior well most arent going to do that.If his scholarship is cut, and he is at an expensive school, then what? he has to leave , because his parents cant afford it? Just think the NCAA screwwed this one up.

Working hard:You also made some very good points.We agree on what is going on.PG just got a little more into detail, so I used him as an example.Actaully this is a good thread brought up by CaBB. Lots to think about.

quote:

You are the first to state the rule is unfair because one can't transfer D1 to D1 without sitting.

Then what rule TPM is everyone stating is unfair. From PG to Coach May they both
state the rule is unfair. What rule are they talking about?

So correct me if I'm wrong.

A recruited walk-on gets uni's in the fall, practices and then realizes that he didn't make it in the Spring. Since he made this "high risk" decision, he should be told he cannot play at another D1 institution for a year. Yet according to an earlier quote, it doesn't effect the APR.

I'm I missing something here, or is it as I actually stated earlier, no one is getting hurt other than the student athlete who still desires to play D1.

quote:

I'm I missing something here, or is it as I actually stated earlier, no one is getting hurt other than the student athlete who still desires to play D1.
Posts: 61 |

No you are not mssing anything.

quote:

Originally posted by workinghard:

Then what rule TPM is everyone stating is unfair. What rule are they talking about?

The sit out one year transfer rule, which only affects a transfer to D1. You keep saying it is unfair for anyone cut because the have to sit out, do you mean from D1 to D1? Is it beneath some players to consider the D2 or D3 school after that happens, where he doesn't have to sit. After all, IF baseball is the top priority, does it matter where the player gets his degree as long as he is playing?


As far as I know, no incoming players count towards graduation rates unless they are scholarship players. 3FG is good with that stuff.
Scholarship players are rarely released in fall because the coach cannot award his scholarship for a year.
There are many who feel that walk ons should have the ability to transfer and play right away (if they have never made a spring roster). I am not 100% up on the rules, but as dswann stated if you read, there are exceptions, waivers etc.) My point is being familiar with options if it doesn't work out. A player has other options. It just may not be D1 options. And no, I don't think the rules should be changed because junior wantsto walk on at his dream school and if it doesn't work, he will just transfer to another D1, that is why the NCAA made some of the rules, because if it didn't "work" for some players, they wanted out. If it didn't "work" for some coaches they cut or ran them off. Both coaches AND players created the problems.

I also stated at one time, it is what it is, you accept it, accept the consequences or move on.

I know I have a tendency to over simplify things but to to me if a players hasn't made the "championship roster" (Spring) then he should be able to transfer without sitting out.

To say you have to sit out a year because you tried out for the team and didn't make it is like me telling someone interviewing for a job with my company that he/she can't apply to other companies for a year because I don't have room for them.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me?

Working -

On the right track it seems. Once an appeal is adjudicated, all the parents, players, coaches & admin will simply interpret the NCAA.

Good luck....keep in touch.

ps. Fall Roster reads are suspect in many places
and for many reasons

JD,
I don't agree with you , the championship roster has nothing to do with the regular roster, only that the NCAA is cheap and doesn't want to pay for more than necessary in post season. Rather, one set number makes it fair for all sides with the same number on each for competition. It is up to the player to work towards that goal, just as our players will eventually be working toward the goal of being on an MLB roster.

It really doesn't have to be that difficult, schools technically do not need to have more show up than needed, most teams don't need more than 27-30 players, perhaps those that regularly go deep into post season want a few more, I just don't get, will never get why coaches over recruit. If the coaching staff does a good job getting who they feel is good for their program, you don't need more than that, but sometimes some get caught up in losing players and have to be prepared. Some schools do what they do because they get away with it, the players keep showing up, year after year, because of who they are.

I don't mean to get on workinghard, or anyone else, but sometimes we just want rules because we are from a society that feels that our kids should be able to do what they want when they want. IMO that all of the obstacles you have to overcome playing college ball prepares you for the obstacles you need to face in real life, and life isn't easy.

The purpose here at the HSBBW is to make those aware that this decision is most difficult, and everything possible should be considered. I don't think that walking on has ever been favored over other options. I certainly never thought it was a good option. As far as attending the dream school, if mine had gone to his, I think after a very short time he would not have been very happy. So I don't buy into the dream school stuff, I buy into finding the right fit, over all.

Look, we sent ours off when transfer rules were in effect for D1 players, we never considered this an option, make your decision because you felt this was a place you would be happy, the coaches were more than honest and up front, he was lucky, was he always 100% happy, no, would transfering make a better situation, no.

Everyone has different reasons for making decisions. Yes some rules stink, yet when it comes down to it, more players I know made good decisions and stuck with it, did what they had to keep their scholarship (stay clean and get good grades, what was required by the coaches).

The way to avoid this is to secure a scholarship (either bb or academic) so you do not have to try out in the fall, trying out is a whole lot different than showing up to try out. If my son secures a scholarship gives up other opportunities I do not expect him to try out in fall. I expect him to be on that 35 man roster come spring, if not the coach has been dishonest in the recruiting process. And there is a big difference between being a walk on for a program that has 35 showing up vs. 50. Know who you are dealing with and how they run their business.

There are many coaches who have screwed players, many players who have screwed coaches, either by transfering in the past, signed an NLI, transfered to JUCO to avoid 3 more years before the next draft or by deciding just a few days before class they were going to play pro ball. Now I am not going to say I agree or don't agree, but all of these problems need solutions, and until someone in the NCAA comes up with better ones, this is how it is going to be.