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.

quote:

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.

Absolutely. There are recruited walk-ons at programs that have 35 or less in the fall that don't have the worries/uncertainty that others do.

Ok here's what I was trying to say before.

Your son attends a program, has been waiting for the starting catching position for a few years, put in his time on his knees warming up or catching bullpens, has done everything right, now has an opportunity to be the starter, the coach hears about a player who wants to transfer, better catcher, wants more exposure for draft purposes, he transfers, the poor guy waiting to be the starter gets screwed. He now wants to transfer for a better opportunity to play before his time is up, the school will suffer if he leaves the program under the new grad rules because he started as a freshman.
I agree the sit out rule is in place to protect the schools grad rate, and the way I see it helps protect the player who started at the program awaiting his chance to be the starting catcher. You better know as a parent under the new rules, I have no issue with that new experienced player sitting out a year, waiting his turn just like mine did. I have no issue with new freshman competing for the position, because most likely they have to put in their time, to learn.

What is fair? Does the new sit out one year to D1 only protect the school and coaches?

quote:

What is fair? Does the new sit out one year to D1 only protect the school and coaches?

That is a good point made.But still the scholly guy who is cut is still screwed.They could cut that catcher as well.Where does he go? TPM sent you a pm. These extra letters wont delete. sorry.urer

Just imagine if the 'Nation chemistry of america association" required chemistry majors to sit out of labs for one year if they transfer from another member school. I am sure that would improve graduation rates.......just like the baseball rule. it makes about as much sense.

A little history about the "sit 1 year" rule.

It came about mainly because players were being poached in summer leagues. It was way too easy for a mid major player who turns out to be a stud, to transfer to a big time program by being recruited by other players he's playing with at the big time summer league.

Applying the equal and opposite reaction theory, the result was that some kid who might have been a starter last year, gets the bench and forgotten about after Mr. Mid Major Star transfers in...so Mr. Yesterdays News transfers out...and guess where he goes? Some mid major where the guy who was behind Mr. Mid Major Star, or Mr. Graduated Starter, and was expecting the starting role as the next in line, has his rug yanked by Mr. Yesterdays News transferring in.

So, all this decrying about, "hard work should earn you something" always was a bunch of bunk. The system has always been mercenary, probably even more so before the rules.

Are the transfer rules as they stand now fair...nope. But the system wasn't fair before either, it was just different. Should it change for the better? I would hope so.

There never was, and never will be, any incumbency rights in baseball. If there was, it wouldn't be fair to the incoming player who is better. How come I don't hear anyone standing up for him?

A lot of what I hear here, seems like, "I was here first, you guys owe me." The entitlement stance has always been untenable.

Not so sure why the NCAA made such a fuss over grad rates, but the baseball working group claimed that upon entering they held high GPA's then GPA's slipped gradually, and many players took only minimum requirments, didn't attend summer school like other atheletes in other sports (played baseball in summer), and when their 4 years were up they were no where near graduation in their requirements and left because they couldn't afford to stay without schollie money. This meant also that they were losing income, get that, players who ran out of eligibility were not going to stay and get their degrees where they began. They want student athletes who will remain with programs for 4 years and their money, not future minor leaguers, that's my understanding how this all came about.

In other words, the schools were not paying attention, it was and is their responsibility to make sure that an athelete stays on task. I don't think that many D1 programs did this. Some lost scholarships, dipping below acceptable APR and complained that was not fair. Baseball is a unique college sport and might be better served by treating it that way.

We all look at how the new rules affect us and our players, coaches look at how it affects them, and do what they can do to keep their jobs, win games etc.

I am glad I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did, I know that I would do my homework, to help son make a good choice, even if things happened you can still look in the mirror and say you tried, and that would include what cabb had in mind when first posting, pay attention to fall rosters.

I totally agree with your post CPLZ. I am not in favor of any entitlement never have been , period. To me its soley about the player that is cut from a program. He should not be punished twice.

There is a big difference imo in a player who wants a transfer and a player that is forced to transfer because he has been cut.

This has been a great thread with excellent comments from all... some very random thoughts...

I believe FO said it best, this is a game of musical chairs. There will always be someone left standing without a chair. There are approximately 300 D1 programs out there. With 9 offensive positions available per team including DH, there are approximately 2700 chairs across the nation for position players. On most teams, about 10 pitchers get to pitch so that means there are another 3000 chairs for pitchers. Each year, there are over 100,000 available freshman for those 5700 chairs with many of the seats already occupied by sophmore, junior, and senior players. If a player expands his horizons to D2, D3, JUCO, and NAIA, the number of chairs goes up dramatically but in any case, the number of chairs are limited at the college level.

Even with a 35 man roster limit and a program that does not recruit over this limit, a player is in big trouble if he finds himself as the 34th or 35th best player on the roster. Not only will they not see playing time in the present year, they could easily get recruited over the next year and have their spot taken by the next great freshman phenom. Even if a coach is calling and telling you what a good player you are during recruiting, I would recommend attending their fall practices before committing. Watch every player without your rose-colored glasses on. See if you can honestly see yourself competing with what you actually see.

