Signed then cut?

if he signed an NLI he is guaranteed that amount $$ for the yr .. but the bb-team stuff su-cks

Yes. And your going to see alot of it with the new 35 roster rule that was put in place. You are also going to see some of these early verbals not hold up when guys that were projected draft picks do not get drafted. Etc etc etc. So many scenarios. Its going to take some time for all the coaches, programs etc to learn how to deal with someone telling them how many players they can have.

What a horrible situation! I believe that according to NLI guidelines, the school is obligated to provide players who sign NLI's with the promised scholarships for the one year period stipulated, but is not obligated to give them an actual spot on the team.

The following is quoted from the FAQ section of http://www.national-letter.org/:

5. By signing a National Letter of Intent am I guaranteed that I will play on a team?

"No. Signing a National Letter of Intent does not guarantee you playing time or a spot on the team. Rather, by signing a National Letter of Intent, the institution with which you signed agrees to provide you athletics financial aid for the academic year."

despite still maintaining the money, its still horrible in my point of view because the kid could have chose a different school with a guarenteed spot but chose this one extremely early (november) because he saw what he liked and now a year later is told he may not even play. If the kid was "cut" what would the procedures be next year with if he transfered to a different school and wanted to play? would he have to sit that year even though he didnt play the previous one?

As far as I know, the answer is yes, he would have to sit out -- one of the terrible consequences of the new NCAA regulations. I believe the only way he would be able to play next year is by moving to a lower division (D2 or D3) or playing for a jr. college or NAIA school. My heart goes out to the player and his family.

as I understand new rules, a fall or December transfer would NOT have to sit (last last chance)

all DI transfers beyond that will sit a yr

This is exactly what I was talking about in another thread.
When I learned the true definition of a NLI,...I was a bit startled. ( I had kind of thought a NLI was perhaps as close as " written in stone" as possible.)

I guess as parents we need to make sure our athletes know that a NLI can be revoked, so that should it happen to one of our kids before they ever set foot on the field, they ( & we ) will not be blind-sided.
Perhaps many of the to-be college athletes already know this. It is I, the parent, who was the ignorant one.


I think it disheartening, but unfortunately it is what it is.

As Infield08 said above:

quote:

5. By signing a National Letter of Intent am I guaranteed that I will play on a team?

"No. Signing a National Letter of Intent does not guarantee you playing time or a spot on the team. Rather, by signing a National Letter of Intent, the institution with which you signed agrees to provide you athletics financial aid for the academic year."

quote:

by ssmom: make sure our athletes know that a NLI can be revoked

to clarify .. their NLI's have not been revoked

NLI .. the athlete agrees to attend the school for one academic year.. the school agrees to provide financial aid for one academic year.
it is accompnied by a letter of "Grant in Aid", detailing the aid

players will receive that aid for 1 yr at that school ... even if cut from team, injured, or quit -


there is NO letter or form that guarantees a spot on any team. that would come from your confidence in the coaching staff's evaluation of YOU, and the homework you've done on how these coaches have historicly handled players in their programs

hope that helps

quote:

Originally posted by Kisling:
Scenario:
Kid signs to a D-1 school in November, early signing. Gets academic and baseball money package. Fall rolls around and the coach tells the entire team that he needs to cut people and no one is an exception. Is it legal to bring a kid to your school, sign him on a scholarship then cut him?

Kisling, For schools that have stockpiled in the past, this is a normal behavior. They give them book money for basically a try out over the fall. Christmas approaches and they tell them they can RS or transfer to JUCO. If a player REALLY investigates, I believe they can identify these types of patterns. It will be even more important for players to make sure where they stand with the new rules in place.

Coaches are recruiting players that they believe can play.

There are specific provisions in the NLI agreement that allow it to be terminated. Arm twisting is not listed, however.

College baseball is not like select baseball.

Far more so than high school baseball, the college coaches play the players than contribute the most.

Playing time is earned based on performance, talent, and work.

Those that accept that, play.

