justbaseball posted:

JohnF posted:

II would say a large (if not all) majority of folks here know how much it costs for college and seeing baseball as an avenue to either help pay for that or perhaps even get a child into a school he otherwise may not qualify for drives people to do things, take chances and believe that "it" won't happen to them.

It is often overlooked here - or skimmed over...

But our daughter, who could have been a D1 athlete, passed on that option and received more $$ for academics than she woulda got as an athlete...and more $$ than her eventual All American brother got for baseball.

In fact, if all costs are accounted for from HS through college, our cost/benefit ratio for her as far as money expended by us to acquire scholarship $$ plus actual college costs have FAR EXCEEDED her brothers by relying on academics instead of sports.

Her post-college employment outlook is better too - she has had the time to major and excel in engineering - a tough thing to do as an athlete (fenwaysouth's son excepted   ).

Anyone who thinks it is about getting a scholarship is wrong.  That is just a measure of how "good" a kid is. It is not about the education or degree or a cost/benefit/payback calculation.  It's about the identity of a man.  It's about playing baseball and being the "Best".  Whatever the "best" may be in whatever pond a kid plays in.   Hey, there goes Joe, he can rake.  There's Frank, he can blow it by anybody.

For school, it can be a tool.  But it's really about being a baseball player.

A man has to have goals — for a day, for a lifetime — and that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball posted:

JohnF posted:

II would say a large (if not all) majority of folks here know how much it costs for college and seeing baseball as an avenue to either help pay for that or perhaps even get a child into a school he otherwise may not qualify for drives people to do things, take chances and believe that "it" won't happen to them.

It is often overlooked here - or skimmed over...

But our daughter, who could have been a D1 athlete, passed on that option and received more $$ for academics than she woulda got as an athlete...and more $$ than her eventual All American brother got for baseball.

In fact, if all costs are accounted for from HS through college, our cost/benefit ratio for her as far as money expended by us to acquire scholarship $$ plus actual college costs have FAR EXCEEDED her brothers by relying on academics instead of sports.

Her post-college employment outlook is better too - she has had the time to major and excel in engineering - a tough thing to do as an athlete (fenwaysouth's son excepted   ).

Anyone who thinks it is about getting a scholarship is wrong.  That is just a measure of how "good" a kid is. It is not about the education or degree or a cost/benefit/payback calculation.  It's about the identity of a man.  It's about playing baseball and being the "Best".  Whatever the "best" may be in whatever pond a kid plays in.   Hey, there goes Joe, he can rake.  There's Frank, he can blow it by anybody.

For school, it can be a tool.  But it's really about being a baseball player.

A man has to have goals — for a day, for a lifetime — and that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."

 

Go44dad,

I get what your saying but you would be surprised how many think that college will relieve some of the monetary stress of going to college these days for 4 years, in any sport. Don't forget its not just about tuition, room and board either.

Once they find out about the 25% which in some cases is just the tip of the iceberg they begin to wonder why they spent so much on those showcases and tournaments.

roothog66 posted:

 

The mistake we make, though, is to look at the raw statistics concerning increases in surgery rates and draw from this a conclusion that is logically just wrong - that an increase in treatment equals an increase in actual injury. You' can only conclude that there are more surgeries. That's it.

 

While I do agree with you 100% regarding what can be supported with real evidence, I also can't ignore that many U.S. kids probably started throwing more pitches per year in organized games around the year 2000 (trying to choose my words carefully). Between 1999-2009 we saw at least 6 major youth baseball complexes open between New York and Virginia, beginning with Cooperstown Dream Park. A researcher might be able to piece together what most of us assume... that many kids throw more in-game pitches and for more months of the year than prior to 1999, but even if that is true we still can't tie that increase directly to the increased treatment. My first hand experience tells me they're related, but we don't have the science to prove it.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

roothog66 posted:

 

The mistake we make, though, is to look at the raw statistics concerning increases in surgery rates and draw from this a conclusion that is logically just wrong - that an increase in treatment equals an increase in actual injury. You' can only conclude that there are more surgeries. That's it.

 

While I do agree with you 100% regarding what can be supported with real evidence, I also can't ignore that many U.S. kids probably started throwing more pitches per year in organized games around the year 2000 (trying to choose my words carefully). Between 1999-2009 we saw at least 6 major youth baseball complexes open between New York and Virginia, beginning with Cooperstown Dream Park. A researcher might be able to piece together what most of us assume... that many kids throw more in-game pitches and for more months of the year than prior to 1999, but even if that is true we still can't tie that increase directly to the increased treatment. My first hand experience tells me they're related, but we don't have the science to prove it.

