j2h6, you make a very good point that I did not consider when I wrote my first post.
I'd further suggest that "ncaa provision" would be to hand out penalties and take away scholarshipsquote:by H-RL: what that tells me is that a coaching staff (or two) is/are going to struggle to get this right...especially during the next 2-3 years. I would assume that the NCAA has a provision for those who accidentally get some of this wrong and over-commit or make grave errors.
1) that would'a been a valid view before rules changed, as formerly teams didn't have to be at 11.7 til Feb - now it's 11.7 the first day of classquote:by j2h6: remember, almost every D1 school will be losing a couple if not several players to the MLB Draft, this will open many slots for several of those talented baseball players still out there looking for a new home ... most of these players that will go in the draft were offered significant schollie dollars that will then be opened up once they sign and go pro. Further, in some cases I'm sure schools have accounted for this and signed extra players, fully expecting for this to happen but in other cases I'm sure there are plenty who have not.
a) before, it allowed to coaches to adjust during the fall for his unexpected arrivals
(trim by transfers out to JCs, etc) ... ie: a program could be way over the 11.7 during fall and still comply by Feb
b) guys going pro often don't sign immediatly and that leaves their "replacements" on the college roster "unsigned and in no mans land" til the last minute
I was typing when OS8 posted and do agree with him and would suggest that most programs who are "oversigning recruiting classes" NOW are walking on thin ice and their recruiting WILL be hurt big-time very soon by the the brutal way they will deal with their excess
1) presumably they MUST honor NLIs if the player shows up at school
(that is "spent money" and is not available til following fall even if the player transfers/quits after 2 weeks) -
that means they MUST cut upperclassmen ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
2) their APR & Grad Rate drops from the upperclass cuts and ncaa soon will cut their scholarship #s ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
3) slashing upperclassmen show no loyalty to the players ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
4) progams in "turmoil" don't win .. unhappy alum put their check-books away
5) unhappy alum keep an idling moving-van w/driver near coaches driveway w/trailer doors open - - w/enough fuel for a cross country haul
1) presumably they MUST honor NLIs if the player shows up at school
(that is "spent money" and is not available til following fall even if the player transfers/quits after 2 weeks) -
that means they MUST cut upperclassmen ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
2) their APR & Grad Rate drops from the upperclass cuts and ncaa soon will cut their scholarship #s ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
3) slashing upperclassmen show no loyalty to the players ... future recruits/parents won't see that as a favorable situation
4) progams in "turmoil" don't win .. unhappy alum put their check-books away
5) unhappy alum keep an idling moving-van w/driver near coaches driveway w/trailer doors open - - w/enough fuel for a cross country haul
BEE............my guess would be that certain programs will retained Seniors who have little draft chance as non-counters not expected to contribute much. There are coaches out there who can win as well as give due respect to players who have been positive influences to the program.
Then there will be others who will release them and keep a stable of arms in those slots for development, regardless of APR implications.
Then there will be others who will release them and keep a stable of arms in those slots for development, regardless of APR implications.
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
BEE............my guess would be that certain programs will retained Seniors who have little draft chance as non-counters not expected to contribute much. There are coaches out there who can win as well as give due respect to players who have been positive influences to the program.
Then there will be others who will release them and keep a stable of arms in those slots for development, regardless of APR implications.
The draft has nothing to do with the equation UNLESS the player never returns to graduate.
TPM............I will do an NCAA sweep of the APR again. I believe a new measuring stick starts with the 07-08 season regarding the expiration of roster adjustments that had an exemption for drafted juniors.
hmmm, allowing them to remain on the team BUT cut all their athletic aid??quote:by OS: There are coaches out there who can win as well as give due respect to players who have been positive influences to the program.
some might not see that as giving "due respect"
we are talking xxl recruiting classes & they don't at all fit your scenario
scholarships for existing players are renewed/confirmed in writing in July - if the existing player then attends a class he is still a counter and that money is gone (or will they grab him leaving his dorm?)
your scenario presumes the coach not renewing a bunch of upperclassmen during the summer on "a guess" ... AND that still would "push off the team" all existing walk-ons (what you called developing players) at any class level
it also presumes that the player whose money is "taken away/not renewed" loses his appeal with the university (appeal is guaranteed upon request) ...