I don't have a good answer for what the transfer rules ought to be. I only know that if a player wants to transfer now to another D1, he'll have to sit. Perhaps a player needs to contemplate this possibility ahead of time especially if they go to a national powerhouse. Another player might want to get the coach to commit to placing them in a reputable summer league before sigining on the dotted line. That way, they have a chance to show the coach what they can do against college competition even if they don't get to play as freshmen. Still yet another player might want to change his thinking when entering a program. He might tell himself that no matter what happens, he'll stick things out and bust his hump to improve until the coach knocks on his door and cuts him.

I saw the Ohio State football game the other day and their senior inside linebacker was the first time he ever got to play. He played the last three years by behind 3-time All-American James Lauranitis who is now in the pros. I am sure it must have been tough sitting all those years but that is what you get at a program like that. Sometimes you have to be willing to deal with the consequences even if the rules are unfair. I would recommend that young players going into a program prepare for the worst-case scenario mentally (e.g., redshirt, sitting behind a better player), yet strive in everything they do to positively overcome the coach's perception of them. If they do everything possible, then they are a winner in my book even if the general public never gets to see them play.

Most of these challenges are not physical imho. Much of it is in the head. Much of it is about managing disappointment. Some kids are mentally tough enough to stick around long enough until some luck goes their way. Never forget, getting recruited is the easy part. Now get busy and and claim one of those 5700 chairs.

Yes but all the logic in the world doesn't help when you get cut.
You could lend your crystal ball to the coach because they don't always get it right.

That was a good post CD and puts a lot into perspective. Especially the numbers. Your suggestion for visiting and watching teams you are considering is very important. Watching, if done with your eyes wide open, not eyes wide shut, can be revealing and very helpful in making good sound decisions. For those considering D1, without an opportunity to transfer to another D1 and play immediately, it is most important than ever to observe this. As good as you think you are, there is always someone ahead or behind you to take your place, that is the way it is, in HS, in college, in pro ball. For most, it doesn't matter who you are, who your parents are, who you played for before you came, what you did and didn't do before you got there, the slate gets wiped clean when you set foot on that field.

One thing that I have learned in baseball, life isn't always fair, it's what you as an individual make of your opportunity and where you best can accomplish the goals you set out to accomplish.

The original post was about large fall roster numbers, reading and understanding patterns of some programs and how they do business. It always sparks long discussions on how the coaches stink, rules are unfair, how the NCAA does nothing to protect players, they are only there to protect the programs. I don't always get this, the NCAA has rules to protect my D1 player, rules that tell coaches how long he can practice, when he can practice and how they must make sure that the real goal is to graduate within a reasonable time frame and provide help and assistance in doing so. That's all that I as a parent, expected from the NCAA. I expected from his coaches to follow those rules. There are no rules to say how long he can keep you after one year, if he has to keep you, where he has to play you, if he has to play you, but there are some moral rules I expect a coach to follow as well. I also expect that he has in place a developmental program for his players, so that he doesn't have to replace half the team the next year because he didn't do his job in working with his players. That means practice and instruction.

Very interesting, the NCAA has meetings with D1 student athletes on a regular basis, to help provide feedback on where the NCAA needs to improve the quality of players college experiences. Their concerns are so totally different than what we perceive them to be, you would be surprised. I think the reason being is that they are living through what we sit here and talk about, for us what is unfair is to them reasonable and workable. All players who have spent one semester either in practice or in a season, know what is expected of them to stay on the team they came to play for. The scary part I admit, is when as a recruit, whether with a commitment or without one has no idea of those expectations, that's the hard part.

As far as the discussion about the new transfer rule being unfair (as most feel it is), I don't buy into that, or some other rules some think are unfair (no full scholarships), maybe because we have been there and done it and our player survived.

The most important thing is to KNOW there are rules, and as CD suggests, consider these rules when making decisions.

Not sure how all this helps a student maintain some stability in his college experience.
The majority are there to get an education whether it is by design or not.
Students who get cut should be able to transfer without sitting after the year is over. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
I have never met a college freshman yet who didn't think he could compete.

I watched a D1 double header yesterday I saw players who had been cut from teams who showed well in the game.
My friend who graduated from Penn State said his son had been cut by an elite team last year. He hit a HR straight out CF off a D1 pitcher and was the outstanding player in the game.

When you find a way of judging talent at college level other than a crystal ball , then I might buy some of your argument. Who knows what will happen in college ball ? Coaches are out there beating the bush for players to replace your son. Everyone know and accepts that but not being able to take your act on the road after being cut, is crazy
As I have said many times, the turnover on rosters is unbelievable. Maybe you didn't notice because your sons didn't have to deal with it.

At 18, it's very, very, hard to look upon older, more experienced, more physically filled out players, and objectively think about where your skill set fits in. For the truly dominant player that has mounds of national travel ball experience, that may come easier.