I think what midlodad posted can support the increase in injury. More opportunities means more chance of injury.

JMO

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball posted:

JohnF posted:

II would say a large (if not all) majority of folks here know how much it costs for college and seeing baseball as an avenue to either help pay for that or perhaps even get a child into a school he otherwise may not qualify for drives people to do things, take chances and believe that "it" won't happen to them.

It is often overlooked here - or skimmed over...

But our daughter, who could have been a D1 athlete, passed on that option and received more $$ for academics than she woulda got as an athlete...and more $$ than her eventual All American brother got for baseball.

In fact, if all costs are accounted for from HS through college, our cost/benefit ratio for her as far as money expended by us to acquire scholarship $$ plus actual college costs have FAR EXCEEDED her brothers by relying on academics instead of sports.

Her post-college employment outlook is better too - she has had the time to major and excel in engineering - a tough thing to do as an athlete (fenwaysouth's son excepted   ).

Anyone who thinks it is about getting a scholarship is wrong.  That is just a measure of how "good" a kid is. It is not about the education or degree or a cost/benefit/payback calculation.  It's about the identity of a man.  It's about playing baseball and being the "Best".  Whatever the "best" may be in whatever pond a kid plays in.   Hey, there goes Joe, he can rake.  There's Frank, he can blow it by anybody.

For school, it can be a tool.  But it's really about being a baseball player.

A man has to have goals — for a day, for a lifetime — and that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."

 

Go44Dad - I merely quoted someone else's post who expressed a view I've seen many times on this site and gave my reaction to it with facts. 

On this point about alleviating real college cost through baseball $$, you and I agree.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

While I do agree with you 100% regarding what can be supported with real evidence, I also can't ignore that many U.S. kids probably started throwing more pitches per year in organized games around the year 2000 (trying to choose my words carefully). Between 1999-2009 we saw at least 6 major youth baseball complexes open between New York and Virginia, beginning with Cooperstown Dream Park. A researcher might be able to piece together what most of us assume... that many kids throw more in-game pitches and for more months of the year than prior to 1999, but even if that is true we still can't tie that increase directly to the increased treatment. My first hand experience tells me they're related, but we don't have the science to prove it.

I think that may have been true for a period of time.  However I would be willing to venture the opinion that over the past few years there has definitely been increased knowledge of the dangers of overuse.  While there are certainly coaches who either lack knowledge, or just don't care about their pitcher's arms - that's a dwindling number.  That's a good thing.

At the same time pitchers are learning more about caring for their arm, and using better throwing techniques.

I'd like to think the book describes an epidemic that is on its way towards correcting itself, but I think the results won't become apparent for another 10 years.

Seriously...

How did PG get stuck as the poster child for arm injuries?

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

Dominik, not disagreeing, but tell me how a rule would work.  They can't sign LOI now til Sr. year.  What does can't recruit mean?  No letters, no hello I'm _____, no logo jackets/hats at youth baseball games?  More rules from NCAA will create more chaos and will not change anything.

Cloud fund Pitch Smart Guidelines and other initiatives to protect arms, educate parents.

TPM posted:

JohnF posted:

 

If pitch counts were that important, wouldn't MLB the industry that relies on pitchers so much implement pitch counts. Certain teams do, certain agents do for their players, but for the most part when it comes down to winning or losing, we know what gets ignored. 

Where did you get the idea that they were not?

Not sure which of the statements you were questioning!?!   I had already rambled on too long, but the point here was more if MLB felt pitch counts were the "silver bullet" then based on the relative value of pitchers to the game, I would think they would have done something long ago.  As for the teams (and it goes beyond MLB) - even if there is a "set" pitch count for a pitcher, some (many?) times that count can be "ignored" if a win is on the line.  How many times is it said "just 1 more batter"...  Then that at bat turns in a 15 pitch battle - it's the "Murphy's Law" affect!

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

I do agree with you.

Go44Dad - I think there are probably ways to write a rule/rules that close things up a bit and make the whole process more reasonable for parents and athletes.  That is, if they want too - but I don't think they want too.  And from the sound of it, I don't think the current group of Jr. HS parents want too either!?!?

