Skip to main content

37 replies

Save College Baseball

YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
I just received my Sept 4th edition of "Collegiate Baseball" and there is an eye opening article by Ron Polk that could cause players to be dumped by their College coaches almost without due reason.

An excerpt from this article...

Several months ago, the NCAA Academic Performance Rating (APR) Committee met and put in a new 2.6 GPA rule. They convinced each other that if a boy or girl in any sport has a 2.6 GPA or higher while going to an NCAA school, the coach won't be penalized if that athlete leaves his program.

What does this mean?

"...what this rule has effectively done is open the door for any coach to drop as many kids from his program as he wants who aren't producing on the field without penalty (to their APR) if those kids have a GPA of 2.6 or above."

Polk said the APR was designed to single out programs in all sports that do not retain players or graduate athletes at an acceptable level. "NCAA Div.1 baseball had a serious problem where high level schools would bring in 20 players each fall and get rid of 15. The APR rules would not allow programs to do this anymore without being heavily penalized. Every kid who left cost you penalty points. "Virtually everyone agreed that it was good to penalize coaches who did this because it hurt kids as schools used the fall as a tryout."

"This is a good example of the NCAA making a rule, changing it mid-stream without any communication whatsoever with people who have to live with decisiions such as this. This 2.6 GPA rule opens up the opportunity for the coach who is highly competitive to field the best 27 players he can whether that means dumping 1 or 27 players in a given year unless the rule is changed. If I am coaching at a school and must win to keep my job and have 2 third basemen, coaches have no choice now but to dump that 2.7 GPA player while retaining the 2.5 GPA athlete if he two are close in ability. Polk said there was never a GPA attached to the APR when it first was introduced. It initially made no difference if the dumped player was a 4.0 GPA student or 1.0 GPA student. The 2.6 GPA rule is the ultimate destroyer of college baseball players who are just good kids and working hard to be better players"

Polk said it took a long time for the 2.6 GPA rule to filter down to the coaches. "The compliance officers at each school got the memorandum. But unless they shared it with the baseball coaches, none knew about it. It came out like a stealth bomber a few months ago. Now coaches have carte blanche to do anything they want with their players.

Another problem that may develop is the athlete who has a 2.6 or 2.7 GPA who faces stiff competition at a position in baseball with other players. If he knows this rule, he could purposely tank a test or two in class to lower his GPA below 2.6 so the coach has to keep him or face a penalty. Polk said, "....This is not what college presidents were trying to do when they came up with the APR. They want better retention and graduation numbers. And you know they want better grades."

We all know that last year Polk fired off an 18-page report to NCAA Div. 1 Presidents, Conference Commissioners, head baseball coaches, NCAA Baseball Committee, etc. to discuss the 7 damaging pieces of legislation that have hurt the sport. I for one am glad we have someone like Ron Polk who has our players best welfare at heart.

He also said in the article that what compounds this new GPA travesty is that if a player is dumped he/she now must sit out a year before they can compete on the D1 level. That is unless they transfer to a D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO to play immediately.

Polk recommends to those players who find themselves dumped or concerned parents/fans of College baseball who want to be informed and/or vocal about what the NCAA is doing to go and visit this site Save College Baseball. This will open dialogue for players and their parents to assist them in possibly making their concerns known to the NCAA.

I post this article simply for everyone who may not know this is happening in College baseball to be educated and informed. I have no agenda whatsoever. I just come from the old adage that Wisdom is Power. I was floored when I read the article and wondered how I or my son would feel if he just one day was dumped from the team even though he was performing well academically and working hard on the field.

"The difference between excellence and mediocrity is commitment." Twitter: @KwwJ829

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
I didn't quite draw the same, "conspiracy theory" conclusions that Coach Polk has.

Yes, the APR is designed to make schools accountable for getting their kids an education that results in a degree. Dinging a program for bouncing a kid with a high GPA does seem contrary to this goal.