Juniors goal was to make the travel squad his freshman year, one of the 25 top players that would travel. It turned out, he was selected to be their opening day starter vs. the #19 ranked team in the country. He never saw that coming until he was actually on the field and working with and competing against the other players.

Every situation is different, but tempering exuberance, and stifling personal doubts, in order to see where you realistically fit into the world, is a very, very tall order for a young man already filled with emotion.

The objective guidance of good baseball people is invaluable, if available.

quote:

Every situation is different, but tempering exuberance, and stifling personal doubts, in order to see where you realistically fit into the world, is a very, very tall order for a young man already filled with emotion.

I can buy that.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Not sure how all this helps a student maintain some stability in his college experience.
The majority are there to get an education whether it is by design or not.
Students who get cut should be able to transfer without sitting after the year is over. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
I have never met a college freshman yet who didn't think he could compete.

I watched a D1 double header yesterday I saw players who had been cut from teams who showed well in the game.
My friend who graduated from Penn State said his son had been cut by an elite team last year. He hit a HR straight out CF off a D1 pitcher and was the outstanding player in the game.

When you find a way of judging talent at college level other than a crystal ball , then I might buy some of your argument. Who knows what will happen in college ball ? Coaches are out there beating the bush for players to replace your son. Everyone know and accepts that but not being able to take your act on the road after being cut, is crazy
As I have said many times, the turnover on rosters is unbelievable. Maybe you didn't notice because your sons didn't have to deal with it.

BHD,
You are right, my son didn't have to deal with it, that was a big factor in his decision. We felt the HC had integrity and son was fortunate to have the opportunity. He was told that as long as he remained eligible he would remain on the roster. My belief is that most coaches don't cut kids, they cut themselves, we just don't always know the true story. I know in son's case, he played for a coach who was old school, hard nosed tough and demanded that you act in a certain way, I think son was more afraid he'd get cut if he was late to practice than if he didn't get the job done. We can't always assume it's because a player didn't get the job done.

Watching is not all about thinking you can or can't compete, there is a lot of things you can learn by observing everyone if the program might be right for you.

FWIW, again, players do not have to sit out if they transfer, only at D1.

The only reason the sit rule was introduced was because of the ridiculous amount of transfers. Before all you had to do was get a release and I was against that. Being cut can happen to some very good ball players and they should be allowed to transfer.

quote:

or some other rules some think are unfair (no full scholarships)

TPM,
Not to shift gears, but this is not a rule! I think evryone has a tendency to look at what happened in their situation and think that's the way things are. While full schoarships are not common I can assure you that they do happen. I would bet that there are parents who post here who have sons that have been offered full rides, real full rides. Problem isn't the people who say they got a full ride, the problem is that those that really get them don't advertise it. Some of those full ride offers never happen once the draft takes place.

Back to rules... I do agree that we all have to live by the rules. Even if those rules can create problems for our kids. Personally I think a scholarship player should stay where he's at and there should be rules that pertain to that. But once a scholarship is taken away, lowered or a player is cut, it seems that no one gets hurt except for that player. To further disallow him to transfer to another DI accomplishes absolutely nothing. He didn't cut himself!

Along another line, I think scholarships should be for four years. If the player does everything to handle his end. That way if a college recruiter makes a mistake, the college pays for that mistake, noy the player. Colleges "sell" kids on their program in order to get them to commit. If things don't work out, who is to blame? The way things are the college just continues on as though they didn't make a mistake. The kid can't go elsewhere and play at the highest level, even if another DI wants him, without sitting out a full year. How can this possibly be right? Just because it's the rule? Rules have changed before, I think this one needs to change.

Years ago, transfers were very common in college baseball. Maybe that is why this rule was put in. All a player needed was a release. Of course, no coach would deny a release to a player he cut. Somewhere in all of this there has to be a better solution. People do make mistakes, even those who run the NCAA.

Regarding NCAA rules, the biggest complainers that I've seen are college coaches. I think they have legitimate complaints about certain things. Just because things are the way they are, doesn't make them right. We need Ron Polk to enter this discussion.

Totally agree PG. We had it great as far as my son was concerned, but I saw wonderful young men strung out to dry even with the old rules. My son is still friends with some of the guys who were cut or left out of frustration . One was drafted out of his new college another became a Marine. The ones who were cut deserve to be allowed to move on. Many of them the coaches would even help them find another college. This rule affects the coach as well in that he knows he is creating a hardship for the players he cuts.

PG,
Good post.

Regarding the full scholarhip, you are right maybe not a rule, but have heard many parents say that baseball should offer full rides to every player. I am not sure I agree with that. I do not agree that scholarships should be written in stone for 4 years either. Are they for other sports?

Perhaps you bring up some good points,a scholarship player transfers because he didn't like the coach, didn't get playing time, or didn't get opportunity or homesick. He's unhappy with his decision, therefore he should be able to transfer to another D1. Another player gets cut or loses his scholarship because he messed up, doesn't follow rules, and should be able to transfer to another D1 and play right away as well? One who easily got his release because another coach didn't want a pothead on his team. He should be allowed to play asap as well?

