Stock Piling or Over Recruiting

CB the decorum on this web site is to not name schools that over recruit or to not really say anything negative. Does it go on- absolutely and your 50% may be a little high but its definitely in the 20% range for a variety of reasons. Probab ly what you need to say is to do your research on each schools recruiting size, roster make up, turnover, transfers, etc...and that will tell you all you need to know. On the other side recruiting 17 & 18 year old kids is an inexact science. Schools need to protect themselves. The player they saw in the summer of 2012 may not be the same player that shows up in August of 2013.

JJ.....The articles on Stockpiling by Bob Howdeshell were done on and for HSBBW.
Obviously the decorum of this website has changed.
I apologize if I didn't get the memo.

quote:

Originally posted by CB Son:
JJ.....The articles on Stockpiling by Bob Howdeshell were done on and for HSBBW.
Obviously the decorum of this website has changed.
I apologize if I didn't get the memo.

I think it is a good topic and any school can be discussed by name. What I believe is an important part of the conversation is what is overrecruiting and when is it a factor for which players.

Most players select a school with their eyes wide open. If not, they should. So, if a player elects to take a chance at a school with lots of incoming players (not all of them with money), does that then constitute over recruiting?

PG's list of 2012 commits.

Anything over 12 or so would warrant questions during the recruiting process. (12x4=48. Only 35 players.)

Sultan, depending on your membership level for PG, you can gain recruiting numbers for the top 100 teams from 2011 through 2014 and I appreciate access to this information.
As and example here are the numbers from one SEC school:
2011 - 20
2012 - 20
2013 - 13 still actively recruiting
2014 - 9
I understand that college baseball is a business, but as a parent of a 2013, believe this to be over the top given the high number of transfers.

quote:

Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
PG's list of 2012 commits.

Anything over 12 or so would warrant questions during the recruiting process. (12x4=48. Only 35 players.)

I would call that more of a rule of thumb.

The key is to understand the situation and to see how many players are brought in each year, how many leave (and for what reasons) and how many seniors remain on the roster.

Another key is to understand your talent level. Coaches recruit players who might be able to help their programs. They do not promise playing time to anyone. If you are good enough (within that particular program), you will play. If not, you will fall by the wayside and perhaps (probably) transfer. By the way, that is true of every college sport.

quote:

Originally posted by CB Son:
Sultan, depending on your membership level for PG, you can gain recruiting numbers for the top 100 teams from 2011 through 2014 and I appreciate access to this information.
As and example here are the numbers from one SEC school:
2011 - 20
2012 - 20
2013 - 13 still actively recruiting
2014 - 9
I understand that college baseball is a business, but as a parent of a 2013, believe this to be over the top given the high number of transfers.

I would respond that it depends on how talented the 2013 player might be. If he is good enough to someday be a high draft pick (top 10 rounds), it probably does not matter how many guys come in. If he is marginal, then there is reason for concern. Some players like to take a shot at the highest level possible. I tip my cap to every one of them.

Also remember that the position your son plays will factor into how you evaluate these recruiting numbers. For example, if he is a 2013 OF and this particular school signed 20 players in the 2012 class, but only 1 of them is an OF then that is not a bad situation. However, if they signed 12 in the 2012 class, but 3 of them are OF then that is a bmuch different situation.

Any simplistic approach taken to try to analyze this is going to do nothing but create a high probability that you end up with a faulty conclusion. Getting the roster size to come out right without creating too high or too low a number going into fall baseball is the toughest challenge a coaching staff faces; and, the more competitive the program, the tougher it is because of the effect of the draft on both the entering freshman class and the existing players who have turned 21.

For all programs, it's a constantly moving target before factoring in the draft. Once recruited, "stuff" happens to players. For many reasons, players decide to transfer, they leave school altogether, they get hurt, they can't live up to the program's or school's expectations; whether academically or behaviorally. The only certainty a coaching staff faces is that something completely unforeseen is going to happen to some percentage of the group of players they would otherwise expect to have on their roster from each class.

Then there's the draft. The more competitive the program, the higher the caliber of player who's going to be recruited. As a result, some imponderable percentage of each competitive program's recruiting class and group of existing players over the age of 21 will get drafted. However, once the draft occurs, the uncertainty doesn't go away; as each player drafted has to decide which direction he's going to go.

For these reasons, the majority of which are completely out of the coaching staff's control, it's impossible to know exactly how many players are going to show up in the clubhouse the first day of practice. Of course, predictions can be and are made. In fact, an inordinate amount of effort goes into that very exercise by the vast majority of coaching staffs out there. However, it's MUCH more complex for each program than simply applying some simple rule or counting up the number of existing players and adding the number of committed recruits.

One more thing: If they're forthcoming with you, the lead recruiter of any program that wants to consistently succeed will tell you that he cannot fall more than one or two players short of the 35-man limit upon DI rosters and expect to succeed. The effect of attrition (again, for any number of reasons) virtually always diminishes the number of reliable contributors remaining on any roster during the season. In short, an "under-recruited" roster is a sub-par roster competitively.