Before this race to commit began...or early in the race...our older son was recruited at a time (2003) where he was the first commit in his class to Stanford in September of his senior year.  He attended his first showcase in his junior year of HS.  He had his first 'real' contact with schools late in his junior year. And he had his first offers from Arizona State, Cal, Santa Clara and effectively Notre Dame in the summer between his junior and senior years - in fact, July 1 was his first offer!  He was considered a 'blue chip' recruit - and yet it all happened between his junior and senior years in HS.

That was only roughly 10 years ago.  What was wrong with that?  How or why was that damaging to him and all of his peers? I think it was better than the current time line.

If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

justbaseball posted:

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball posted:

JohnF posted:

II would say a large (if not all) majority of folks here know how much it costs for college and seeing baseball as an avenue to either help pay for that or perhaps even get a child into a school he otherwise may not qualify for drives people to do things, take chances and believe that "it" won't happen to them.

It is often overlooked here - or skimmed over...

But our daughter, who could have been a D1 athlete, passed on that option and received more $$ for academics than she woulda got as an athlete...and more $$ than her eventual All American brother got for baseball.

In fact, if all costs are accounted for from HS through college, our cost/benefit ratio for her as far as money expended by us to acquire scholarship $$ plus actual college costs have FAR EXCEEDED her brothers by relying on academics instead of sports.

Her post-college employment outlook is better too - she has had the time to major and excel in engineering - a tough thing to do as an athlete (fenwaysouth's son excepted   ).

Anyone who thinks it is about getting a scholarship is wrong.  That is just a measure of how "good" a kid is. It is not about the education or degree or a cost/benefit/payback calculation.  It's about the identity of a man.  It's about playing baseball and being the "Best".  Whatever the "best" may be in whatever pond a kid plays in.   Hey, there goes Joe, he can rake.  There's Frank, he can blow it by anybody.

For school, it can be a tool.  But it's really about being a baseball player.

A man has to have goals — for a day, for a lifetime — and that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."

 

Go44Dad - I merely quoted someone else's post who expressed a view I've seen many times on this site and game my reaction to it with facts. 

On this point about alleviating real college cost through baseball $$, you and I agree.

The funny thing about costs is I think those of us that have been "through it" (and reading here) know it costs more than just some tuition #, scholarships can vary widely, the cost for "travel baseball" just to be seen can add up quicker than a semester's tuition bill, etc.  The audience to which travel baseball is targeted may not really know or understand that.  Eventually you learn that the scholarship you thought your child was going to get as you travelled and shelled out money isn't exactly all you hoped for! Yes, there are exceptions, but those are I would assume are in D1 - at least athletically. Still I don't begrudge the industry for taking my money - I got to do something fun, be with the family, etc.   Better than some of the alternatives.

justbaseball posted:

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

I do agree with you.

Go44Dad - I think there are probably ways to write a rule/rules that close things up a bit and make the whole process more reasonable for parents and athletes.  That is, if they want too - but I don't think they want too.  And from the sound of it, I don't think the current group of Jr. HS parents want too either!?!?

Before this race to commit began...or early in the race...our older son was recruited at a time (2003) where he was the first commit in his class to Stanford in September of his senior year.  He attended his first showcase in his junior year of HS.  He had his first 'real' contact with schools late in his junior year. And he had his first offers from Arizona State, Cal, Santa Clara and effectively Notre Dame in the summer between his junior and senior years - in fact, July 1 was his first offer!  He was considered a 'blue chip' recruit - and yet it all happened between his junior and senior years in HS.

That was only roughly 10 years ago.  What was wrong with that?  How or why was that damaging to him and all of his peers? I think it was better than the current time line.

If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

I think you could craft a rule that stops communication, offers, etc. at an earlier age, but this wouldn't change a lot. With today's increased information capabilities, schools would still be putting their lists together and evaluating kids early on. There would still be a need to be seen early or at least get credible numbers on the board because the earlier you are on a school's radar, the better the chances they will be paying attention when you reach your junior year. So, unless you're going to ban coaches from using the internet or communicating with coaches, showcase organizers, etc. such a move might stop the early offers, but no the need (or perceived need) for early exposure.

justbaseball wrote...If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

I do.  I really, really do.  I just don't think people understand the idea of writing rules to effect outcomes.  Even when they have the best intentions.  It's the invisible hand.  The devil in the details.  It's the devil you know versus the devil you don't.  ......OK, let the NCAA make a rule to fix it - That's like saying more government will make my life better.

So what is the rule/rule changes by NCAA that makes things better?  No contact at all until kid is 17? I'm just asking what the rule change is.