How about this one, player is drafted, has a nice schollie to a D1, goes to play pro ball, is unhappy, has contract voided but never allowed to play in D1 ball, he made a mistake as many 17 and 18 year olds do. Can never play D1 ball.

What is fair and what is not? I like the sit one year transfer rule, because it eliminates all reasons for playing asap. I know many coaches cut players on whims, and there are those who keep them on the team because of integrity. It also, IMO creates parity and the end to the nonsense that went on in summer leagues. I don't know the answer, only to make sure you are making the choice for what you feel is the right reasons and have a back up.

As far as I know, pretty sure, for all D1 athletics, you cannot transfer and play the first year. Baseball was the only sport where it was allowed, right? And baseball, claimed the NCAA, had more transfers than any other sport. Baseball brings a whole set of circumstances not found in other sports. The NCAA wants to treat baseball same as other D1 sports, the NCAA hates that kids leave to go pro, hated they transfered for better opportunties to get drafted.

I know that the coaches hate the new rules as well, stood with a bunch of D1 guys in Jupiter last year, listening to them about how hard the NCAA and MLB (signing deadline) has made their job. For many of them, they feel they got the shaft, same as many players feel they got it too. I don't see it as one group getting their way.

I think the only winner has been MLB, more D1 kids are signing out of HS, or giving up 4 year schools for JUCO for another shot in a year.

I am just stating my case, do I think all the rules are fair, no way, but where do you decide what is fair and what is not.

Where would be a good place to find the Fall roster of a school we are interested in? Most web sites still have the Spring '09 roster listed.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Where would be a good place to find the Fall roster of a school we are interested in? Most web sites still have the Spring '09 roster listed.

Good question. Many programs do not publish a fall roster so it takes some investigation work on your part. For example, start with last spring's roster, and go back and read all their previous news releases on 2010 signees. You might have to go back into 2008 or 2009 archives to retrieve some of this information. Most schools have an archive folder where you can get roster information from previous years. Almost all schools announce signees or committments and this often occurs over time. Another thing to do is perform a google search such as having terms such as school's name, baseball, committ, sign, etc. Sometimes there will be an announcement from the player's hometown paper or website. Even with dilligent detective work, it still might be difficult to determine everything as some kids may be invited walk-ons and may never have had a major announcement associated with their name. Another source of roster information is from fall world series participants. Many schools will publish blurbs on their fall world series results. If it were me, I would scan just about every article their website has published over the last several years to glean information about comings and goings of players. Many articles such as actual game summaries you can quickly scan over. Others like fall updates or coaches interviews you might want to read the entire article to see who he is talking about and what his thoughts are.

I would also search the hsbbweb archives for the school's name. Many schools have been discussed heavily on this site including their recruiting practices e.g., UGA, ASU, etc.

Shoot a pm to others here who live in your area.

I'm not saying that the rule needs to change completely. It just needs to be fine tuned in order to cover those who are not getting cut on account of being potheads or trouble makers.

Here is another example, one that has happened very recently. A very good player (African American) went to a high level DI school. He had no problem with the baseball and started as a freshman. He was drafted out of high school in an early round, but was very serious about getting an education. He was highly recruited by many national powers. His first year at college was a nightmare. He had basically run into a serious racial issue that was unbearable. This included getting threatening letters. He had trouble sleeping at night, his academics suffered, but he did play baseball.

This kid had to get out of there and he did. He was always a very high level student and a good draft prospect as well. Several schools wanted him, but he went JUCO so that he could continue playing. Sitting out a year was not really a good option for him. Complaining, stating his case and making headlines about his situation wasn't very appealling either. He was stuck and none of it was his fault unless you would consider him being uninformed about certain things.

Things happen! The rules need to be fair. The NCAA does NOT operate on behalf of the students. Try calling the NCAA and asking for information. You have to be a member institution.

Regarding rules! There are NCAA Rules and there are Laws. Sometimes law says that the NCAA has made a mistake! Example... Andrew Oliver.

While this might be a somewhat different subject it still pertains to some of this discussion. Here is an interesting article.

In Support of Andrew Oliver

wow - y'all are good!

Just checked a D1 son had on list - they just brought in 7 jc transfers, and 9 from high school. The pr indicated the jc kids were recruited over the summer. So if a recruit signed in his senior year, he would have no idea about the jc guys coming in months later.

That changes the whole complexion of the recruiting game.

Thanks once again for the insight.

Over recruiting has always been a hot topic around here. Just today we found out one of the top 2011 prospects in Florida just verballed to U of Georgia.

Here's a question... What is the one thing most every school that over recruits have in common?

Yes, there are a few schools that don't over recruit that have that same thing in common.

I believe the Big 10 doesn't allow baseball programs to over recruit. If that is true, what a detriment that would be.