btw, the appeals board are NOT from w/in the athletic department ...
they are from the "academic" side of the college not at all sympathetic to taking away aid from a student pulling his "academic weight"
any way ya look at it, xxl classes are a train wreck waiting to happen .. for players & coaches
from 2006:
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room...0060301_apr_rls.html
To ensure fairness, the NCAA is providing a statistical adjustment based on team size during the first three years of APR reporting, to more accurately gauge teams’ long-range academic prospects. These squad-size adjustments, similar to margins of error used in polling, will be eliminated for data released in the 2007-08 academic year.
"Teams that use the squad-size adjustment to escape penalty rather than improve their academic practices right away might find the ‘pay me later’ syndrome hard to accept,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice-president for membership services. “As more years of APR data become available, teams will find rates harder to change.”
The data show that the average APR for all Division I student-athletes is 955; the average for male student-athletes is 943, while the average for female student-athletes is 969. In the sports with the most penalties, the average APR for football is 929; the average for baseball is 931; and the average for men’s basketball is 927.
Under the academic reform plan, the NCAA allows for adjustments to the APR based on whether a student-athlete leaves in good academic standing to play professional sports or for other reasons beyond an institution’s control. “As more years of APR data become available, teams will find rates harder to change.” Teams can also earn bonus points if a student-athlete returns after leaving school and completes his or her degree. In addition, the NCAA grants waivers of the scholarship penalties in limited situations based on institutional mission or other extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room...0060301_apr_rls.html
To ensure fairness, the NCAA is providing a statistical adjustment based on team size during the first three years of APR reporting, to more accurately gauge teams’ long-range academic prospects. These squad-size adjustments, similar to margins of error used in polling, will be eliminated for data released in the 2007-08 academic year.
"Teams that use the squad-size adjustment to escape penalty rather than improve their academic practices right away might find the ‘pay me later’ syndrome hard to accept,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice-president for membership services. “As more years of APR data become available, teams will find rates harder to change.”
The data show that the average APR for all Division I student-athletes is 955; the average for male student-athletes is 943, while the average for female student-athletes is 969. In the sports with the most penalties, the average APR for football is 929; the average for baseball is 931; and the average for men’s basketball is 927.
Under the academic reform plan, the NCAA allows for adjustments to the APR based on whether a student-athlete leaves in good academic standing to play professional sports or for other reasons beyond an institution’s control. “As more years of APR data become available, teams will find rates harder to change.” Teams can also earn bonus points if a student-athlete returns after leaving school and completes his or her degree. In addition, the NCAA grants waivers of the scholarship penalties in limited situations based on institutional mission or other extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:quote:Originally posted by Infield08:quote:Is it possible that those press releases are incorrect and some of those players "signed" some other kind of agreement
If that's the case, UGA is breaking NCAA rules.
Why are they breaking rules? According to the rules, they could have signed 30 NLI's. Players currently on scholarship are not guaranteed their scholarship next year.
NLI's signed in November of 2007 constitute baseball money, 25%, and each recipient is a counter the day they enter class in August of 2008, and remain a counter for the 2008-09 Championship Season whether they play or not.
15.3.4.3 Reduction or Cancellation Not Permitted. Institutional financial aid based in any degree on
athletics ability may not be increased, decreased or canceled during the period of its award: (Adopted: 1/16/93;
Revised: 1/11/94)
(a) On the basis of a student-athlete’s athletics ability, performance or contribution to a team’s success;
(b) Because of an injury that prevents the recipient from participating in athletics; or
(c) For any other athletics reason.
15.3.4.3.1 Athletically Related Condition Prohibition. An institution may not set forth an athletically
related condition (e.g., financial aid contingent upon specified performance or playing a specific
position) that would permit the institution to reduce or cancel the student-athlete’s financial aid during the
period of the award if the conditions are not satisfied. (Adopted: 1/16/93; Revised: 1/11/94)
OS8,
Although current NLI's represent 08/09 baseball money, no one on the current roster has a commitment for 08/09 baseball money, only 07/08 baseball money, because as you well know, scholarships are not automatically renewable. Therefore, a team could have the maximum number of roster spots signed to NLI's and not be in violation.