One of the ironies of the 35-man limit is that it removed the "wiggle room" that DI programs had before its imposition in 2007. Before its passage, if a program had 38 good players coming into fall practice and they all seemed capable of playing, the spring roster could carry 38 (assuming that they all were still in school in the spring). Now that the hard-and-fast cutoff has been imposed, that flexibility has evaporated.

The initiative for this post was not from personal experience, but the quote from another post about the number of D1 Freshman that transfer. Fortunately my 2013 is a LHP that has worked hard to reach his goals.
Prepster, I agree that it is hard to balance the recruiting, but believe there are schools that use it more routinely than others.
If a third or better of the freshman transfer after one year then the NCAA should develop a better plan. It is unfortunate, but understand it is a fact of life.

Prepster understands the process. He has been around it.

Some programs have a large advantage due to state grants that allow players to go to a state school at reduced or no cost. This eliminates much of the gamble for the recruit.

Coaches need to use every advantage they have and at some places this is a big advantage. At these places some players end up transferring to junior colleges after fall. Often this is understood ahead of time by all those involved. Yet all we see is the high number of recruits.

Recruiting is the life blood of any program. I think it is possible to over recruit and still be completely honest with potential recruits.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
I think it is possible to over recruit and still be completely honest with potential recruits.

"Amen" to that!

As a recruited player, I'd be more concerned about dimensions such as whether or not the coaches (1) speak openly and honestly, (2) are fair and even-handed in their approach to coaching, (3) live up to the expectations they create, (4) really understand the game and what it takes to succeed at it, (5) and care about the player as a person...than my own or someone else's assessment of whether or not they "over recruit."

quote:

Originally posted by CB Son:
In 2002 Bob Howdeshell did a great series of articles on Stock Piling which finished with a list of schools that were the "Prize Winners" for 2002. On a recent post on "actual performance" I read a stat that 50% of D1 freshman transfer to a different school.
Putting these two thoughts together has anyone done an updated list of "Prize Winners" for schools that over recruit?

In 2002 when that article was written, there was not a 35 roster limit or scholarship limitation on D1 programs. Outdated info. There are many here that think that there should be a seperate forum to call out programs that over recruit, but the term doesn't always implicate those programs are bad.

As far as a large recruiting classes at some D1 programs, I also feel that most peole don't realize there are many programs that sign many recruits because they are very good at their job and understand that they might lose a good portion of those signed as well as their current players that will be drafted and not show up or return. As stated they cannot come up short in order for their program to remain competitive and they don't recruit at the last minute like many D1 programs do.

FWIW, for those that are fairly new, my son was given a nice scholarship to attend where he went if he didn't get drafted and signed, with the understanding that they expected him to be gone as a junior. I would imagine that his scholarship was already slated for some one else the day he set foot on campus.

Prepster (and jemaz) have provided great responses. I just want to point out that they are spot on with their comments.

PG's responses are accurate as well, especially regarding over recruiting and being honest. It's a known fact that the former HC at South Carolina (now AD) invited many more than they had roster spots for to show up in fall. He was completely honest about it, not promising anything other than a chance to try to make a roster. I might add that South Carolina is one of the few states that funds tuition for state schools, so there was no promise of scholarships but rather walk on opportunities.

Before limitations many large programs gave books and unis and allowed the players to practice but seldom made the team.

CB Son,
I would assume that most transfers that take place after the first year are NOT because the coach over recruited, but rather the player realized he would not get as much playing time as he expected, didn't like the atmosphere, too far away from home, etc. You can't place blame on the NCAA for that.

If I may add...from what I have seen through two sons in D1 baseball, most (not all, but the majority) of transfers were the decision of the player himself (and parents I suppose).

Yes, sometimes it is with the input of the coach too...'If you stay, it is doubtful that you will play.' <--That does indeed happen.

Players...even at a 'dream school' like Stanford...wanna play. If they're not playing, they are very often miserable and yes, they even give up part of that amazing education to find a place where they can play.

Thanks to all for their input and experience with this topic. Being new to the whole recruiting process I certainly appreciate and pay attention to those that have tread before me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PGStaff:


Some programs have a large advantage due to state grants that allow players to go to a state school at reduced or no cost. This eliminates much of the gamble for the recruit.

/QUOTE]

PG, I assume the gamble you mention is paying tuition and being a back up player? You don't get on the field but education paid for.

My take on most players is the money isn't as important as being on the field contributing. Now for parents that may be not an issue.

quote:

I think it is possible to over recruit and still be completely honest with potential recruits.

I was going to disagree but thinking back over the recruiting process most of the coaches were reasonably honest, some brutally so. Even so, the recruiting process leaves an kind of slimy residue to this day. I don't really think it is the coaches as much as the NCAA rules that drive it. The only coaches that I felt absolutely convinced about their integrity were Greg Moore and Matt Vaughn. There were others that I felt were pretty good within what the NCAA drives coaches to and none who were totally slimy that we met. There were a couple others who may have met the gold standard but that we just didn't have enough experience with. On the other hand we didn't have much experience with the really big programs.