Although I agree that there are some programs that skirt the intentions of the rules at the detriment of the player, I don't think it reflects a majority. Therefore the rule won't, as Coach Polk insists, ruin college baseball.

The cliche', Mountains out of Molehills, jumps to mind here.

JMHO
YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
CPLZ, I didn't finish reading the article thinking that Polk was suggesting this was a NCAA conspiracy theory. I simply think he was educating and informing players and parents of what is happening out there that we may not be aware of. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMO, it only takes 1 kid to be dumped from his team because of this rule to make it go from a molehill to a mountain. It wouldn't have happened had this 2.6 GPA rule not been incorporated.

If you want to sweep this under the rug, that's your perogative. But at the end of the day the fact of the matter still remains...it is a new rule by the APR and ultimately could affect young men and women in NCAA sports across the nation.
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by YoungGunDad:
IMO, it only takes 1 kid to be dumped from his team because of this rule to make it go from a molehill to a mountain.


I think that attitude somewhat sums up many of the legislative problems we have today. We legislate to the lowest denominator rather than for the masses. A rule that affects one person is certainly not a mountain of a problem, it's not even a speed bump.

How would you like it if your son who after having a scholarship, had his taken away because his school got scholarships taken away for having students, who had previously had good GPA's and making APR towards graduation, leave the program or the school. This could happen if this rule hadn't been put in place. Wouldn't be fair, would it. So when you speak of injustice to athletes, there is more than one way to look at it. At the end of the day, as you like to state it, not having a rule added, ultimately could affect young men and women in NCAA sports across the nation.

As far as Coach Polk, he has long been an antagonist of the NCAA. Not that I am pro NCAA, but if Polk is talking about the NCAA, you don't have to wonder which way his opinion is going to fall on the issue. The name of the website, and this post, is Save College Baseball. That inflammatory name pretty much exemplifies a conspiracy theory to damage college baseball.
Last edited by CPLZ
YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
[QUOTE]

Originally posted by CPLZ:

I think that attitude somewhat sums up many of the legislative problems we have today. We legislate to the lowest denominator rather than for the masses. A rule that affects one person is certainly not a mountain of a problem, it's not even a speed bump.

THAT was funny.

As far as Coach Polk, he has long been an antagonist of the NCAA. Not that I am pro NCAA, but if Polk is talking about the NCAA, you don't have to wonder which way his opinion is going to fall on the issue. The name of the website, and this post, is Save College Baseball. That inflammatory name pretty much exemplifies a conspiracy theory to damage college baseball.

But THAT was even funnier!

Just like this new GPA rule has been brought to light by Ron Polk for all to know, he has also done a great job "antagonizing" as you say the NCAA on behalf of the young men and women who play sports for years. I suppose we could just sit back and say nothing. That to me would be what destroys college baseball. Silence. At least Polk gives us a voice and platform at the NCAA to be heard on certain issues.

Love him or hate him, good ole Ron again shows that wisdom is power and with that power we can make things happen.
Last edited by YoungGunDad
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
WOW!...This explains a great deal...

...in 10 years of roster reading I have never, ever seen so mamy cuts and money being pulled from existng roster players...

Culled from another HSBBW posters post...

Cal State - 7 roster players cut

Cal State - 7 roster players cut

UC - 9 players cut

Private Cal - 1 player cut in summer.

Pac 10 - Cut, stated reason was behavior issues from long, long before

and this is just in our small circle of contacts...

...for the last 3 months a few of us have been wondering what the heck is going on....Can there really be that much behavioral issues? Can they be so bad that coaches are willing to risk APR/grad rates and let kids go?...now it's pretty clear...Under the new rules, there is a new at risk group, academically performing non-star players...it once again is a new world...courtesy of the NCAA.

Regardless of how one feel's about the politics/non politics/conspiracy/Polk...it is already clearly having an effect...and at the very least, from a practical standpoint players/parents should understand the rules and know exactly what the ramifications may be...'elst they get caught unaware.