JohnF posted:

justbaseball posted:

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball posted:

JohnF posted:

II would say a large (if not all) majority of folks here know how much it costs for college and seeing baseball as an avenue to either help pay for that or perhaps even get a child into a school he otherwise may not qualify for drives people to do things, take chances and believe that "it" won't happen to them.

It is often overlooked here - or skimmed over...

But our daughter, who could have been a D1 athlete, passed on that option and received more $$ for academics than she woulda got as an athlete...and more $$ than her eventual All American brother got for baseball.

In fact, if all costs are accounted for from HS through college, our cost/benefit ratio for her as far as money expended by us to acquire scholarship $$ plus actual college costs have FAR EXCEEDED her brothers by relying on academics instead of sports.

Her post-college employment outlook is better too - she has had the time to major and excel in engineering - a tough thing to do as an athlete (fenwaysouth's son excepted   ).

Anyone who thinks it is about getting a scholarship is wrong.  That is just a measure of how "good" a kid is. It is not about the education or degree or a cost/benefit/payback calculation.  It's about the identity of a man.  It's about playing baseball and being the "Best".  Whatever the "best" may be in whatever pond a kid plays in.   Hey, there goes Joe, he can rake.  There's Frank, he can blow it by anybody.

For school, it can be a tool.  But it's really about being a baseball player.

A man has to have goals — for a day, for a lifetime — and that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."

 

Go44Dad - I merely quoted someone else's post who expressed a view I've seen many times on this site and game my reaction to it with facts. 

On this point about alleviating real college cost through baseball $$, you and I agree.

The funny thing about costs is I think those of us that have been "through it" (and reading here) know it costs more than just some tuition #, scholarships can vary widely, the cost for "travel baseball" just to be seen can add up quicker than a semester's tuition bill, etc.  The audience to which travel baseball is targeted may not really know or understand that.  Eventually you learn that the scholarship you thought your child was going to get as you travelled and shelled out money isn't exactly all you hoped for! Yes, there are exceptions, but those are I would assume are in D1 - at least athletically. Still I don't begrudge the industry for taking my money - I got to do something fun, be with the family, etc.   Better than some of the alternatives.

At the same time, though, there are parents spending thousands of $$ with Princeton Prep, Kaplan, etc. trying to increase ACT and SAT scores in order to widen their group of target schools and increase academic scholarship opportunities. For many, it isn't the money as much as that high scores increase your chances of being accepted into the school you want to be accepted into. Often that's just as true with showcase baseball. Expanding your exposure expands your opportunities. A good showing in front of the right person can mean just as much to the baseball player as that 31 ACT does to the guy chasing a high academic school.

Just read roothogs post after I typed.  I'm in agreement w his post.  He is just better at the whole "writing coherently to express a thought" thing than I am. 

roothog - I think those are fair points.  BTW, the internet was in fact operating in 2003 as well!! 

But again, I think those are good points and I fully admit I haven't given a lot of thought to this.  So I am certainly not saying I have the answer, not volunteering to write the rules.

I do remember when this 'race' seemed to have begun.  At least on the West Coast.  A certain coach took a job at a school without a baseball team (yet).  It was a desirable school, location wise, and he was/is a VERY good and smart coach.

So he had to do 2 things in the year ramping up.  1) Make sure the facility was built to his liking and 2) go watch HS sophomores since they were the first class he could recruit.  And so he did - in fact, he contacted our older son.  And he built a very strong program with a foundation of good players that wanted to play near the beach, on a beautiful campus with strong academics.  That program initially based on sophomore recruits became a CWS team in a pretty short period of time.

But once the can was opened, you couldn't put the stuffing back in it.  Pretty quickly other schools began competing for those sophomores too, others lagged behind and paid for it...and then when another very well known coach headed up to Eugene to open yet another baseball program with a year to plan...and recruit! -  with really cool unis....the race was full on!!

I am simply suggesting, that there may be ways to tone it back down.  At least a little.  And I do think for today's family budget, and for today's typical son's best overall college selection....a little slower time line for all would be a pretty good thing...for the so-called, 'student athlete' that the NCAA likes to brag upon in TV ads.

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball wrote...If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

I do.  I really, really do.  I just don't think people understand the idea of writing rules to effect outcomes.  Even when they have the best intentions.  It's the invisible hand.  The devil in the details.  It's the devil you know versus the devil you don't.  ......OK, let the NCAA make a rule to fix it - That's like saying more government will make my life better.

So what is the rule/rule changes by NCAA that makes things better?  No contact at all until kid is 17? I'm just asking what the rule change is.