If you think about it, there has to be something very attractive in order to be able to over recruit a large number of talented players.

Also it is those schools who recruit the very best players that stand to lose the most players to the draft. How do we suggest they operate and still stay on top?

Just maybe... Though I doubt it... The NCAA has initiated some of these rules to help eliminate over recruiting. If so... It aint working!

Just something to think about.

quote:

If you think about it, there has to be something very attractive in order to be able to over recruit a large number of talented players.

Indeed. Without mentioning any names, the really attractive thing is the chance to play in Omaha and see yourself play on TV if front of millions of people.

It is like the old joke - Q: Why do Rock Stars marry super models? A: Because they can.

I hope that answers your question PG

Very nice pr on the Cal web site listing 15 recruits. Only 1 jc player. How many do you think will still be there in the spring or Fall '10. All seem to be high caliber students and ball players. Recruit class ranked #24 by Collegiate Baseball. Some quick math shows 15 x 4 = 60 players. I agree that several years are needed to make a trend.

CD,

LOL, Your answer is crystal clear!

Patriot,

It is very common at the largest schools in the top baseball conferences that the freshman class is the largest, followed by the soph then Jr class. The senior class is almost always the smallest. In some cases there might be very few Seniors on a roster.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Recruit class ranked #24 by Collegiate Baseball. Some quick math shows 15 x 4 = 60 players.

I don't know one serious college baseball person, (coach, scout, fan), that puts one iota of credibility into the Collegiate Baseball Recruiting Class Poll.

In their poll, the more recruits you have, the higher your recruiting class will be rated. Last year, they rated the Oregon recruiting class very high (top 10 I believe), in Oregons inaugural baseball season...they had 35 recruits.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Recruit class ranked #24 by Collegiate Baseball. Some quick math shows 15 x 4 = 60 players.

I don't know one serious college baseball person, (coach, scout, fan), that puts one iota of credibility into the Collegiate Baseball Recruiting Class Poll.

CPLZ - you are such a killjoy

I'll bet you every school who showed up on that list is currently bragging about it on their website and thus I think it is important as it sends a message to future recruits. What say you?

The bottom line in all of this is the players attitude, not the parents. If the player believes he can make the team then go for it. Most players with scholarships do not get cut.

As in life you have to believe in yourself !!!!

CPLZ

You need a month in warm weather catching panfish!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Recruit class ranked #24 by Collegiate Baseball. Some quick math shows 15 x 4 = 60 players.

I don't know one serious college baseball person, (coach, scout, fan), that puts one iota of credibility into the Collegiate Baseball Recruiting Class Poll.

CPLZ - you are such a killjoy

I'll bet you every school who showed up on that list is currently bragging about it on their website and thus I think it is important as it sends a message to future recruits. What say you?

It's just good marketing. It doesn't matter that the village idiot thinks I'm the man...dang it, I'm the Man and everyone should know that!

as an aside thought (help, I'm thinking and I can't stop)...

Good recruiting classes seem to create a rhythmic cycle in recruiting. Army is a great example of that...they had a stellar recruiting class that graduated in 2007. Two draft picks in the top 10 rounds (which isn't bad for a "mid-major") and one may very well be MLB next year. The success of that class led to the great recruiting class of 2011 graduates. The success this class had last year has created several top commits for the 2014 class.

For some top programs, the key is to over recruit and have fall tryouts. Even after the great signing class, as was mentioned earlier, they'll go out in the summer and sign stud JC transfers.

Not all top programs do things the same way, but you need to understand who does what, and with the transfer rules as restrictive as they are now, over time, I would guess that the landscape regarding walk on hopefuls may change quite drastically.

PG,
I understand that sometimes things happen and in the case you cited, the player had a good plan. The point you made about the player not complaining was a good one too. Shame for him, but for me another example of how careful you have to be in considering where you will go.

I also understand why players want to play at the highest level, but if you are good, they will come watch you play no matter where you transfer. The object is to play as much as you can whereever you can, if you want to go to the next level. If it's only about education, it doesn't have to be at a D1 school, does it?

I do beleive that the ACC frowned upon large roster numbers.

Not all successful programs have large fall rosters or over recruit. Some coaches are better recruiters than others, and I agree with the chance of losing players to the draft, you have to be able to figure out the numbers, that is why many coaches expect their drafted current players to leave, to make room for the new guys. Using UGA as an example was not a good one, he definetly over recruited last year and made a lot of kids entering who committed very unhappy. What did he have, 23 recruits listed before they entered.

Top prospects (the A recruit) will always get the opportunity, it's the B and C recruits who get hurt. Why can't coaches be up front, tell them like it is, give them an opportunity to make a decision, will I be a back up guy at this school or a starter at another. Or do some present the option, and the player only sees himself on ESPN in Omaha? We got two things going on here, I think all have to look deep inside and decide what is best for them.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Recruit class ranked #24 by Collegiate Baseball. Some quick math shows 15 x 4 = 60 players.

