So I can only imagine that there was more turnover than usual this year to meet the rules about counters and roster size. Am I right that a college coach can tell a player after a subpar season that he is not getting his scholarship renewed for the next year?
So, in essense, coaches can still over-recruit and sign a bunch early - like those schools that signed 10-20 players early last year - and would meet the limits by simply running returning guys out of the program and taking their scholarship back?
If that is allowed, then how often does this happen? (Most programs? Only the most competitive? Every year?) Any info would be appreciated.
If a player is given a release from the head coach and athletic director of any institution that player should have the right to transfer to any institution of there choice and be permitted to tryout and play for the school they choose no matter what the classification. Also they should be permitted to obtain and recieve grant in aid from there new school as long as they meet the ACADEMIC qualifications as the rest of the student body of that institution. To formulate a penalty to a student athlete that was released from another institution for what ever the reason is rediculous. That student is not being afforded his constitutional right to move freely from the releasing school and there new school. The power given coaches without really any accountability is alarming and needs to be adressed.
If the recruiting director who by the way is promising everything under the sun in many instances, needs to be held accountable for their selections. If they over estimated a players ability or their forcast of that players growth didn't workout so be it. But to cut or release a player and then penalize that player with a year of ineligability is terrible.
I am tired of hearing how the NCAA is looking out for the well fare of the student athlete BULL***X.
If the recruiting director who by the way is promising everything under the sun in many instances, needs to be held accountable for their selections. If they over estimated a players ability or their forcast of that players growth didn't workout so be it. But to cut or release a player and then penalize that player with a year of ineligability is terrible.
I am tired of hearing how the NCAA is looking out for the well fare of the student athlete BULL***X.
quote:Originally posted by clchamp06:
Am I right that a college coach can tell a player after a subpar season that he is not getting his scholarship renewed for the next year?
Yes, and that isn't new. Scholarships that are based in any degree on athletic ability must have a period of exactly one academic year (with some exceptions). Part of the stated reason for the 25% minimum scholarship and 35 person rosters is to try to cut down on the incidence of "running off" players.
Obviously we don't know yet how this will play out. My own opinion is that over-recruiting will be reduced, but it may be a couple of years before the situation stabilizes. I expect that eventually players will typically attend the level of school that will give them the 25% or more, and use the scholarship as an objective gauge of the program's intentions and belief in the player. I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster and:
a) had planned to stay at a particular school and give up baseball if he doesn't make the roster.
or (less likely)
b) had planned to transfer to a non-D1 school if he doesn't make the roster.
or (very unlikely with the new transfer rule)
c) had planned to transfer to a different D1 school if he doesn't make the roster.
quote:I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster...
I don't think you can really know what they'll be made up from.
* Could be players on academic aid
* Could be players on need-based aid
* Could be talented players with no financial need
* Could be from the category you mention above
* Could be something else entirely
Schools mix and match all of this stuff to add up to the right numbers.
quote:I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster
Under the new NCAA rules, each and every one of those 8 remaining squad members can make the roster, as the max limit is 35. Now, if you're referring to the travel roster (usually set at 25), that's another story.
Also, ditto to what justbaseball wrote.
Infield08,
I should have stated more clearly that there are typically 8 non-scholarship slots, and I suppose that these slots will be partially filled from a larger pool of incoming players who will or should recognize that their odds of making the 35 man squad are inferior to those who have gotten scholarships. Actually, infinitely inferior because counters are placed on the 35 man squad by rule. I also expect that incoming players may need to compete for spots with e.g. seniors who are no longer receiving athletic aid. Making the 35 man roster is important, even for those who don't make the traveling squad, because otherwise the player can't practice with the team.
I think, but I'm not sure, that one of justbaseball's points is that some of the non-scholarship hopeful players may be among the most desireable and talented at the college, and they're cognizant of that, but don't need the countable money. So their odds of making the roster are very good, in spite of not being in the 27. That doesn't square up with what I know. I am acquainted with a very small set of players who have the resume to have been sure of making the roster, but didn't "need" athletic money. All of them are receiving it.