Go44Dad - we agree!  I am absolutely NOT a big rule-making fan.  But I am glad that you appear to agree that a somewhat slower time line would be better for our sons (and daughters) if somehow, we could get that to happen. 

Unfortunately, we also agree that it almost surely...will not.

I have assumed that early commitments were winks, nods, handshakes, back slaps and twitter pictures of hats.  How does an early commitment really work?

Go44dad posted:

I have assumed that early commitments were winks, nods, handshakes, back slaps and twitter pictures of hats.  How does an early commitment really work?

Pretty much, sadly, thats it.  However, in our house a 'commitment' was seen as exactly what the definition of the word states, "an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action."  And we talked about it at length with our sons, before one was made.

Rob T posted:

I think that may have been true for a period of time.  However I would be willing to venture the opinion that over the past few years there has definitely been increased knowledge of the dangers of overuse.  While there are certainly coaches who either lack knowledge, or just don't care about their pitcher's arms - that's a dwindling number.  That's a good thing.

At the same time pitchers are learning more about caring for their arm, and using better throwing techniques.

I'd like to think the book describes an epidemic that is on its way towards correcting itself, but I think the results won't become apparent for another 10 years.

I wish I shared your optimism, but I don't. IMO, the benefits of improved arm care and technique are being realized much more on the performance side than on the injury prevention side. I don't think we'll see a significant correction until some type of diagnostic testing can be used to prescribe "safe" individualized throwing protocols.

justbaseball posted:

roothog - I think those are fair points.  BTW, the internet was in fact operating in 2003 as well!! 

 

The internet was around, but not the same internet. Just a few things introduced since 2003 that affect recruiting:

Perfect Game (around in 2001 but not with the same expanse or capabilities);

YouTube (video posting capabilities even 5 years ago weren't near what they are now);

Game Changer (instant stats on youth and high school games? I was hard pressed to get this kind of instant gratification for the majors back then);

Twitter.

Recruiters have unbelievable resources at their fingertips. To even locate the kids you wanted to recruit later at younger ages would have been too expensive to make the effort and time reasonable. Today a recruiter can have a pretty good start on who he wants with eighth graders and ninth graders even if he couldn't communicate with them or openly recruit them. So, the incentive for early exposure would still be there. Now, personally, I would love it if they weren't even looking until Junior year, but...

justbaseball posted:

Go44dad posted:

I have assumed that early commitments were winks, nods, handshakes, back slaps and twitter pictures of hats.  How does an early commitment really work?

Pretty much, sadly, thats it.  However, in our house a 'commitment' was seen as exactly what the definition of the word states, "an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action."  And we talked about it at length with our sons, before one was made.

OK and thanks.  Sounds kinda like the "I can't call you, but you can call me post it note w phone number and time coach is available handed to a kid by a third party" no contact rule.

It just seems like such a farce.  Which is my point I would prefer further rules not happen.  And if their was no rules, their would be no cheating, and probably a more efficient process.

Hmmmm.  PG ratings were certainly there in 2003.  Our son was in them and in fact I will say almost surely added to his recruitment!  He entered them (so far as I know) - late in his Junior year of HS.  So was SkillShow (I bet you can find video of our older son out there somewhere  - but you won't find any posted by me, even if he was in HS today).  HS stats easily online?  Not so much.

But if you're saying those things likely intensified the sprint even moreso over the past 10-12 years, I think we probably agree.

roothog66 posted:

justbaseball posted:

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

I do agree with you.

Go44Dad - I think there are probably ways to write a rule/rules that close things up a bit and make the whole process more reasonable for parents and athletes.  That is, if they want too - but I don't think they want too.  And from the sound of it, I don't think the current group of Jr. HS parents want too either!?!?

Before this race to commit began...or early in the race...our older son was recruited at a time (2003) where he was the first commit in his class to Stanford in September of his senior year.  He attended his first showcase in his junior year of HS.  He had his first 'real' contact with schools late in his junior year. And he had his first offers from Arizona State, Cal, Santa Clara and effectively Notre Dame in the summer between his junior and senior years - in fact, July 1 was his first offer!  He was considered a 'blue chip' recruit - and yet it all happened between his junior and senior years in HS.

That was only roughly 10 years ago.  What was wrong with that?  How or why was that damaging to him and all of his peers? I think it was better than the current time line.