I don't know one serious college baseball person, (coach, scout, fan), that puts one iota of credibility into the Collegiate Baseball Recruiting Class Poll.

CPLZ - you are such a killjoy

I'll bet you every school who showed up on that list is currently bragging about it on their website and thus I think it is important as it sends a message to future recruits. What say you?

It's just good marketing. It doesn't matter that the village idiot thinks I'm the man...dang it, I'm the Man and everyone should know that!

as an aside thought (help, I'm thinking and I can't stop)...

Good recruiting classes seem to create a rhythmic cycle in recruiting. Army is a great example of that...they had a stellar recruiting class that graduated in 2007. Two draft picks in the top 10 rounds (which isn't bad for a "mid-major") and one may very well be MLB next year. The success of that class led to the great recruiting class of 2011 graduates. The success this class had last year has created several top commits for the 2014 class.

For some top programs, the key is to over recruit and have fall tryouts. Even after the great signing class, as was mentioned earlier, they'll go out in the summer and sign stud JC transfers.

Not all top programs do things the same way, but you need to understand who does what, and with the transfer rules as restrictive as they are now, over time, I would guess that the landscape regarding walk on hopefuls may change quite drastically.

Excellent post. I have already nominated this thread for Golden btw. I agree with TR - quit eating so many of those Lake Michigan walleyes and get down south for some pan fish

Lets talk about Army. I hope no one is under the impression that Army is just recruiting one guy at each position and letting it go at that. I am sure they are recruiting 2-4 guys at each position and telling each of them they have a "chance to compete" for a starting position. I am positive those those 2-4 guys were all excellent players in high school and all share similar dreams/aspirations. Basically, only one of them gets to play at each position however not including pitchers where obviously several guys get a chance. Every position in college is over-recruited with excellent players. That is the reality check imho.

The purpose of threads like this is to make people aware. You know "Are they Prepared ?
Personally I think it is way too difficult to get a true read on a college. The best you can do is try to understand what you may face.
You do have to compete where ever you go. There is risk that things won't go well regardless of what you do and what you research. College ball is a moving target with an ever evolving landscape.

Hello. This seems to be an interesting topic.

As a new parent I can see this is something very important to look out for in the recruiting process.

Can anybody give like 2 o 3 key indicators to look out for that would help identify a coach / school as an over recruiting "practitioner"?

My son is interested in UT Arlington, UT Tyler, UT Dallas, Tyler JC and Loyola (New Orleans). Does anybody have any comments on these school's reputations for over recruiting (or not).

Thanks!!

quote:

Originally posted by New2This:
Hello. This seems to be an interesting topic.

As a new parent I can see this is something very important to look out for in the recruiting process.

Can anybody give like 2 o 3 key indicators to look out for that would help identify a coach / school as an over recruiting "practitioner"?

My son is interested in UT Arlington, UT Tyler, UT Dallas, Tyler JC and Loyola (New Orleans). Does anybody have any comments on these school's reputations for over recruiting (or not).

Thanks!!

Welcome to the hsbbweb! You'll have to clue us in about your exotic location - are you in the oil & gas industry by any chance?

I think if every coach had his druthers, they would like to recruit three all-american players at each position and then let athletic darwinism decide who plays. It is never that clear or simple however. Some programs like Arizona State or Georgia basically can recruit all-americans at each position because of their reputations and the allure of almost a guaranteed shot at playing for a national championship.

One does not have to play at one of those to have a 100% satisfying college experience however.

With respect to the schools you mention specifically, I think you can find out what you need by doing the roster analysis over the last few years, determine approximately how many competed in the fall, and how many are left from that number in the spring. We have some members whose sons matriculate at some of those schools listed like Danny Boydston so perhaps he will chime in on this thread.

As mentioned above, all schools are going to recruit more than they need for each position and then conduct a dog-fight to determine things. Playing in college is not for the faint of heart. For those that manage to overcome the competition however, it is a very rewarding experience.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
The bottom line in all of this is the players attitude, not the parents. If the player believes he can make the team then go for it. Most players with scholarships do not get cut.

As in life you have to believe in yourself !!!!

I agree, most players with scholarships seldom get cut.

I am going to also assume, that most of the programs with large fall rosters are because the coach has asked more than needed to walk on, and will not be on the roster come spring, one of the perils of taking that route.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Welcome to the hsbbweb! You'll have to clue us in about your exotic location - are you in the oil & gas industry by any chance?

With respect to the schools you mention specifically, I think you can find out what you need by doing the roster analysis over the last few years, determine approximately how many competed in the fall, and how many are left from that number in the spring. We have some members whose sons matriculate at some of those schools listed like Danny Boydston so perhaps he will chime in on this thread.

Thanks ClevelandDad!

Thats a very helpful point about the rosters. The location is nice, sunny all the time and great for baseball all year. No, I'm not directly in O&G but in a way indirectly related.

Another thread nominated for "Golden" status by my friend ClevelandDad, and I agree wholeheartedly!