Cool 44
.
H Homerun041,000+ posts
There seems to be several loopholes in the APR determination that obviously benefits the program and this is just another one that ultimately hurts the athlete. I would be the first to say I do not know the calculation but another source of programs shedding players and not hurting their APR seems to be walk-ons that the program does not want back do not affect the programs APR nor do hurt players.

So schools can bring in as many players as they want over their scholarship players test them out or use them for fall scrimmages and then pull in another crop next year.
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by observer44:

Regardless of how one feel's about the politics/non politics/conspiracy/Polk...it is already clearly having an effect.


I'm not sure that what you state is a fact in evidence. Do we know what the GPA's of the people cut were? You could be entirely correct, it's just without supporting evidence, it seems that extrapolating conclusions is premature and arguments being made from coincidental circumstance.

One of the changes that takes effect this season is the reduction from 30 scholarshipped players to 27. That undoubtedly contributes to some cuts.
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
Like most issues depdns upon one's perspective...

How about an upperclassman, model citizen, who is at 3.45 GPA, and bats .313 in reserve duty who gets cut...certainly underperforming, right? Deserves to go? Right? Know one who did. Funny though, he and his parents waren't didn't think he deserved to go. Often depends upon one's perspective...

But here is the other sdie...as programs "shed" high academic but moderately performing players without thought...

...the road gets much easier for walk non's and there is more baseball $ for freshmen...

Cool 44
.
Last edited by observer44
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by observer44:
How about an upperclassman, model citizen, who is at 3.45 GPA, and bats .313 in reserve duty who gets cut.


I'm not sure how many reserve players will continue on scholly's these days. Reserve duty is a pretty broad term, it could mean 10 AB's or 100 AB's, big difference.

quote:
Originally posted by observer44:

...the road gets much easier for walk non's and there is more baseball $ for freshmen...


I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. I believe that the future landscape is such that a freshman on scholarship is expected to become a regular producer. If that freshman finds himself in a limited reserve role a year or two down the line, the scholly then goes to the next freshman prodigy in hopes of his becoming a regular producer.

It's a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The incoming freshman benefit while the unestablished upperclassman pay the price. I'm not sure you can tag that as a net loss to college baseball, just a change in M.O.

Jemaz is right. If you are good enough, there are no worries. Now more than ever, "fit" should play the greatest role in determining a college choice. "Would you want to be there if baseball went away?", is the question of the day.
Last edited by CPLZ
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
I am confused but didn't read the article.
The new APR rule did incorporate the GPA (unless I am wrong). Athletes at each sport must maintain a certain GPA or the program is penalized by loss of scholarships.


I do believe what OB44 speaks of is because the scholarship dropped from 27 to 30, that is why you may have seen players cut? Also, as always, choose a program where your player will succeed in the classroom and on the field, know the ramifications if he fails to do so. This is the key to understanding what is best for your player. The attitude of "let's just see what happens' isn't going to work anymore. You must choose between your options carefully, I don't think that has really changed. Personally, I am not going to send my son to a program as a marginal player or marginal student if he has to struggle. To me, that is not what college athletics is all about.

I also agree with CPLZ, players leaving a program (for whatever reason, usually playing time), ultimately hurt programs in graduation rates. I think far more left for greener pastures than because the coach wanted them to leave. JMO.

Polk was one of those coaches who brought in too many players just for fall (walk ons or book only guys), then they were cut before spring, even before the new rules came into place.

I also beleive that jemaz brings up a good point, if you are good enough and doing what you are supposed to do, you have no worries, most coaches are honorable and do not cut players if they maintain the standards that are expected from them.
H Homerun041,000+ posts
quote:
Several months ago, the NCAA Academic Performance Rating (APR) Committee met and put in a new 2.6 GPA rule. They convinced each other that if a boy or girl in any sport has a 2.6 GPA or higher while going to an NCAA school, the coach won't be penalized if that athlete leaves his program.