If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

I think you could craft a rule that stops communication, offers, etc. at an earlier age, but this wouldn't change a lot. With today's increased information capabilities, schools would still be putting their lists together and evaluating kids early on. There would still be a need to be seen early or at least get credible numbers on the board because the earlier you are on a school's radar, the better the chances they will be paying attention when you reach your junior year. So, unless you're going to ban coaches from using the internet or communicating with coaches, showcase organizers, etc. such a move might stop the early offers, but no the need (or perceived need) for early exposure.

How about a rule in the other direction: a kid can sign an NLI at any time in high school -- binding on both the kid and the school. And extend the new Power 5 rule (of mandatory four-year scholarships) to all of D1.

To the colleges: you want to recruit early? Go ahead, but you better be damn sure you want the kid.

To the kids: you want to commit early? Go ahead, commit -- in writing!

Go44dad posted:

justbaseball posted:

Go44dad posted:

I have assumed that early commitments were winks, nods, handshakes, back slaps and twitter pictures of hats.  How does an early commitment really work?

Pretty much, sadly, thats it.  However, in our house a 'commitment' was seen as exactly what the definition of the word states, "an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action."  And we talked about it at length with our sons, before one was made.

OK and thanks.  Sounds kinda like the "I can't call you, but you can call me post it note w phone number and time coach is available handed to a kid by a third party" no contact rule.

It just seems like such a farce.  Which is my point I would prefer further rules not happen.  And if their was no rules, their would be no cheating, and probably a more efficient process.

But is it more efficient?  Those things could happen in 2003 as well - yet they didn't, at least not so much as today.  No significant rule change around this issue, and I would argue it is less efficient now - far more kids making very early 'commitments' - sometimes as early as Jr. HS - and far more kids getting left at the altar when they didn't pan out.

Efficiency?  Maybe, for the schools.  But for the kid who gets cut off, now late in the process when there's little time to recover, whats efficient about that?  If everything was slowed down by say, a year, I think there would be less 'mistakes' made by schools...and by athletes.

2019Dad posted:

How about a rule in the other direction: a kid can sign an NLI at any time in high school -- binding on both the kid and the school. And extend the new Power 5 rule (of mandatory four-year scholarships) to all of D1.

To the colleges: you want to recruit early? Go ahead, but you better be damn sure you want the kid.

To the kids: you want to commit early? Go ahead, commit -- in writing!

Oh - I do like this!  At least at first glance.  But that gives too much control to the 'student athlete' him/herself - so the NCAA will never go for it. 

2019Dad posted:

roothog66 posted:

justbaseball posted:

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

I do agree with you.

Go44Dad - I think there are probably ways to write a rule/rules that close things up a bit and make the whole process more reasonable for parents and athletes.  That is, if they want too - but I don't think they want too.  And from the sound of it, I don't think the current group of Jr. HS parents want too either!?!?

Before this race to commit began...or early in the race...our older son was recruited at a time (2003) where he was the first commit in his class to Stanford in September of his senior year.  He attended his first showcase in his junior year of HS.  He had his first 'real' contact with schools late in his junior year. And he had his first offers from Arizona State, Cal, Santa Clara and effectively Notre Dame in the summer between his junior and senior years - in fact, July 1 was his first offer!  He was considered a 'blue chip' recruit - and yet it all happened between his junior and senior years in HS.

That was only roughly 10 years ago.  What was wrong with that?  How or why was that damaging to him and all of his peers? I think it was better than the current time line.

If a rule or two brings it back to something more reasonable time line-wise like that - a time frame where I, as a parent, can more reasonably measure his ability to find the best fit for him, MY SON! - why in the world wouldn't I (and you!!) want that?

I think you could craft a rule that stops communication, offers, etc. at an earlier age, but this wouldn't change a lot. With today's increased information capabilities, schools would still be putting their lists together and evaluating kids early on. There would still be a need to be seen early or at least get credible numbers on the board because the earlier you are on a school's radar, the better the chances they will be paying attention when you reach your junior year. So, unless you're going to ban coaches from using the internet or communicating with coaches, showcase organizers, etc. such a move might stop the early offers, but no the need (or perceived need) for early exposure.

How about a rule in the other direction: a kid can sign an NLI at any time in high school -- binding on both the kid and the school. And extend the new Power 5 rule (of mandatory four-year scholarships) to all of D1.

To the colleges: you want to recruit early? Go ahead, but you better be damn sure you want the kid.

To the kids: you want to commit early? Go ahead, commit -- in writing!

I was in the middle of posting exactly this! I would much rather that colleges be allowed earlier contact. Since all of the offers are happening anyway why not make it easier to allow kids to make a proper choice? Honestly, I'd love it if a kid had enough confidence after signing as a freshman or sophomore to know he didn't need to hit it hard at showcases, camps, etc. for three years.

