Scholarship too big?

I suppose it makes perfect sense that in any situation, if you're the guy getting the big bucks, you better produce accordingly.

Heybatter,
What I was referring to was independent of production...in other words if you could get a starting catcher, 2nd baseman, leftfielder & rightfielder by giving up a pitcher in your starting rotation would you?

NO...and you won't get "top notch" talent for very little $$. Your baseball guy's analogy is a MLB/NFL analogy, not a reputable DI,II baseball analogy.

If a player produces he will keep his $$. No coach will bring in a player @ 75% with any thought other than his success and helping the program. Scholarship $$ are always adjusted based on performance. Good schools give the player due time to perform...unless he is a problem child.

IMO, your baseball guy's analogy is tainted, and let's hope he never gets to a coaching position that put's decisions like these in his hands.

I'd have to agree with starzz -
& it doesn't make much sense - - why would they give a guy (you?) 75% if they can get top talent for less - - unless - - - let me guess,
he was recruiting you

I agree with Bee and Starzz. That doesn't make much sense. Purchasing baseball players is no different than purchasing any other product...you get what you pay for. Like a lot of other products, players and scholarships have a one year warranty.
Fungo

Another one here in agreement with Bee and Starz. Schools don't give big scholarships unless the player is worth it and yes they are expected to produce.
At schools with major baseball programs, what you get is what you keep, the agreement never changes, unless of course you lose your eligibility.
Scholarships that may be 35, 50, 75%+ usually do not always come from the 11.7.

Buckeyefan;
You are absolutely correct. The curse of the big dollar. The reality is you you have 11.7 rides and 30-35 players. "MOST PLAYERS PAY TO PLAY" and/or receive a small fraction of the real cost of school (in terms of baseball money)and many, many just receive a book allowance. True, academic money along with loans does make up the cost of school for most players so in that sense they are not playing for free. But as far as grant-in-aid/baseball money goes they are not getting much if any at all.

Buckeyefan, I have witnessed first hand exactly what your friend is talking about "several" times. Your friends reasoning is unfortunately real and he is as you say, " a very good baseball guy," because he also sees the underbelly...not just the glitz. Fact,if a coach finds a player or players that can play another kids position as well as the big money guy, guess what? YOU WILL BECOME EXPENDABLE unless you are playing for virtually nothing. It's just economics. It's a numbers game.

Sound cruel? It is. Especially when you think about how hard most kids work to get to the D-1 level in the first place and then when they get there suddenly find themselves expendable because the kid next to them, who is "also" very talented and deserving, is playing for nothing or books or a few hundred dollars. Their rational is, (LIKE ANY BUSINESS),why not take that money and invest it in another front line whatever. "Whatever will make us more profitable". Morality rarely has anything to do with these decisions.I said rarely.

If you have two or three position guys (one of whom is getting a big chunk of money) and they can all contribute within a coaches accepatble margin of contribution and/or errow somebody has got to go. And I can tell you, it won't be the whatever that isn't costing you you a scholarship dime. Sorry, big money can be a curse, and it gets "very good" players run all the time. There's nothing you can do about it presently. It's a coaches world for better or worse with maney coaches being in the worse department. Just part of the game. I have witnessed this phenomenom on the west coast and the east coast.

But maybe the solution is, take academic money, not baseball money and you will start or at least be a quietly effective four year role player(that could be a starter on any of the other 200 D-1 programs). No muss no fuss. But that's another topic for another time.

Now to qualify my observation; I am excluding from this discussion the true blue chip players. You all know who they are. They rarely have equals, at least during their time in college ball. They earn every dollar of their scholarship and would get two scholarships if that's what they wanted, no questions asked.

My response is along the lines of Buckeyes post regarding the "very good" D-1 guy who gets recruited, paid the big money (50% or more) and gets run because the next crop of incoming players has some equally qualifed players that didn't have the unfortunate luck of getting the big money.

You are only as good as your coach thinks you are. No better no worse.

hmmmm...

The fact is baseball scholarships are only good for one year at a time. So the fact is that a coach can reduce a scholarship after the first year, or any other year.

There is no need to run a player off --- because the option is his to begin with. If he wants to cut your scholarship and give it to the next round of recruits he has that option.

The only "curse" with getting the BIG scholarship is that you have to perform at a that level. Pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for baseball, but in college football, "running off" a player is not uncommon. A players' athletic life is made lousy-never can seem to do anything right, lots of public butt-chewings, low placement on the positional totem pole, etc. A player can tell when he is less than welcome. I saw this first hand with an out-of-favor defensive back that "just didn't seem to be able" to return punts the way it was desired; he returned about 10 in a row, full speed, complete with getting stuffed on each and every one. He got the message, and was gone the next day.