Thanks to all for such thoughtful, informed, and thought-provoking posts. You are all Golden!



Julie

Thanks Julie!

It seems to me that roster reading is a good skill to have There have been some great posts in this thread!

You should know what to look for. Compare fall and spring rosters and also look at stats to see who didn't get off the bench. Also if you are a position player check who is in front of you. However even after all of the checking it means very little as the rosters change drastically over the summer and fall.
I would spend more time improving my game and leave the roster checking to Mom and Dad. Keeps them off the streets and out of trouble.

This is a most interesting discussion. This particular comment by CD prompted me to join the fray.

quote:

Lets talk about Army. I hope no one is under the impression that Army is just recruiting one guy at each position and letting it go at that. I am sure they are recruiting 2-4 guys at each position and telling each of them they have a "chance to compete" for a starting position. I am positive those those 2-4 guys were all excellent players in high school and all share similar dreams/aspirations.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force programs have a couple big "advantages". First, as we were told during the recruiting process, "all of our players are on a full ride". Second, even if those coaches opt to hedge their bets and over-recruit at some positions, any and all players cut still have a full ride scholly, and that scholly is for 4 years.

CLEARLY, there are some strings attached to that four year full ride. For many, maybe even most, the restrictions of those strings is sufficient to rule out playing for a service academy. (So maybe it's not that big of an advantage

For us, it was & is reassuring to know if our son decides his playing days are over, the schooling is still paid for. If he decides to leave prior to his third year, and still wants to play, his intention is to continue at a DII program.

DadRinTX - more good points. Just to clarify, the quoted material was from my post that was further commenting on CPLZ's post.

Regardless, I would like to clarify some more points about roster sizes. I think some people get caught up in the raw numbers some times. Just because some school brings in lots of players to compete at a given position does not necessarily affect playing time unless one of them happens to turn out better than the player who is trying to determine a fit. On the other hand, if a player finds himself behind one all-american type player, that could be devastating for years to come with respect to playing time as I noted above with respect to the OSU football player.

Clearly, it is important to see how many kids are being brought in but it also is important to analyze who is there presently and/or who might be coming in to replace them. Not all this information will be clear especially before early signing. However, if someone is dilligent and performs google searches on a regular basis, you might be able to catch someone else's verbal announcement before making a committment yourself.

There are no risk-free decisions however. Like TR said above, at the end of the day a player has to have confidence in their ability to compete and overcome things.

When talking with coaches, there are questions you can ask to help find out what kind of program you're dealing with.

At one school Junior was being recruited at, we asked what happened if Junior sustained a career ending injury. The coach gave us the phone # of a senior. He was a kid that got hurt in fall practices his freshman year and never played an inning. He was still on the same scholarship he had signed as an incoming freshman.

At Juniors school now, the coach is very proud to tell you that he's never cut a recruited player.

So not all programs operate the same or have the same philosophies. It's your job as a parent to ask tough questions...they're a lot easier to deal with than tough situations later.

The academies also have a disadvantage in that the player's need to be committed to a military career after they complete their schooling. There's no such thing as a free lunch/ride. Thanks to those who are willing to make the commitment.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
At one school Junior was being recruited at, we asked what happened if Junior sustained a career ending injury. The coach gave us the phone # of a senior. He was a kid that got hurt in fall practices his freshman year and never played an inning. He was still on the same scholarship he had signed as an incoming freshman.

At Juniors school now, the coach is very proud to tell you that he's never cut a recruited player.

So not all programs operate the same or have the same philosophies. It's your job as a parent to ask tough questions...they're a lot easier to deal with than tough situations later.

I agree, ask those questions. I have heard the same thing, a player gets hurt and never able to play at full capacity and never had his scholarship taken away but remained on the roster, that's the moral part I am talking about.

A lot of this has to do with how a coach perceives a player as well. If they find someone they think is not adding to team chemistry or out for himself, they might cut the scholarship, but if not, will make life uncomfortable, by telling you straight up front, they don't see you get a lot of playing time.

This is why I stated previously, we don't always know the real reason a player is cut.

My son's freshman roommate was a non medical RS during his soph year. He got very little playing time in his freshman year. He was a very good player from a large Texas HS caught up in the numbers game.
I took some time and tracked him down today. I found him at a very good D111 NCAA college in Texas and he was one of the top players. The real issue is very good players get cut, sidelined for various reasons. One coach sees a player one way and another , another way.
One pitcher was cut or squeezed out and went to a D11. He was 13-0 and drafted. In low A he had a 1.43 era after 42 innings with a 4-2 record. He was cut at A ball after 3 innings. BB is a tough business.
You can read rosters all you like but when you are at the college it is all about competing. You have no idea where you stand with regards to other players there, recruited or to be recruited. You have no idea how you will be perceived by a coach.
Yes there are studs who would stand out and be reasonably sure of a starting role on a team but most guys have to put everything on the table to make the cut. I saw a huge turnover of players that were doing well. The starting catcher was leaving until he found out the new coaches were coming. My son was the first player of 1st 6 at the exit meetings that said he was coming back for his SR. year. The coach was let go not long after . Things go on behind the scenes that parents and players have no idea about. My son would tell me things that I was surprised went on. Just like real life it isn't just about BB.