We have a few threads going on with all the same things being said.
As far as I know teams that lost players due to draft were never penalized if they returned to finish their degree within the time frame.
Arizona State being on the list is a perfect example of how schools that over recruit and cut often fell below academic standards yet frequently made championship competition. If you want to blame anyone for the rules for academic reform, blame those type of schools.
As far as I know teams that lost players due to draft were never penalized if they returned to finish their degree within the time frame.
Arizona State being on the list is a perfect example of how schools that over recruit and cut often fell below academic standards yet frequently made championship competition. If you want to blame anyone for the rules for academic reform, blame those type of schools.
Not looking for a debate. 
How do drafted Juniors who leave school affect the APR now that roster adjustments have ran their course?
Future bonus points awarded to returnees lead one to believe they always had an adverse initial affect on APR.
Retaining seniors who may not be big contributors is a plus to the APR to get the grad score.
If any research was done, I would bet these seniors were cut by stockpilers in the past causing them APR woes, and now the real equation takes effect.
How do drafted Juniors who leave school affect the APR now that roster adjustments have ran their course?
Future bonus points awarded to returnees lead one to believe they always had an adverse initial affect on APR.
Retaining seniors who may not be big contributors is a plus to the APR to get the grad score.
If any research was done, I would bet these seniors were cut by stockpilers in the past causing them APR woes, and now the real equation takes effect.
If a coach does decide to reduce/ eliminate upperclassmen money. what choice does the player have but to except it. If he tries to transfer and sits out a year that could be the end of his playing days. I think the coach has the upper hand
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
Not looking for a debate.
How do drafted Juniors who leave school affect the APR now that roster adjustments have ran their course?
Future bonus points awarded to returnees lead one to believe they always had an adverse initial affect on APR.
How many players leaving school for the draft (even after eligibility) actually return to receive their degrees at that school, especially those with more than one year to finish or 30 credits? If you have not received enough money from the drafting team, how are you going to afford that private school of 40K a year if MLB only gave you 20K? Are you going to take out a loan or go to the less expensive state school if they offer the same degree and you would not lose too many credits? Remember that the MLB scholarship plan is negotiable for most. My son's teammate as a junior who was not recieving a big sum for signing, turned down a team because they would not give him enough to return to Clemson to finish his degree. You will find this often with some players.
If the draft affected Clemson adversely they would have had a really bad APR, most who are drafted are done so as juniors, and they have quite a few (more than average) drafted per year.
quote:Originally posted by great white:
If a coach does decide to reduce/ eliminate upperclassmen money. what choice does the player have but to except it. If he tries to transfer and sits out a year that could be the end of his playing days. I think the coach has the upper hand
I know many players that have gotten their scholarships reduced come senior year but not asked to leave. I just heard recently where an AD of one school told coaches no more redshirts unless medical, they don't want to give 5th year seniors any more money. I think you will see a huge decline in redshirt players in programs where it was very common. Where you might have had a year to grow on the bench, no longer, your 25% money is needed in 4 years.
Good idea to work hard in the classroom so your bb money can be converted to academic money. It might be that or nothing. JMO.
quote:How many players leaving school for the draft (even after eligibility) actually return to receive their degrees at that school, especially those with more than one year to finish or 30 credits?
I heard recently this number is less than 10%
I found the TEXT:
The board unanimously accepted all of the recommendations from CAP, which include modifications in a team’s APR score for situations beyond the control of either the student-athlete or their college or university.
These types of situations, according to Harrison, include if an institution drops a student-athlete’s major or drops a specific sport or if a student-athlete is drafted by a professional league.
In these cases, a student-athlete’s APR calculation would be adjusted as 1-for-1 instead of 1-for-2. The APR, the metric by which a team's academic progress is judged, awards academically eligible student-athletes two points per term (one for academic eligibility and one for staying in school).
Student-athletes who are drafted for professional sports would not lose the retention point if they complete their current semester in good academic standing.