I think the NCAA lost all pretense of being "player friendly" when scholarships were made one year renewable as opposed to a four year ride. You can argue that a coach shouldn't be saddled with a guy that doesn't work out, but I think the paramount concern should be the player and his education, and the one year renewable potentially is quite harsh. Thankfully, most programs seem to honor the initial scholarship for 4 years, absent misbehavior.

When my son was red-shirted, the e-mail I got from his coach said "of course, we'll extend his scholarship for a 5th year", so I do think most coaches look at these things as a 4 year commitment.

Both sides of this discussion have merit. In fact, a parent should recognize that the program can't exist with everyone at 75%. 30-35 players between 25-33% with very few @ 50% and above is the norm. On top of that there is the usual dichotomy of wealthy/poor families to deal with. This is where the better off family needs to "take one for the program" and pay a little/lot more in order for the program to reach a higher level. This is a situation that is touchy and its the top programs that can weather the storm by recruiting the right cross-section of kids in order to "spread the wealth". If a family can afford it and it costs $2,500.00 to have your son's scholly decreased in order to provide another top player who is less fortunate with enough $ to survive-so be it. BTW, Wouldn't it be nice if the NCAA didn't make it necessary to jump through these hoops in the 1st place. Football and basketball have no such problem!

Playing baseball or any sport in college is a player's "job". Scholarship amount equals expection and commitment to you as a player. If a player is receiving 75%, he's probably viewed as a "stud" and is expected to contribute accordingly. I think there's probably many players that would love to be thought of that highly, but with the rewards comes the pressure. One must perform.

It is no different that have a "regular" job--if you do not produce you are gone, contract or no contract.

hokieone

If these kids are being "run" off as you describe they can hardly claim it is because the coach wants to rid themselves of the 75% scholarship committment.

After all, all he has to do to rid hiself of that committment is reduce the amount of the scholarship.

Not to say that kids don't get quiety run off, but it is not a curse of getting a big scholarship.

As a former athlete and a parent, I'd rather have the big scholarship and whatever pressures that go with it. If I'm the performer I think I am, I'm willing to take my chances.

Even though scholarships are year to year, many coaches will orally tell recruits that to the coach, it's a four year deal and will be renewed absent violation of team rules, academic problems, etc. Not legally binding but the representation is made and I suspect most coaches that say that honor their word. The incident I described happened when all football scholarships were four year contracts; as long as a player did not quit, violate team or university rules, and stayed academically eligible, it was guaranteed for 4 years, no matter how poorly they might perform on the field. In my freshman class, a guy flunked his physical (he only had one kidney) and never practiced a minute, but enjoyed a four year full ride. From comparing notes through the years with guys that played at other schools, players being "run off" wasn't an uncommon occurence. It happens. Whether it's to regain scholarship fund availablility or simply because a coach doesn't care for a kid is probably a matter of conjecture in every situation. As Scarface said in The Lion King, "Life isn't always fair, is it?", about as high up the ladder of classic films as we poor country lawyers go.

Hokie, didn't you see that other Classic Film with its applicable line: "Of all the locker rooms in all the towns in all the world, he walks into mine"?

This discussion made me think of the old Robbie Benson movie (One on One?)...where he was a hot shot basketball player that didn't live up to expectations and the coach made his life miserable trying to make him "give up" his scholarship. Nice movie...anybody else remember this?

Few more things to say regarding this thread.

First of all, if your son receives a fairly large scholarship it was because the recruiting coordinator saw a great potential in your son and gave him an opportunity he could not refuse (away from another school, avoid draft, etc). Do know that with that large scholarship comes a large responsibility and if per chance your son is not ready to accept that, you are correct, he might lose his scholarship. It is something one has to think long and hard about before one accepts.
Sometimes we forget to take off those rose colored glasses when the dollar amounts are big and forget that there is a lot more to think about when accepting the offer. Especially if it comes from a school from a large conference, there is much pressure. Yes you need to prove yourself to be a starter, but when the coach handed you that large scholarship you had aleady proved that you were capable of getting it done.
Yes I have seen and heard it happens. There are many reasons. One, is that the stud pitcher is overused in HS, and comes to the team with a sore arm that never recovers. You see no one keeps him in check because there are many schools and scouts out watching him and he has to throw his hardest or the HS coach needs to win the championship at the end of the year. The son has now pitched through spring ,senior summer, fall and senior spring and then plays again summer before he goes off to school. And mom and dad never said a word because they think their stud son knows better if he doesn't feel well to speak up. They did nothing to protect him because he commited in september, october and signed in november.

Second,position player gets a pretty good scholarship but comes to school and is just average. His BA was inflated or he played in a smaller district, now is up against some of the best college pitchers in the country and having a tough time.