TPM, actually I thought the same as you but this is a backass rule where a good student who works hard in the class room is exposed.

Everyone wants to win but my thought is if a college program brings in a player they should penalized for anyone leaving the program unless they are not a good citizen determined by the school (or outside source) not just the coach who wants to shed a marginal player that they brought in and did not work out.

The players are penalized by having to sit out, why not the program?

Or what about a rule if a player has a 2.6 GPA and above wants to leave or gets cut, he does not have to sit out a year or can transfer and play the upcoming season (end of fall for baseball) since the school is not penalized from a APR aspect nor should the player.
Last edited by Homerun04
H Homerun041,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by jemaz:
Lost in all of this is the fact that if you are good enough there are no worries. If not, it can be a different story.


You are right, the best cure is be good enough, it is like everyone is happy when you win, but some times it does not work out or some programs just over recruit as a practice and shed players to JC's or just out of the program. Others over recruit to keep their competition from getting those players.
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
I agree with HR04. I can see this as a tool for coaches to cut players who may no longer fit his plans. The usual GPA for maintaining your academic money is 2.0. There is a good chance that player may not leave the college as he will keep the academic money and it may be the larger portion of his scholarship package. The player may decide to stay and graduate rather than sit out so if the player leaves or stays he now doesn't hurt the academic proses rate.
I can think of lots of scenarios were a coach might cit a player who is performing well both academically and BB wise. New coaching staff usually unload players to stock their own guys is just one of them.
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
Here is another one we are familiar with...

Drafted out of HS...College GPA at around 3.0...batted .350 for the year in limited duty...under 75 AB's...team went to Omaha and did well..his baseball money was cut at the exit interview. No consequence to the program, right?. 3.0 and .350 was not enough.

While I totally concur that one needs to be increasingly careful and choose the level of competition wisely...not everybody starts....and
a player like this, drafted, proven in travel ball against the best competition in the country, recruited by many major DI powers, who makes the travel roster, and bats .350 and gets his grades...would seem to have every reasonable expectation to be asked to stay. And while I agree that there is no fair, and that it is a competitive environment, I would think that there ought to be some thought given to the player and his family. At least he should be able to transfer if he is let go, particularly if he held up the academic end of the bargain.

Cool 44
.
YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
[QUOTE]

Originally posted by TPM:

I am confused but didn't read the article.
The new APR rule did incorporate the GPA (unless I am wrong). Athletes at each sport must maintain a certain GPA or the program is penalized by loss of scholarships.

This New GPA just came out a few months ago and is just being discovered by baseball coaches...

Polk was one of those coaches who brought in too many players just for fall (walk ons or book only guys), then they were cut before spring, even before the new rules came into place.

TPM, I am not here to argue points by any means. But Polk says in the article (proven fact or not) that he never dumped one of his players in 35yrs as a HC. "I always felt that I had a responsibility to the players who I recruited and brought in. If a mistake was made by me in my athletic talent evaluation of the kid, why should the kid suffer? That was my fault."

He's not exactly saying that he didn't do this, but if he did, it was his fault and took responsibility for it. Fair enough.

I also believe that jemaz brings up a good point, if you are good enough and doing what you are supposed to do, you have no worries, most coaches are honorable and do not cut players if they maintain the standards that are expected from them.

I agree as well. But now they have an out without penalty!
Last edited by YoungGunDad
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by williekc:
I think that attitude somewhat sums up many of the legislative problems we have today. We legislate to the lowest denominator rather than for the masses. A rule that affects one person is certainly not a mountain of a problem, it's not even a speed bump.

Unless it's your kid....


Please don't speak for me. I don't now, nor ever had, a persecution complex that would let me feel that way. Self sacrifice and considering the greater good have been staples of teachings to my children. We don't look at the world as me, mine, I'm entitled, you owe me, why me?, in our household.

What gets lost here is that the way it was, without the rule, adversely affected athletes as well.
Last edited by CPLZ
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
quote:
Originally posted by williekc: A rule that affects one person is certainly not a mountain of a problem, it's not even a speed bump.