The directive also outlines examples of situations the CAP (and the Board) believes clearly are within the student-athlete's or institution's control and thus would not warrant consideration for an adjustment.
They include departures due to lack of playing time, defections that occur after a coaching change, suspensions for academic reasons and/or disciplinary problems, or departures due to a team being subject to sanctions or academic-reform penalties. Student-athletes who leave the institution because their athletically related financial aid was not renewed also would not be considered as meriting an APR adjustment. It also includes student-athletes who transfer for reasons not included in the previously stated cases.
Among other CAP recommendations the Board approved was an APR adjustment that rewards institutions for student-athletes who return to complete their degrees after having left school. Such graduates would earn the institution a "1-for-0" bonus point in the APR calculation for that particular team.
The bonus restores the retention point lost when the student-athlete left the institution; however, if the student-athlete had been awarded the 1-for-1 adjustment noted above, the institution would in effect gain an additional bonus. The point would be added in the term in which the student-athlete graduated.
The Board also approved guidelines that include consideration of an institution's mission when determining waivers for contemporaneous, or immediate, penalties, such as the loss of a scholarship.
**** That requirement of current semester is a nice deterrent for the athlete that tanks the semester to go pro early........NBA anyone??
**** The non renewal of financial aid....cuts seem to be the heart of the changes. Call it the stockpilers clause??
The board unanimously accepted all of the recommendations from CAP, which include modifications in a team’s APR score for situations beyond the control of either the student-athlete or their college or university.
These types of situations, according to Harrison, include if an institution drops a student-athlete’s major or drops a specific sport or if a student-athlete is drafted by a professional league.
In these cases, a student-athlete’s APR calculation would be adjusted as 1-for-1 instead of 1-for-2. The APR, the metric by which a team's academic progress is judged, awards academically eligible student-athletes two points per term (one for academic eligibility and one for staying in school).
Student-athletes who are drafted for professional sports would not lose the retention point if they complete their current semester in good academic standing.
The directive also outlines examples of situations the CAP (and the Board) believes clearly are within the student-athlete's or institution's control and thus would not warrant consideration for an adjustment.
They include departures due to lack of playing time, defections that occur after a coaching change, suspensions for academic reasons and/or disciplinary problems, or departures due to a team being subject to sanctions or academic-reform penalties. Student-athletes who leave the institution because their athletically related financial aid was not renewed also would not be considered as meriting an APR adjustment. It also includes student-athletes who transfer for reasons not included in the previously stated cases.
Among other CAP recommendations the Board approved was an APR adjustment that rewards institutions for student-athletes who return to complete their degrees after having left school. Such graduates would earn the institution a "1-for-0" bonus point in the APR calculation for that particular team.
The bonus restores the retention point lost when the student-athlete left the institution; however, if the student-athlete had been awarded the 1-for-1 adjustment noted above, the institution would in effect gain an additional bonus. The point would be added in the term in which the student-athlete graduated.
The Board also approved guidelines that include consideration of an institution's mission when determining waivers for contemporaneous, or immediate, penalties, such as the loss of a scholarship.
**** That requirement of current semester is a nice deterrent for the athlete that tanks the semester to go pro early........NBA anyone??
**** The non renewal of financial aid....cuts seem to be the heart of the changes. Call it the stockpilers clause??
I wonder if this might change the mind of some drafted juniors. Instead of returning to school for their final year, they might decide to sign. This is likely more for the mid to lower rounds draftees. If they get some additional school money in their signing bonus.
quote:Originally posted by great white:
I wonder if this might change the mind of some drafted juniors. Instead of returning to school for their final year, they might decide to sign. This is likely more for the mid to lower rounds draftees. If they get some additional school money in their signing bonus.
How many of these kids who would be non-contributing seniors be on draft radars??
Whatever happens with any prospect is up to the prospect
What scares me is the term "I heard" ----what validity is involved there
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
What scares me is the term "I heard" ----what validity is involved there
you would have to figure it's less than 10% because of all the extraneous circumstances involved in a kid leaving for pro's and money involved in returning and finishing. Can't be too common. One might say that that student is returning to graduate and in-turn, helping out their new alma-matter at the same time. Kind of a "win one for the gipper"....help their university/coach.
