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.