Unless it's your kid....


Ain't that the truth. My two are on both ends of this...one an upperclassman with good grades, who would be a candidiate to cut...and one JC transfer fighting for a roster spot that could have been opened by a cutee.

Again while it IS a competitive environment, if what the NCAA REALLY wants is student athletes, then I truly wish that a system was in place that would offer some clear guidance and good options for both programs and players in both these scenerios. Changing the rules this frequently and without enough thought, really hamstrings the families that this all effects from both an educational, finanacial and athletic standpoint. The previous classes came in with one set of rules, comitted based upon those parameters... and are now expected to live with rules that risk their situations. While I understand that there are no guaranteees, the NCAA the organization that DOES have the power to make this work...takes a pretty cavalier and sloppy approach as always...didn't think out the ramifications, or thought no one would see them.

44
.
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
The NCAA caters in large part to coaches. Most of the rules are there to facilitate what coaches need and want. They want the flexibility to adjust their rosters. Most BB rosters are non scholarship players and the coaches really don't even need 35 players. I suspect this roster size will be adjusted down in the near future.
Many very good players leave teams for several reasons. I was amazed at the turn over of players over the last 6 years of following teams. Many leave because of personality issues (not bad Behavior).
If you are playing behind a stand out player which happened often, you are not likely to hang around. I saw this over and over. It isn't always play hard, work hard and you will play.
The guys who played behind Jeter would understand this.
My son was a candidate for being cit after a disastrous JR year and a hefty scholarship increase during his soph year
Last edited by BobbleheadDoll
YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
quote:


Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:
Originally posted by williekc:

I think that attitude somewhat sums up many of the legislative problems we have today. We legislate to the lowest denominator rather than for the masses. A rule that affects one person is certainly not a mountain of a problem, it's not even a speed bump.

Unless it's your kid....



Please don't speak for me. I don't now, nor ever had, a persecution complex that would let me feel that way. Self sacrifice and considering the greater good have been staples of teachings to my children. We don't look at the world as me, mine, I'm entitled, you owe me, why me?, in our household.

What gets lost here is that the way it was, without the rule, adversely affected athletes as well.



CPLZ, if you would get off your lofty high horse for just one second and quit looking down your long nose at us common folks for just 1 second...you would see that willie was speaking in generalities....."unless it's your kid". Your fine young son is attending a top service academy and is immune to this rule.

Whatever your vendetta against Polk is, we get it that you dislike him. Honestly, your unhappy feelings about him are quite irrelevant to this entire post. It no longer matters what the rule use to be because that rule no longer exists. The NEW rule (the one in place now) is a 2.6 GPA or better can cause a male or female athlete to be dumped and they not even know why it happened. What part of that are you struggling with? The NCAA and the APR Committee has shown once again that they have little to no regard to the student-athlete who strives to be their best each and every day.
Last edited by YoungGunDad
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
YoungGunDad,

Whoa big fella. Willie used my quote to reply, "unless it's your kid"...Take the bur out from underneath your overly sensitive saddle. That's not general, that's quite specific.

As to how I feel about Polk, I like and admire the guy and agree with him more than not, so that's twice now that you're way, way out of line, and flat out wrong.

Stick to the issue please and leave the demeaning inflammatory name calling and personal attack out of it.
Last edited by CPLZ
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
Raising academic standards is good.

Giving coaches more room to over recruit - and then hack away later - not so good.

As for the comment about most college coaches being honorable and not getting rid of players if they meet standards - I dont know about that.
Injecting the word honorable into that makes it a bit more intense and emotional of a subject.

I think college baseball has become more of a real business - and coaches will almost always protect themselves - and their career - first. If you let them stockpile - they will stockpile.

If you let them cut kids that have served the baseball program and the academic institution well - but just dont fit the bill for the coaches plan next year - then most coaches will get rid of them.