Wow! Checking on a friend of son that's @ New Mexico State this year. 58 on the 2008 Roster, inc 13 seniors and 30 juniors. These numbers are approximate as it's hard to count that high on the computer screen. So, what's going on there with the roster size? Could this possibly be correct? They have 17 NLI signees for next year, with 11 of those from the JC ranks.
Ga signed 20 freshman and today they have 6 listed on the roster. what happened to the other14
What they signed in the fall has nothing to do with Spring 2008 roster
Those signees wont be there until the 2009 season
Those signees wont be there until the 2009 season
quote:Originally posted by CaBB:
Wow! Checking on a friend of son that's @ New Mexico State this year. 58 on the 2008 Roster, inc 13 seniors and 30 juniors. These numbers are approximate as it's hard to count that high on the computer screen. So, what's going on there with the roster size? Could this possibly be correct? They have 17 NLI signees for next year, with 11 of those from the JC ranks.
You are only allowed 35, starting in about a week. If that was the fall roster, this is an example of what the NCAA is trying to stop with roster maximums, and scholarship minimums.
Lost of coaches just take on walk ons for the fall, for practice. Some coaches will even do it so their recruited players will work harder in the fall thinking they might lose out. I can't say whether that is right or wrong, every coach has his own way of doing things. It just stinks when you give some the impression they have a chance when they really don't.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
You are only allowed 35, starting in about a week.
plus one year.....
.......Fall of 08 for 27 of them
35 max roster limit is for season only, not fall beginning this 08 season, not sure of your point.
you are off one season
The max 27 counters have to be identified when awards letter signed.......August 2008
The 35 are for February 2009
Your post indicated "one week"
Off a season!!
The max 27 counters have to be identified when awards letter signed.......August 2008
The 35 are for February 2009
Your post indicated "one week"
Off a season!!
The roster size for the spring of 09 is 35. The NCAA did nothing to stop over recruiting in the fall of 08. The only limit is for counters that get BB money but walk ons are wide open both recruited and not recruited.
Ok guy's, I'm a little confused.
Is it Spring 2009 that teams have to be down to 35 on their rosters, or is it Spring 2008 (by this weekend) that it is mandatory per new NCAA rules this has to be done.
From the way I'm reading it from OLDSLUGGER8 and BobbleheadDoll it sounds like 09.
But then I found this quote:
"I do believe the 35 man roster is effective the first day of what the NCAA refers to as, "The Championship Session", that being the first day of spring baseball, Feb 22 in 2008".
Is it Spring 2009 that teams have to be down to 35 on their rosters, or is it Spring 2008 (by this weekend) that it is mandatory per new NCAA rules this has to be done.
From the way I'm reading it from OLDSLUGGER8 and BobbleheadDoll it sounds like 09.
But then I found this quote:
"I do believe the 35 man roster is effective the first day of what the NCAA refers to as, "The Championship Session", that being the first day of spring baseball, Feb 22 in 2008".
The rules take effect in 08 but the roster is for the championship (spring) roster which is 09. The counters are in effect fall 08 so guys getting scholarships are limited to 27 fall of 08. Walk ons are not counters so the fall roster can be larger than 35 but must be trimmed to 35 for the 09 spring roster. All fall roster guys must be reported to the NCAA but only the couters are deemed to be on the spring roster. 27 is the max for 08 counters.
You will see many teams have more than 35 on their current roster for 08 spring. I believe UNLV has 37-38 rostered this spring which was a typical roster size ecept for a few who had 40+ before.
I think that some people are thinking that the 09 spring roster size would prompt all coaches to not recruit so many players but there is nothing so far to stop them.
You will see many teams have more than 35 on their current roster for 08 spring. I believe UNLV has 37-38 rostered this spring which was a typical roster size ecept for a few who had 40+ before.
I think that some people are thinking that the 09 spring roster size would prompt all coaches to not recruit so many players but there is nothing so far to stop them.
Thanks Bobblehead!
yes, I stand corrected in my assumption as to roster size. 