Third and biggest reason, kid is a great pitcher or great position player but he doesn't fit well with the team. Doesn't keep up his grades, late for practice, not dedicated to his workout, gets in trouble and has an attitude. A smart coach knows that this is not going to work out for another 3-4 years, no matter how good he is.
It's also the responsibility of the player and his parents to ask questions regarding the scholarship. Yes it is only good for one year and is renewable, but an honorable, experienced and smart coach makes an agreement with the player for as long as he is there. He does not need to tarnish the schools reputation. If a coach tells you that it is "negotiable" in the future, I would certainly cross that school off his list and move on.

Good topic and good reminder to the HS players out there. A college scholarship is a JOB. The initial offer, like any job interview, is based on your past performance. But once you step foot on campus, you must earn any future money/scholarship. For some players this is their first experience with the real world and earning their way in life. It can be a harsh reality or an amazing adventure.

I sure do like what OldVaman had to say. That is a success breeding thought process.

Performance has nothing to do with it. That would be in a perfect world.

And yes the coach does have the option of reducing and/or cutting your baseball money all together. But he can't or "more acurrately" he won't. Why? "Public Opinion/Backlash," "News at Eleven," etc.,etc. No coach wants to risk this. No coach wants to be viewed as callous and/or uncaring in his dealings when with America's childred. It would eventually tarnish his reputation and/or his program (as far as recuriting goes). He neither wants nor needs this controversy. Everyone wants to "appear" honorable.

As far as scholarship amounts equaling expections and commitment to you as a player it may mean expectation but it DOES NOT MEAN COMMITMENT. I know college all-americans who are playing for books and a couple of thousand dollars.As far as studs go there are many studs on any given baseball team at any given time. But from a business standpoint who gives me the most value for my buck. (Scouts tell me the difference between the kid sitting on the bench at the high college level and the kid playing is mostly only matter of OPPORTUNITY).

Having the big scholarsip and being highly thought of are nice, but if you can get another stub for less, what would your business do? What if you have two studs (both position players) one getting 75% and the other getting 25% but I need 75% of one more scholarship to sign say a Mark Pior, or a Barry Zito, or a Jeremey Sower? Production has nothing to do with it.

Everybody is expendible. You are only as good as your coach thinks you are. No better no worse. And yes, you will be taking your chances. Such is life.

"Of all the locker rooms in all the towns in all the world, he walks into mine"? This classic line cuts both ways.

And what of the coaches responsiblity to the student? Should that coach have been a better recruiter of talent before he offered some poor kid 75% when that same kid had a half a dozen other offers on the table? PERFORMANCE LEVELS... whos? NCAA one time transfer rule. There should be one for the unqualifed coaches too, and then out, finito.

This thread seems to be somewhat off-base and like other threads, full of varied opinions. Bottom line is that all coaches want to win, most are very good people. If a kid can help the team win he is going to play, regardless of scholarship amount.

We could put another spin on this thread, and it is a valid one. Perhaps the marketing of a player (or the over-marketing) has led to the scholarship, be it big or small. When the kid can't perform to the level he was marketed at, the coaches need to find somebody else who can....immediately it is somebody already on the roster.

I have always told people that for most kids, the playing time is more important than the scholarship amount, but parents of high school kids aren;t always looking for playing time, they're looking for scholarships.

If a player's scholarship is reduced, that player should be able to transfer with NO penalty. This seems only fair.

basicly it comes down to - - - you are now in the real world
and - if you're not worth your "salt" they will find someone who is -

a 30 yr old story form Hokie from another sport isn't really valid:
this site trys to help others understand how things will work - whinning parents will not change that

some seem to suggest that you should negotiate a "lower scholly" - good luck, as book $ can be withdrawn as well


have a Happy & safe New Years
bee>

Playing time is important. But my wallet says the scholarship is more important.

If you had to choose one, as is, with no room for negotiation, which would it be?

A -- Starting every game, but no scholarship;
or
B -- Full scholarship, but little or no playing time.

Once the high school parent discusses this with the player, then the recruiting can start in earnest.

I guarantee this debate would be all over the map.

Blast

When you are hired for a job doesn't your performance have something to do with your staying there ???

Same with baseball or any college or pro sport---it is a simple case of what have you done for me today not yesterday

quote:

---

Originally posted by TRhit:
When you are hired for a job doesn't your performance have something to do with your staying there ???

---

Not if you have a government job...

Hey now Texan - all us Fed's aren't bad!!
I actually know of some people that got fired from gov't jobs - it ain't easy, but it happens

Players need to remember, if they expect a guarantee from the coach do they also expect their teammates to have one? Is it fair if a player doesn't work and continues to get a guaranteed ride. If you have a guarantee, do you expect you will get more if you do better than expected? Does the lock work both ways?

And when it comes to playing time vs $$$, I'll take playing time any day. Without baseball I'd be paying the whole thing anyway.