I will add that you can never really figure out over-recruiting from any website. For the most part only the "signed" players are disclosed, so its very hard to figure out how many recruited walkons show up at a particular school and it can vary greatly from year to year. .

Furthermore, interpreting roster signings by position and by year doesn't help much either as kids change position all the time and "unlisted" recruits maybe at a particular postion your son plays. If your son is interested in a school.....and they are interested in him, your most accurate way to gauge position opportunity is to ask the coach. At my son's first school they signed only one catcher, recruited 3 walkon's, and late in the summer got a JC catcher. So if you look at the official info only one catcher, but if you asked the coach you would have found out about 4 in June and 5 in August.

In terms of mentioning schools by name, I am unaware of some unwritten rule about not naming schools or describing a schools approach to recruiting. IMHO there is noting wrong with accuratly discussing a school's recruiting approach. i.e. I am pretty sure every kid going to SC knows there will be a lot of kids trying out.

Just ask the coach about his recruiting and tryout approach as its in the coach's best interest to have recruits with the right expectations on day 1. Some coaches might be dishonest and others might not be good at communicating their approach. Some coaches chnage thier approach from year to year!

I am not sure any school can really stockpile as lowerclassman players will leave if they aren't playing and think they should.

I doubt that this will help... but...

It is not that important how many are battling for a position but rather "who" is battling for them. Suppose you are a catcher or first baseman and that is the only position you play. Suppose there is an All-American type player ahead of you at one of those positions. You are likely not going to play that much and technically only one guy is ahead of you. Maybe you can win the DH role on that team but then every hitter on the team is also battling for those at bats as well.

Versatility, open-mindedness, competitiveness, and athleticism are personal defenses against over-recruiting. Every program in the country worth playing for is going to make kids earn their positions by beating someone else out - someone who was also very good in "high school" and someone who has parents and grandparents who want them to succeed as well.

Buster Posey was shortstop until someone came up with the very bright idea to make him a catcher. The ability to play more than one position is a good thing.

It even happens in DI football and basketball, where everyone gets a full ride, so of course it happens in DI baseball where you're lucky to get one-third of a scholarship.

In JUCO we're seeing teams take 70-80 and then booting 60% of them after fall break.

ClevelandDad,

Those were some good points you brought up.

Buster Posey is a very popular topic these days, and for good reason. Rememeber "Shep"? He was Buster's biggest fan. He knew Buster back when he was in junior HS. Too bad Shep was so unpredictable as he does really know baseball.

Anyway, I think kids and parents need to understand more about Buster Posey before they start thinking their son is the next Buster Posey.

Florida State is most responsible for the Buster everyone knows. They took an all american shortstop/pitcher and turned him into a catcher.

However, Buster was a FOUR Tool prospect right from the beginning. He just didn't run well enough to be a first round SS and he didn't have the ideal size to be a first round RHP. But he had FOUR average to plus tools and championship caliber makeup. In any given year there are only a couple HS kids with 4 tools. Often there are not any legitimate projectable 5 tool kids.

In other words... Buster was extremely talented and Florida State took that talent and turned it into a first round pick and possible/probable MVP.

PG - those are good points as well.

Here is another story with a hsbbweb connection. We had a member here named Bee> whose son was a fine catcher for Georgia Tech and drafted in the later rounds his junior year.

By all accounts, it appeared he would be the starting catcher the following year - his senior year. Then, Georgia Tech signed an All-American type freshmen catcher/pitcher from the State of South Carolina. The only time the senior catcher got to catch unfortunately was when they brought the freshmen phenom into close a game or when they DH'ed the kid to give his arm a rest. Certainly, not the way they envisioned the young man's collegiate career ending up.

Sometimes, you can have all the planning in the world, have the stars line up, and things still go awry.

Oh btw, the name of that catcher was... Matt Wieters...

I think (my opinion) that Bee>'s son possibly was expected to be drafted higher and sign. I don't think they were 100% sure that Weiters would show up which would have given Andy the job as starting catcher without sharing the duties.

This is a good example of what happens, they (GTech) didn't over recruit for the position, but rather they knew that they had a player that may or may not show up and may or may not have been ready until late in his freshman season.

This scenerio is not anything that one has control over. It happens.

Yes we knew both Andy and Matt very well. Andy was an athletic catcher and a very talented player from Ohio. Matt was from South Carolina and had Big Leagues written all over him.

Interesting that Matt really wasn't that well known in the scouting community. That is why he went undrafted out of high school. Some people very close to him told me he would have definitely signeds if he went in the first round. His ability was definitely first round. Several clubs tried to sign him as a FA immediately after the WWBA Tournament in Georgia but no one offered 1st round money.

Roy Clark was the scouting director for the Atlanta Braves at the time. That was the first time he had ever heard of him or seen him. He was the best catcher there, the best hitter there and the best pitcher there and his Diamond Devils team won the championship. Wieters was the MVP.

Roy asked me who Wieters reminded me of and I said Joe Mauer with more power. A few guys around laughed about that at the time. A couple years later others started using the Mauer comp. I asked Roy if he wanted to sign him as a catcher or a pitcher. He said "I'll take him either way"!

They didn't offer him enough to get him away from GA Tech.