My basic thinking is the new transfer rules increases the desireability of finding the right fit, and the 25% rule allows a player the opportunity to get an objective measure of his perceived value. I think that soon players will start acting on that knowledge, and will strongly favor schools that will award them scholarships. A few will decide to try to make the 35 man roster without that assurance, either because the choice of school has higher priority than playing baseball, or because of an inverse set of priorities--he wants to play baseball at the highest level he can, no matter where it is.
I should have stated more clearly that there are typically 8 non-scholarship slots, and I suppose that these slots will be partially filled from a larger pool of incoming players who will or should recognize that their odds of making the 35 man squad are inferior to those who have gotten scholarships. Actually, infinitely inferior because counters are placed on the 35 man squad by rule. I also expect that incoming players may need to compete for spots with e.g. seniors who are no longer receiving athletic aid. Making the 35 man roster is important, even for those who don't make the traveling squad, because otherwise the player can't practice with the team.
I think, but I'm not sure, that one of justbaseball's points is that some of the non-scholarship hopeful players may be among the most desireable and talented at the college, and they're cognizant of that, but don't need the countable money. So their odds of making the roster are very good, in spite of not being in the 27. That doesn't square up with what I know. I am acquainted with a very small set of players who have the resume to have been sure of making the roster, but didn't "need" athletic money. All of them are receiving it.
My basic thinking is the new transfer rules increases the desireability of finding the right fit, and the 25% rule allows a player the opportunity to get an objective measure of his perceived value. I think that soon players will start acting on that knowledge, and will strongly favor schools that will award them scholarships. A few will decide to try to make the 35 man roster without that assurance, either because the choice of school has higher priority than playing baseball, or because of an inverse set of priorities--he wants to play baseball at the highest level he can, no matter where it is.
quote:That doesn't square up with what I know. I am acquainted with a very small set of players who have the resume to have been sure of making the roster, but didn't "need" athletic money. All of them are receiving it.
I think thats a result of the small pool that you know.
I can name quite a few (but won't) players who are at the top of the talent pool but...
- receive(d) only need-based aid (because they qualified for it)
- receive(d) only academic-based aid (because they qualified for it)
I know of parents of top players who paid the whole bill 'to help out the program.'
And no, this isn't only at one school.
Don't try too hard to generalize how scholarships are given out because it varies from school-to-school and state-to-state (e.g. in-state players in some states qualify more easily for academic aid).
Just try your best to understand what you're getting (or not getting) and to make the best sense out of what it means. Ask if you don't know.
Thanks. It does seem to me that the new rules will actually cause more "running guys off", rather than reduce it. How about all those teams that signed 10-20 guys early. Granted, many of the top teams will have draft picks, etc., and that will come down. But they didn't know for sure until the draft - or more accurately, won't know until the deadline for guys to sign with pro teams.
I think coaches will still "over-recruit", unfortunately, and if at the end of the day they have more than 30 (soon 27) counters, they will simply drop the most unproductive players and tell them their scholarships are not being renewed.
I have heard of some schools which, as a matter of athletic department policy (not NCAA), honor athletic scholarships for four years - i.e. they automatically renew every year - and do not permit the pulling of scholarships based on performance. Would you say this is very rare?
I think coaches will still "over-recruit", unfortunately, and if at the end of the day they have more than 30 (soon 27) counters, they will simply drop the most unproductive players and tell them their scholarships are not being renewed.
I have heard of some schools which, as a matter of athletic department policy (not NCAA), honor athletic scholarships for four years - i.e. they automatically renew every year - and do not permit the pulling of scholarships based on performance. Would you say this is very rare?
quote:Originally posted by clchamp06:
Schools that over recruit may still, but generally good programs and good coaches don't over recruit. Most coaches recognize it's quality not quantity. Some coaches over recruited because they felt that every player who loved the program but not quite as talented should have a chance to wear a uniform, even if that meant wearing one on the bench. Others aren't allowed to over recruit. Others will over recruit because they are just not sure if they found the right players do your homework coach). There are many reasons this went on but the NCAA didn't like it because this caused huge transfer revolving doors which affected the APR.
Good coaches also award scholarships and tell players that it will be renewed every year unless they are ineligible. Coaches recruit knowing full well who will be a starter and who has to work harder to get a start. Some programs, freshman play right away and other times they may have to wait to make larger contributions but they don't want to wait.