Reality, we will soon be losing one of our scouts to a MLB club.  Over the years we have lost a dozen or more PG scouts to MLB scouting departments, three or four have become cross checkers. But in this case our guy is going to a newly created position that many MLB scouting departments are going to.  

His job will be scouting underclassmen.  Basically a lot of the kids that are verbal committing early to college programs. There is a growing interest in knowing more about a players history.  Furthermore, the MLB Scouting Bureau is likely to do the same thing.

I would like to know what is so bad about getting an athletic scholarship, even if it is 25%.  Many people spend money on baseball and get zero return.  Some very good players spend no money and get zero return.  Kids that can't hit have parents spending thousands on the most expensive bats.  Kids that can't throw have parents spending thousands on lessons and training.

Acedamic scholarships are often better financially, but what if you want to play baseball?  And what's wrong with having both offers and having a choice?  If your good enough there is every reason to be known by as many decision makers as possible.  If your not good enough you can't spend enough money to change things.  Just the way it is and that isn't going to change.  I really don't know what to say when people seem to be somewhat negative about showcases, travel ball and spending money, Most people that have been through that and ended up being successful are the biggest supporters of getting out there and being identified. A very long list of happy parents! Odd how that works, the players we like the best get well known and good things happen and everyone's is happy. Almost everyone I guess.

Bottomline... Message to all parents... Find out how talented your son is from someone honest that you trust.  Not how good he is on his team, but how good he really is.  That will tell you what to do and whether you should spend much money.  No showcase, no recruiting service, no one on earth, can help him enough unless he has enough ability.  Not batting average or ERA, but ability!  Even then, there's more to it than ability alone.

Not negative one single bit about any scholarship PG -  just laying out the other side of the coin for anyone who wants to consider them both.  Nothing more.

And I certainly agree - finding out from a neutral broker is nearly always the best way to go!!

One word I hate to misspell is "academic"

PGStaff posted:

One word I hate to misspell is "academic"

I hate it when that happens to me too!! 

As people talk about how much $$ they pour into travel ball, I was struck by a fact. I spent WAY more on my daughter's dance classes over the years than I have on baseball. And despite the fact that she's not dancing in college, I don't consider that we wasted a penny. Sometimes it's about indulging a kid's love for an activity, but I still think she got much more.

She learned poise and confidence from dance that will carry her through life. She learned to value good nutrition and exercise, which will serve her well in her diet and exercise science major.

My son would love to play in college. He would love to play in the MLB. But worst case, he plans to teach and coach. Right now, he is passionate about the game and wants to play as much as possible. He's learning to take care of his body in ways that will be good for him down the road.

Seems to me the investment in baseball at every level is an investment in making him a better person and preparing him for whatever career he ends up pursuing.

IOWAMOM,

All I can say after reading that is I'm honored that we live in the same great state.

Iowamom23 posted:

 

...Seems to me the investment in baseball at every level is an investment in making him a better person and preparing him for whatever career he ends up pursuing.

There is certainly value in that.  I think the issues arise when parents and players - for one reason or another, develop unrealistic expectations.

Go44dad posted:

Dominik85 posted:

BTW I think the colleges would like later recruiting too (would be cheaper and safer) but because everyone does it they need to join to get competitive talent. 

Dominik, not disagreeing, but tell me how a rule would work.  They can't sign LOI now til Sr. year.  What does can't recruit mean?  No letters, no hello I'm _____, no logo jackets/hats at youth baseball games?  More rules from NCAA will create more chaos and will not change anything.

Cloud fund Pitch Smart Guidelines and other initiatives to protect arms, educate parents.

you could just make it that they can talk but no contracts and also no verbal commitments are allowed. that way the Colleges could theoretically talk to Kids but neither one would have something legally binding in their Hand so they would not gain much of it.

you could say no verbal commitments or contracts until they have finished the sophomore season. if a college still does it the contract is voided.

it could be done with other sports too. not every Sport is as risky but later recruiting means Kids can longer concentrate on academics and being Kids instead of worrying about getting on the Radar when they are 13/14 and don't know much about what they want to become (a 15 yo that commits might want to go to a different college what is good at a different science to study at Age 18 because his interests have shifted).

The Colleges don't gain anything from recruiting 14 yo Kids either. they would know much more if they kid was 16 (some grow, some don't- early vs late bloomers), but they have to join the early recruiting because otherwise they fear to be left behind because all the Talent is already recruited.

by delaying the starting Signal you would also take a lot of stress off the college scouting as well as the Kids of course.