BEE

That is not totally true---I have gotten letters from the coach confirming that the player was on the team, had a uniform but had to earn the right to start and travel---but he was on the team

quote:

Originally posted by Coach May:
Yes. And your going to see alot of it with the new 35 roster rule that was put in place. You are also going to see some of these early verbals not hold up when guys that were projected draft picks do not get drafted. Etc etc etc. So many scenarios. Its going to take some time for all the coaches, programs etc to learn how to deal with someone telling them how many players they can have.

Everyone should read carefully what Coach May has posted.
Regarding the posts last week about the UF coach having to let some players go, that was the moral and proper way to go about the unpleasant task of releasing players to get down to the 35 man roster, while other coaches are just bidding their time to see who to keep and who to cut in the fall.
They have to comply, but how they comply is whether it is a moreal issue or not.

BTW, again, a player who signed an NLI with a school is only guaranteed his scholarship $$$, that he has promised to attend that school and no other, does not prevent being cut from the roster or sitting.

Lets be realistic here---is a coach truly going to give money to a kid he doesn't want on the team ?--not a great business move in my eyes

It's been going on in the highest of D1 competition for years. Nothing new.

I won't try and MentIon Any naMes. Yet I am sure many can Figure, Let alone ouT! there are Xceptions

What's new is the NCAA attempting to influence it with it new rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Kisling:
the kid could have chose a different school with a guarenteed spot

Is there any such thing as a guaranteed spot? I'd submit that their isn't. Unless you're going on a coach's word which isn't advisable. Is a kid who signs in November, then shows up in the fall slow, fat and out of baseball shape still guaranteed a spot? He wouldn't be if I was the coach.

quote:

Kisling posted: despite still maintaining the money, its still horrible in my point of view because the kid could have chose a different school with a guarenteed spot but chose this one extremely early (november) because he saw what he liked and now a year later is told he may not even play.

You have answered your own question. Since there are obviously no guarenteed spots or playing time, choosing another school for a "guarrantee" is irrelevent. If a coach guarrentees a spot or playing time, run away. At the very least, understand the coaches enthusiasm will dim if a player assumes, acts and plays like his spot is guarrenteed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bear:
It's been going on in the highest of D1 competition for years. Nothing new.

I won't try and MentIon Any naMes. Yet I am sure many can Figure, Let alone ouT! there are Xceptions

What's new is the NCAA attempting to influence it with it new rules.

quote:

I won't try and MentIon Any naMes. Yet I am sure many can Figure, Let alone ouT! there are Xceptions

lmao

quote:

Originally posted by Dad04:

If a coach guarrentees a spot or playing time, run away. At the very least, understand the coaches enthusiasm will dim if a player assumes, acts and plays like his spot is guarrenteed.

Every school that recrutied my son never made a promise for anything (EXCEPT for the one that the new coach had to cut down 44 to 35 ).
As parents, we assumed he would have more opportunity as he was given large offers. Even with that, he still had lots to learn before thrown into the mix. And never assume anything, as we assumed son would be a weekend starter his sophmore year, but the starter he would replace was not drafted, so he waited another season for a spot in the weekend rotation.

I agree with Dad04, if a coach makes a promise, and this is a factor in the decision, head in the other direction.

Here it is folks. Before there were roster limits. Kid comes in gets some money. Coaches tell him after the year - we just dont feel we can continue to give you aid but your spot here is secure work hard and we will see what happens down the road. Now - We are sorry but with these new roster limits we can only carry 35. We have to make sure that the 35 guys we carry can help us win. We are sorry but you are no longer a part of the team. If you would like to transfer that would probaly be a good idea because if you transfer now you will not be hit by the new NCAA rule taking a year from you.

Coaches are in a bind. Before they could afford to carry as many as they liked and they could shuffle money from player to player. Any amount they want to shuffle as well. Now they must have their rosters down to 35. If they give you 1 cent they must give you 25%. They can only give money to 27 players. The game has changed as they say. Its going to be about performance. You can get an offer and accept it. But what you are accepting is the opportunity to earn the right to be on the team. And that is from year to year.