Only nine can play at one time, good coaches use non starters in every way they can to make them feel a part of the team, whether it be as sub, DH at times, used for a particular matchup, etc. Sometimes you are the player to play at one position, expecting a player may be drafted, if he isn't you may lose out that position, a good coach will help you to learn another. Good coaches will find a way to get the best players into the starting lineup. Often times players don't want to make adjustments. So they transfer. And yes sometimes the charming coach during recruiting turns out to be a *** and sometimes that great recruit comes with a holier than thou attitude.
Of all the players that I know of, maybe one or two had their scholarships taken away, but many more left for more playing time or because they didn't want to make adjustments, or they bit off more than they really should have. Sometimes reasons to attend one program is so strong, nothing else will do (maybe the one you bled colors for, your parents alma mater).
I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand.
I think the amount of your scholarship doesn't always mean you will play or won't play more. Sometimes the amount is given because there is a need to lure you from another program, but that coach may not have you in his plans for two years. The player is just a piece of a larger puzzle he has to put together and we don't always understand it although we think that we do.
quote:I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand.
TPM,
I bet the sophomore who just had his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change doesn't think they are good rules when he has to sit and lose a year of eligibility when he see's his former coach at another institution coaching the next year.
Just one of a few scenarios that make these new rules "not good ones". jmho
Do you know of a sophmore who got his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change?
If so, that player may have the right (if for that reason) to go to the NCAA with a grievance.
If so, that player may have the right (if for that reason) to go to the NCAA with a grievance.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Do you know of a sophmore who got his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change?
If so, that player may have the right (if for that reason) to go to the NCAA with a grievance.
I would say your missing the point TPM, but I think you know the point I'm trying to make.
As for the grievance, incoming coach has no obligation to any of the players he inherits.
Doesn't fit his program or is his style of player.
Then the young man has no leg to stand on (grievance) and has to sit out a year even if his former coach wants him at his new school.
I am not missing the point. Yes, in the past it may have been done, but the player had an opportunity to go elsewhere and not sit. So it was overlooked. Doesn't look too good if the player makes a grievance he was cut because the coach didn't like him when his commitment is with the school.
Does anyone know of a player just released because a new coach came in?
Besides who is the coach bringing in, a player that has to sit out a year?
Does anyone know of a player just released because a new coach came in?
Besides who is the coach bringing in, a player that has to sit out a year?
quote:Does anyone know of a player just released because a new coach came in?
I don't know of any released players, but I do know of several players at an unnamed Big 12 school who were effectively benched and pushed out when a new head coach took over. Like theygrowupfast stated, sometimes players don't fit a new coach's program or style. One player at the Big 12 school transferred to a large D1 program in California and is making a big contribution there. Had the transfer rule been in effect a couple of years ago, he would have had to stay at his original school and not play or transfer to a lower-level program to avoid the sit-out penalty.
On the other hand, I know of a mid-major D1 head coach who took a job with a larger program and tried to take his two best pitchers with him. The pitchers declined, but at that time they could have transferred with no penalty. The same mid-major program had a shortstop who was unsuccessfully courted by a Big 12 program in the same year. If those players had decided to transfer, it certainly would have decimated the program they were leaving.
The new transfer rule has its positives and negatives. There will be people and programs that benefit from it and there will be others who unfairly suffer because of it.
The old transfer rules had the same positives. You had to be released by the athletic administrator. No release no play for 1 year. That is why the new rule only benefits the school. Before a coach could withhold a release but if he cut a guy he could release him for the benefit of the player.
My son's team had a guy who pitched about 9 innings a couple years ago. He left and went to a D11 and was 13-0 last year. For some reason the coach didn't give him a shot. It is only fair that guy should be able to get an opportunity to play. The coach did release him because he didn't want him and the guy didn't want to be there.
My son's team had a guy who pitched about 9 innings a couple years ago. He left and went to a D11 and was 13-0 last year. For some reason the coach didn't give him a shot. It is only fair that guy should be able to get an opportunity to play. The coach did release him because he didn't want him and the guy didn't want to be there.
quote:Besides who is the coach bringing in, a player that has to sit out a year? noidea
No, not if this new rule didn't exist.
Then again, the rule is to protect the school and it's APR, it has nothing to do with the student athlete and only penalizes them.