Given that it is more of a business now - and less of a "collegiate experience" - I think it mimics the real world more than ever.

The risk reward scenario continues to get worse each year for the Division I baseball student athlete.
IMO.
YoungGunDadYoungGunDadHSBaseballWeb member since 2005
I speak of specifics each time I post on this subject. And I will not apologize for being concerned and sensitive to the unfair treatment of our young men and women out here working to be their best and one day show up to find themselves kicked off a team while the Coach gets off scot free. No penalites, no point deductions towards their APR.

I simply started this post to help inform players and parents of what is happening out here.

BobbleheadDoll, I agree that the high number of players who leave teams for personality reasons/conflicts is staggering. It is to a large degree a double-edge sword for the coach because he has to keep this kind of player academically eligible AND show up each day with a good attitude. If this player is now a 2.6 GPA student-athlete or lower, now the coach has another issue on his hand....keeping the kid from up and quitting!
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
My son's team had an amazing turn over. I felt sorry for the coach and the players. At the exit meetings in son's JR year he was the 6th interview, He was the only one who said he would be coming back. The coaching staff was let go in early summer.
The year before 13 players graduated and they wrote condemning letters against the coach. I heard through sources that it was coming to a head after the next season if things didn't changes. I told my son to stay out of the problem and not to bash the coaches. Our goal was to graduate with most of his college paid for. The coach was very good to him so I couldn't complain. He needed to get some experience and he is at a good school as an assistant now. He did hurt a lot of good ball players some of whom their parents used to post here.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
If a coach kicks off a player who would otherwise graduate from that program (beginning as a frosh) the coach IS hurting the program as the APR is based upon grad rates beginning from freshman year.
Where is this rule? Has anyone found it?
If this is true, how come we don't hear about it here from parents of players? Who do you know of who is a very good player and student and getting cut. And if it is a new rule, perhaps the coaches JUST finding out about it was intentional,so they wouldn't go cutting half the team. Why didn't coaches know about it until a few months ago? I just don't get that.

YGD,
Polk was one of those coaches who carried 35-40 plus players a year on roster and gave no scholarships, or just books in exchange for a jersey. I am not stating this was right or wrong, just that he was one of the reasons why the NCAA changed some of the rules. I only know that where my son went the roster was never more than it is supposed to be now and that the conference he played in generally frowns upon large rosters (ACC).

If this exists, I do believe that letting a player go who has a higher GPA so it won't affect the APR, that is wrong, BUT, sorry, IMO in the end I don't think that is what most coaches will do.

I am also in favor of the sit out rule, it works against player and coach. Before the rule, coaches brought in whoever they wanted, this would mean mine, yours and eveyone elses player, might have to sit behind another while others in a program for 2,3 years might have to sit. I have seen this happen and I don't think it was fair. Coaches in general do not have money for a player to sit the bench for a year, unless he agrees to be a walk on and not needed. Coaches now have the flexibility of letting those go who wish perhaps to play in another division without penalty to his APR and given their release instead of fighting for it. Most coaches do not release players on a whim, unless he recruits badly and gets stuck, then who wants to go play for that coach anyway?
I may not see it your way, but hopefully someday your son will be on a D1 roster, you may see things differently.

FWIW, many coaches and their staff get big bucks when their team GPA is above 3.0. So I don't see letting the 4.5 player go regardless of whether he plays or not, that player still will provide food on the table for his family.

I don't agree with all of the NCAA rules. They are supposed to be in place to protect the player, and IMO I think that for the most part it does. The few who take advantage of the system are indeed the ones you should stay away from, if you have to be in fear year after year you will get cut, even for the simple fact that you have good grades, you should look elsewhere. My son played for a coach who didn't cut kids, didn't stockpile and the door was open if you wished to leave, there are many coaches out there who used the same philosophy. Those coaches who did what they were supposed to do opposed most of the rules not because it would hurt them, but because they were forced to now give a minimum and not all players ARE 25% players. How many parents were rejoicing when they heard that rule, never realizing that in the long run their very good player with good grades might be lose his money because the coach couldn't afford it. Plus the NCAA forced those schools who did fully fund into funding. I think, just my opinion they are trying to find a balance, but have created more problems, it will workout, takes time.