And the irony of UGA's strategy is it has a consistently losing Baseball program. Jason Ellers' strategy to sign as many high level prospects as possible, hoping to lose half of the signees and to discard excess players (even after they sign an NLI or already play for UGA). If UGA can't meet the NCAA roster limits, UGA will cut upperclassmen to give scholly money to TNBT (The Next Big Thing) speaks volumes about UGA's lack of commitment to its players. I live in Georgia and have a son who had multiple D-1 offers -- I told him to avoid UGA and Jason Ellers like the plague. The UGA baseball recruiting strategy is flawed in every respect -- from player development to academics. You can't do the wrong thing and expect to get the right result.
What a shame in one of the best baseball markets and one of the best state universities in the USA. Hopefully the UGA President will pay attention to this abusive and unsuccessful recruiting strategy. UGA and its baseball players deserve better.
What a shame in one of the best baseball markets and one of the best state universities in the USA. Hopefully the UGA President will pay attention to this abusive and unsuccessful recruiting strategy. UGA and its baseball players deserve better.
And the irony of UGA's strategy is it has a consistently losing Baseball program.
I had to do a little research to see if there was something I wasn't aware. Last year was UGA's only losing season going back to 2000. Since you've slammed a program and a coach, how about if you put your name behind the comments.
I had to do a little research to see if there was something I wasn't aware. Last year was UGA's only losing season going back to 2000. Since you've slammed a program and a coach, how about if you put your name behind the comments.
Unless the NCAA has changed the rules again I believe the following is the correct info regarding roster size and counters:
Fall 2008/Spring 2009: Number of counters in Fall = 30. Max. roster is 35 (but I am not sure if the roster cap has to be met in the Fall or just by opening day of 2009 season).
Fall 2009/Spring 2010: Number of counters in Fall = 27. Max. roster is 35 (with same uncertainty as to when applicable as above).
Fall 2008/Spring 2009: Number of counters in Fall = 30. Max. roster is 35 (but I am not sure if the roster cap has to be met in the Fall or just by opening day of 2009 season).
Fall 2009/Spring 2010: Number of counters in Fall = 27. Max. roster is 35 (with same uncertainty as to when applicable as above).
Dear RJM:
So what do you think is the right number of freshman signees for UGA and programs of that ilk? 30? 50? 100?
You believe coaches should be able to make promises to 18 year olds that the coaches know they can't keep and mislead players and ruin their chances elsewhere and possibly their baseball careers and college chances just to keep them from signing with competitors. You are a real sport, pal !!
BTW, I have every intent of providing advice to others when asked. How dare you place yourself as moderator and "bossman". So regarding your blind loyalty to Anthony Dye of the Atlanta Blue Jays versus my actual experience -- tuf tooties, buddy.
If you want to censor others, go develop your own web site.
So what do you think is the right number of freshman signees for UGA and programs of that ilk? 30? 50? 100?
You believe coaches should be able to make promises to 18 year olds that the coaches know they can't keep and mislead players and ruin their chances elsewhere and possibly their baseball careers and college chances just to keep them from signing with competitors. You are a real sport, pal !!
BTW, I have every intent of providing advice to others when asked. How dare you place yourself as moderator and "bossman". So regarding your blind loyalty to Anthony Dye of the Atlanta Blue Jays versus my actual experience -- tuf tooties, buddy.
If you want to censor others, go develop your own web site.
There's no censorship. But if you're going to rip people and programs on a site as widely viewed as this one, have the courage to stand up with your name too.quote:If you want to censor others, go develop your own web site.
What most people do when a circumstance doesn't work out for whatever reason is they move on and don't make a big deal about it. It's their character.
Dear Beloved RJM:
So answer my question: So what do you think is the right number of freshman signees for UGA and programs of that ilk? 30? 50? 100?
I notice you don't sign your name. And your profile is anonymous. What's wrong with you? Are you AaaaahSkkerrdd?
Danny Hall
So answer my question: So what do you think is the right number of freshman signees for UGA and programs of that ilk? 30? 50? 100?
I notice you don't sign your name. And your profile is anonymous. What's wrong with you? Are you AaaaahSkkerrdd?
Danny Hall
You're not going to spin this on me. I'm not the one here ragging out coaches and programs.