Now think about recruiting. You have 5 seniors you know that you are going to need at least five guys for the next season. You have three draft elgible guys that you feel certain will be drafted. So now you know you need to go out and get 8 guys. But you also have a couple on your roster that are not taking care of business in the classroom. You have a couple of guys that just are not as good as you thought they were when you recruited them. And you have a guy that just doesnt work hard and he is a pain in your azz. So now you need to go out and recruit 13 guys. Why? Because you are trying to get better and you feel these guys are better than what you have. But the draft comes and one of the guys you felt would get drafted does not. Maybe he had a down year or maybe he just wants to come back for whatever reason. One of those recruits is going to get a phone call. Sorry but our roster limits will only allow us to bring in X number of players. We thought Jimmy was going to get drafted.

The bottom line is an offer is an opportunity. It is not a right to be on the team. Kids need to understand that when they sign that NLI it is not the end of the journey. It is the beginning of a new one and they better do what it takes to suceed.

Coach May,
In speaking with a coach I know very well, the ideal situation is to keep no more than 32 on roster for the purposes that you mention.

I also beleive, as has been the practice in many schools, that top prospects, either not getting drafted or turning down the draft to attend school, will get a 3 year opportunity. If this is hard to understand, my son is an example, after three years we expect you to be drafted. In his case, he was lucky as he had a coach that was willing to work with him so that he had an opportunity beyond the college game.

BTW, many coaches are pretty smart at figuring out what top prospects are going to set foot on campus and who is not. They work this into their numbers. JMO.

quote:

Posted by Coach May: One of those recruits is going to get a phone call. Sorry but our roster limits will only allow us to bring in X number of players. We thought Jimmy was going to get drafted.

There might be a little more shuffling around of recruits, extending later in the year and a whole alot less transfering of players after this year.

CM, I believe that the original post was about someone signing an NLI and then being cut the fall of their freshman year. Before they have ever played for that team.

Why be committed to one year of paying a 'ship then cut the player before the spring season starts? Heck, the coach has to pay for one year, might as well wait until the end of that year and see how he works out. Sounds extremely unlikely for the reasons TR mentioned, but I would not say impossible. Some strange things have happened.

My posts are not intended to be Gloom and Doom. It is going to work out its just right now it is tough. The coaches are trying to figure out how to deal with it and they will. It is just unfortunate that some kids will be put in a tough situation. But there is no way to deal with it other than to reduce the roster sizes. Some are bringing in very small 08 classes. Some are going to evaluate players during the fall and then cut. Some are not going to be effected by it because they have small roster sizes already. I had one D-1 coach tell me they are only bringing in 3 08 players. I had another tell me they are going to wait on 08 recruits untill they see who is available from the transfers they expect. It will shake out and it will settle down. My main point is just because you sign that NLI you can not put it on cruise control. You have to have the mindset that now I have to go make the team. Good luck to everyone. It will be okay when the dust settles.

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
CM, I believe that the original post was about someone signing an NLI and then being cut the fall of their freshman year. Before they have ever played for that team.

Why be committed to one year of paying a 'ship then cut the player before the spring season starts? Heck, the coach has to pay for one year, might as well wait until the end of that year and see how he works out. Sounds extremely unlikely for the reasons TR mentioned, but I would not say impossible. Some strange things have happened.

The only possible reason to cut a scholly player is to get to the 35 roster limit, which I assume is for the fall. Also, I'm told the scholly limit applies to the fall now, not just the spring, as in the past.

Alot less flexibility now.

quote:

by D04: The only possible reason to cut a scholly player is to get to the 35 roster limit, which I assume is for the fall. Also, I'm told the scholly limit applies to the fall now, not just the spring, as in the past.

coach's reason for fall cuts

1) December is the last "last chance" to transfer w/out penalty



if the 35 limit applied this fall they'd already be in violation when 35+ players arrived on campus

Bee>,
Not sure but I think that compliance is by fall 09 , and tranfer sit out goes into effect by this spring,08. That would mean they can transfer by december without sitting out. Where you gonna go in december if the coach surprises you in November?
I think that the confusion was that compliance always had to be by springtime (11.7, GPA, etc.) and now by incoming fall. ??????
NCAA gave time for adjustment.


Can someone verify?