Getting your bb money cut and being cut from the team are two entirely different discussions, IMO.

iitg makes a point, college sports are a business, if you all don't take that into consideration when approaching the recruiting process and understand the implications of attending a D1 program, don'tdo it. It's not for everyone (which I have been saying for years).

I hope this makes sense, in a hurry here just my thoughts on the matter.
20dad20dad1,000+ posts
first i'm not a big rule guy, i'm the guy that usally is breaking them. never the less rules are needed................or else i'd have nothing to do.

i'm going to catch heck for this but i'll jump in with a few things.

1)rule.. one of the first question's about any school. would i go here if there was no baseball? that is the bottom line. if baseball relates to you going there financialy, then you've got some soul searching to do. it's my understanding the money is renewable anually. so every year you could get the shaft?




you don't go to college to become a baseball player. it is an added bonus to represent your school in any athletic event, but that shouldn't be why your there.

money has become a huge issue regarding college,if you don't have an idea what field you want to pursue. how can you spend 10k/20k or more to find out.

baseball is a big business , disquised as a little boy's dream.........even in the hallowed halls of academia.
Last edited by 20dad
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
Ok, so even if everyone agreed, this is a bad rule, then...

How many less scholarshipped athletes would there be because of this rule? Zero

How many less college baseball players would there be because of this rule? Zero

So if the net change to college baseball is Zero, what is it we are supposedly saving?
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
The calculation method for APR was changed for any player who transferred during the 2007-2008 school year or later. The calculation method is not part of the D1 NCAA manual. There is legislation currently in the override period (meaning approved, but awaiting objections from memeber schools) which will formalize that the Committee on Academic Performance can make changes to the calculation method with out a corresponding change to the Bylaws.

With the calculation, when a player transfers, the school loses an eligibility point unless the player
1)Has completed at least one year at the first school
2)Earned an eligibility point during the last term of attendence at the first school
3)Transferred immediately and is enrolled at the new 4 year school during the next regular term
4)Had a cumulative 2.6 GPA, or met other academic criteria with 2.0GPA (examples given at the end of the linked document)

The reason this has gained widespread atention is that APR scores have risen noticeably, and the final results came in for 2007-2008 in May, 2009. The NCAA press release issued then noted that part of the increase was simply due to the revised method of calculation.
Revised calculation

I have two comments about this.

First, I think that the apparent loss of leverage is mostly an illusion. Players who leave during their freshman year, or transfer to a JC during their sophomore year, or simply avoid enrolling full-time during the next scheduled semester after leaving the first school--the school loses a point. So the first time a good student would likely be hurt by this rule is by being cut in the summer following his sophomore year. Mid year transfers by upperclassmen still carry the implied threat that the player will not enroll full time during the next term.

I think the other side of this new method is that that coaches will favor good students among incoming recruits, more so than before. All in all, probably a wash.

Second, while I understand a player has limited leverage in his dealings with the baseball program, I think that trying structure this rule to provide more leverage is trying to make one rule do too much. This rule is about fostering good progress toward college degrees. One can imagine a separate rule which gives players more leverage, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for passage of such a rule.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Thank you 3FG for clearing up the confusion, I can't imagine some rule that was spoken about in the original OP's post, which I got out of it as letting better students go so the program would not get penalized.
As far as my statement about Ron Polk, regardless of his intentions being honorable or not, his roster #'s were way above unacceptable (in my opinion). Many of these "xtra" players were brought on with no scholarships or books only. Some of these players gave up scholarships, only to find themselves on the bench, thus creating the revolving door that happened in D1 baseball.
I just think that the NCAA is trying to find a balance, it may not always be fair, but I think in the end, all will work out.
Thanks again 3FG.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×