BHD,
It was an unfortunate situation your son may have been in to cause so many turnovers, but I am not sure that is always the case.
I think that most players know exactly where they stand and it's not hard to figure out what the coach wants, the best players play. But some of the best players don't get to play right away, there is a right of passage at some programs.

My son started and ended with all of the players who came as freshman when he did, a few 2004 HS grad JUCO transfers came in to replace older drafted players that decided to sign, no one was ever cut. If you left it was on your own. I don't know about other programs, but it seemed to me, in the conference he played he faced the same core of players from other teams, year after year.

I don't want parents of future college players to stay awake at night trying to figure this all out, for most players it works out, most scholarship players do not get cut at most programs.

My son is a pitcher so we didn't have to watch numbers, and position players shouldn't always have to either, many coaches recruit players based on ability and many position guys do not always end up where they began or what they came in for or where you played in HS, that is why being versatile for position guys is important and being able to be a consisitant hitter. If you stick to one position, and you can't adapt to others, there is a reason you will sit. The exception may be catchers.

I would however recommend noting if the core of a team changes from year to year and a player deciding to walk on should always pay attention to fall roster numbers.

My son's situation was fine. It was very unsettling to watch players who were good ball players leave or get cut. Several of their parents used to post here.
I see good players every year come home to play at local colleges because they were disillusioned after a year or two.
You are right, parents shouldn't stay up and worry about this. That is my point. Understand that things happen and make sure your player is ready to compete when he gets a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by CaBB:
What would you call this? Over-recruiting?? Posted on a D1 CA college website: 18 new recruits welcomed on campus. Looking at their 2010 roster which already has 27 listed players (in addition to the new players)

Obviously the new recruits know they'll be competing for roster spots but I'm amazed kids are willing to stay at an expensive private school if they don't make the team. I think this should be a red flag for future recruits.

I have heard that the D1 CA expensive private college has already started to cut players including previous returners that are on scholarship or are paying full tuition.

As I see it, those returners have to sit out this year and possibly next year if they want to go to a DI school to play!

Sounds fair to me.......

.
While I too am very concerned with the way that things are evolving at DI...a revolvng door with huge turnover of upperclassmen each june (baseball $ taken)and huge freshmen/recruited walkon recruiting classes seem to be the norm...

But I believe that if you cut a player with baseball $ in the fall, that he by rule has to stay on the roster in the spring. I suppose it is possible to cut a baseball $ player in the fall, still pay his money and effectively reduce the roster size by 1.

Anybody?

44
.

OB$$,
According to my understanding, you cannot cut a player in the fall and award his money to someone else, so I am wondering how much is true of what is actually heard. If a coach wanted to cut or reduce scholarships, he has to do it before semester begins?
But you bring up a good point, you can cut it down and not give it to anyone, and make room on a roster to be in compliance by the spring (as far as roster size).

Cut a BB money guy in the fall and you lose a roster spot. They still have to honor the scholarship until the end of the year.
They can cut them after the exit meeting with no problems but the player will have to find a new college to play at. He will have to sit if he does to an NCAA school.

quote:

But you bring up a good point, you can cut it down and not give it to anyone, and make room on a roster to be in compliance by the spring (as far as roster size).

The roster spot is deemed to be taken so it doesn't open up a spot. If the BB money guy is cut his spot on the roster isn't open nor can it be used to get to 35. It limits the roster to 34.

I think BHD is correct that way this prevents coaches from cutting to make room for others, in the fall for the spring.
So if this is to be the case, why would a coach cut a scholarship player and lose someone he might need?

My understanding without, creative accounting, a scholarship cannot be redistributed unless the player leaves the school and his roster spot cannot be filled for the academic year.

You would think that with the transfer, scholarship, and roster size rules, there would be much less transfers and over recruiting, but since it is so program oriented, programs are still brining in a high amount of walk-ons just to shed them during the fall since it does not affect their APR. One long time coach who is now retired, he said he did not like the 35 man roster because he could not have fall scrimmages without more than 35 players.

Even top players are having their monies reduced or taken away going into their junior and senior years to cover the dollars promised to other players, since the player does not have strong options without having to sit out a year or going to another division they pretty much have to go with what the coach says.

Were is 3FG when you need him!

And you are right, many programs do bring in more players than needed for scrimmages and to make things more competitive.

I don't really get that though, this means coaches have less time to spend working with those that will reamin in the program, unless they just don't work with them. I know of some programs that bring in more than they should (walk ons) and tell them they will never make the spring roster and it's a cceptable by many because they had no intention of going anywere else to school to play anyway.

Walking onto a program for the first time always presents the problem that you can be cut in the fall.