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
coach's reason for fall cuts

1) December is the last "last chance" to transfer w/out penalty

if the 35 limit applied this fall they'd already be in violation when 35+ players arrived on campus

That makes more sense. I was under the impression, probably erroniously, this year players needed to be enrolled in the fall to play in the spring.

Players and parents need a paid consultant to keep up with the shifting "landscape" this year.

quote:

by D-04: I was under the impression, probably erroniously, this year players needed to be enrolled in the fall to play in the spring

I think you are correct w/1 clarification ..
athlete IN GOOD STANDING (clearinghouse, academic progress rate, gpa, etc)
enrolled at school "A" fall term, could transfer to school "B" mid yr and play
- if also IN GOOD STANDING at school "B"

quote:

by TPM: tranfer sit out goes into effect by this spring,08. That would mean they can transfer by december without sitting out. Where you gonna go in december if the coach surprises you in November?

no question that 35 limit means the are now waay more players than roster spots ... the closer December gets, fewer opportunities to find a spot

I have to think with the new roster rule the next couple of years are going to be tough on walk-on prospects.

remembering waay back to '02 when my son entered college, I really feel for parents/players entering school in '07 AND also current college players in programs which had been operating in XXL roster format .. it seems like a mess & a lota un-deserved stress.


previously, after the recruiting phase, unknowns were pretty much
"academics, conditioning & PT" - now they get BLINDSIDED by this ****...
many who are just settling into college & living on their own away from home for the 1rst time.

and remember, many never heard of hsbbweb and are being literally BLINDSIDED




I gotta believe that ncaa is ready to change phone # to UNLISTED

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:

.D.T.O.M....

Just a question--

I understand that the above mentioned changes are for D1 school. And that, by the way, is about ALL that I understand! I know that D2 schools have different rules and are not affected by these particular changes. But will they be? Are they paring down their rosters, changing scholarship amounts, etc., in anticipation that they WILL be affected, that these rules will be coming in, say a year or two?

If anyone knows about the D2 schools as it relates to the new rules, I sure would appreciate hearing about them. Thanks.

playball,
I am thinking the D2,D3's are loving it. I would guess we will see already larger roster sizes to increase.
Trickle down theory, IMO, it will be harder to get a spot on those rosters as well.

D2 has 9 schollies to fund, D3 has none. Why would anything change?

Bear,

Don't get what DTOM link is all about.

In defense of UM, since joining the ACC, their roster size is more in line with the other ACC programs.

I thought the last day to transer without sitting out a year is Aug 1 2008.

Just an FYI about rosters.

At the end of the 2006 NCAA D1 season, a head coach left a program with the following roster:

There were 33 kids on the 2006 season roster, then 8 seniors graduated leaving 25 underclassmen, of which 2 were drafted and went pro. The new coaches came in, and by the end of Fall practice had signed 18 new players consisting of late 2006 signees and JUCO and transfer players.

The # of kids on the 2007 roster was 32. That means the new coaches came in and effectively CUT 17 of the old coaches players.

That is a major example of "house cleaning". Oddly enough, the team had a nice regular season, then pulled a Cinderella act deep into the post-season??

I read some of the posts regarding coaches suggesting kids move on to a different gig, have them catch on somewhere else before the rules change kicks in, but it is obvious there is much more disruption when a coaching change occurs !!

The same thing happened at another huge southern program during the same period I mentioned, and when the new coaches arrived, they were left with 49 kids with 14 coming in, which is 63. After removing a few grads and draftees, and a roster now in the low 30's, you can guesstimate 20 plus kids were sort of asked to leave.

Just food for thought on why one set of coaches have such a differing opinion of talent versus another? If these boys were good enough for coach #1, why not for coach #2 ?

Depends wy the new coach is coming in.

Usually some coaches who replace coaches who get the boot (losing program), will most likely recruit players to their liking asap because they have been told to weed out by their new bosses. Those coaches replacing coaches who have left for other programs or to move up to larger programs and leaving a winning program will keep all of the players and begin recruiting those who he wants in his program.

I do beleive with the new transfer rules, all coaches will be very careful about cutting current players just because they want to. If this turns out to be true, tehn the new sit out one year rule will prove to be a good thing.