FWIW: I'd contend that USSSA, Triple Crown, and other event organizers provide far more platforms for arm abuse than anything PG could ever do. They run 4-6 game tournaments over a 2-3 day period for teams where everyone pitches then plays the field.

Start there first.

Internet has been around for a long time, but I think what really changed things was that little rectangular device in your pocket or purse that converted a system of "sneaker net" to "instanet".  No longer do you need to record on one device (video camera), walk it over to another device (computer), use some sort of software to generate a movie, and then upload to a website or copy onto CD/DVD and *send* to coaches.  You just take that device out of your pocket, tap a few buttons, and post. My first time through the process in 2007-8 was more of the former - my last time through 2012-3 was entirely the latter.  Heck even the Common APP changed it's process radically in that same period.

Coaches can sit at their desks and watch - well more likely they assign some graduate assistant to sift through 1000's and send him the best...  Hard to "police that" as every coach is looking for the next big thing and they strive to be the "first contact".  With technology I don't think there's an easy fix as neither parent or coach "wants" more restrictions. 

As for NLI's or ED's "binding" to a school - there's always a way out for both sides. For a 15-17 year old kid getting "signed" to a major D1 school seems great, but what happens by the time they're 17-18 and realize that the school may not have a major they're interested? If the only way they get in is because of baseball and then they find out it's a lot more difficult, they have to go to study halls, and their social life is playing baseball (IOW: They have a job while at school).... In the long run, there's a lot that falls back to the parents to help police and guide. Tough to do with technology as it is (we all know they find inventive ways to use their phones ;-))

joemktg posted:

FWIW: I'd contend that USSSA, Triple Crown, and other event organizers provide far more platforms for arm abuse than anything PG could ever do. They run 4-6 game tournaments over a 2-3 day period for teams where everyone pitches then plays the field.

Start there first.

USSSA and Triple Crown both have pitching guidelines, they aren't perfect but none of them could be.  What's your glitch with having a kid pitch a couple of innings and then playing in the field?

JohnF posted:

...as neither parent or coach "wants" more restrictions. 

...but what happens by the time they're 17-18 and realize that the school may not have a major they're interested? If the only way they get in is because of baseball and then they find out it's a lot more difficult, they have to go to study halls, and their social life is playing baseball...

John - I'm having a hard time logically joining those two comments in your post?

Isn't the 2nd comment exactly why parents might (or should?) want more restrictions?

I can tell you from personal experience, when our younger son was offered early by a Pac12 school in 2009 (Fall of Junior year - which at that time wasn't earliest - but still pretty darn early for me) - I can tell you I wasn't thrilled.  For one, he had pitched on varsity in a competitive program, but he was a 5-10 RHP throwing 84/85 and had done well (4-2 with a low 3.something ERA) but had not IMO proved that he was a Pac12 pitcher yet.

The offering school was great, but there were other schools he was interested in, and they in him, but weren't ready to offer and some were in lower level conferences.  The offer was decent, but perhaps he could get more if he waited?  And then there was the 'dream school' that his brother attended that said, 'Yeah, we're interested but we cannot offer just yet - please wait another 6 months.'

I/we were concerned that we'd be making a big mistake by reaching too high (Pac12), or taking less than he could get later and eliminating schools that may have been a better fit for some of the reasons you wrote above.

So yeah, I would have liked a longer time frame.  But these offers come with expiration dates, especially for 5-10 RHPs and so we had to do the best we could.  First, we engaged all the other 5 schools who had shown interest.  One came forward with an offer themselves.  The others said they'd have to wait.  Second, we stalled.  Asked for extensions - why?  I wanted to see him pitch at least some in his Junior year and be more confident that he was good enough.  Third, we did a lot of research and 'investigation' including meeting with his travel and HS coaches and we talked through things, more than once.  Fourth, we talked and talked...and talked some more with the offering school very openly explaining our concerns.

Ultimately, our son got off to a great start in his Junior year.  Accepted the offer.  Never lost a game his Junior year and never looked back.  He had a great college career and it couldn't have worked out better.  Lucky?  Maybe.  A little extra due diligence on our part?  Yes.

But I/we had been through this once before - I don't think I would have been so 'lucky' through diligent work the first time through.  Most parents only get one shot at this.

Parents should want a longer time line than currently exists.  For all of the reasons you listed in your second comment.