I know, we have been over this time and time again and it's not gonna change. It is what it is and you adjust and move on. (Right TRhit)
Hey TPM it's funny but didn't Florida release several players last season when new coach came in? You argued then that the coach was doing them a favor. One young man Ryan Lockwood transfered to USF without sitting out and just made all American. With the new transfer rule he would have to sit out a season. How many coaches today are going to wait for a plyer to sitout a season and within the rule the new school can not offer the transfer student Grant in aid which with the costs of colleges today may also influence a young person's decission. The rule sucks and there isn't a valid agrument that can be made that tells me how it isn't one side and screws the kid.
Hey Ryno, it's not funny, but new UF coach arrived with a roster of 45-46. Was new coach to wait until this year when they couldn't transfer and play or give them an option beforehand?
Tell me what would you have done?
Tell me what would you have done?
You asked the question. And I showed how the right to transfer and play immediately can be a win win situation. I feel that a school should be required to honor there word to a young student athlete when they are recriuted to that university. The NCAA has had the benefit of having their cake and eating it too. The point is now they the student athletes will be punished with having to sit out a year if they are released because of the same situations. Again anyone who supports these new rules is an idiot and is missing the big picture... MY OPINION OF COURSE.
While I doubt that Coach O'Sullivan had any real choices here and felt he was acting in the students' best interest...the fact is (IMO) the new transfer rule stinks!
Like many governing bodies, the NCAA invents rules that are not in the best interest of the student-athlete. I don't think they're evil or anything of the sort...just a little arrogant and full of themselves.
JMO.
Like many governing bodies, the NCAA invents rules that are not in the best interest of the student-athlete. I don't think they're evil or anything of the sort...just a little arrogant and full of themselves.
JMO.
I really don't think that there are many (if any) posters on this site that are fans of the NCAA's new rules. Many are still trying to wade through the wreckage left in the wake by the rule changes.
Anyone who indicates that they understand how some of the wreckage was delt or is being delt with is not defending the rule changes, just observing how they are being applied.
The coaches and the players are the ones feeling the brunt of these changes. Yes, it is the players with the most at stake, the coaches are not very happy either, and neither are most of the parents that post here.
There is nothing to be gained by questioning each others motives (those that post here) we are really pretty much together on this issue.
Anyone who indicates that they understand how some of the wreckage was delt or is being delt with is not defending the rule changes, just observing how they are being applied.
The coaches and the players are the ones feeling the brunt of these changes. Yes, it is the players with the most at stake, the coaches are not very happy either, and neither are most of the parents that post here.
There is nothing to be gained by questioning each others motives (those that post here) we are really pretty much together on this issue.
Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule. If you want to get nasty, get nasty on the NCAA.
I understand how you feel that coaches should honor commitments. I agree. I also agree that players should honor theirs as well.
However, you haven't answered the question. If you were a new coach coming into a program with 45 on roster and it had to be 35 max within a year, what would you have done? Maybe you would have done nothing and allowed those players to practice, then tell them in the fall to go find another program?
I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't have a player in school or one that will attending, but if I did, instead of complaining here, I would be sending my concerns to the NCAA.
I still also haven't gotten an answer about anyone being released for no good cause as of yet. Why don't you just calm down to see if the new rule imposed prevents coaches from over recruiting and releasing before the imposed spring 35 roster limit. If you hear of it, then it's a really good signal to stay away from that particular coach or program.
JMO.
I understand how you feel that coaches should honor commitments. I agree. I also agree that players should honor theirs as well.
However, you haven't answered the question. If you were a new coach coming into a program with 45 on roster and it had to be 35 max within a year, what would you have done? Maybe you would have done nothing and allowed those players to practice, then tell them in the fall to go find another program?
I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't have a player in school or one that will attending, but if I did, instead of complaining here, I would be sending my concerns to the NCAA.
I still also haven't gotten an answer about anyone being released for no good cause as of yet. Why don't you just calm down to see if the new rule imposed prevents coaches from over recruiting and releasing before the imposed spring 35 roster limit. If you hear of it, then it's a really good signal to stay away from that particular coach or program.
JMO.
.
...And we here highly resolve that these institution benefitting decisions of 2008 shall not have been instituted in vain...
...that this college baseball nation, under the all-knowing-all-seeing-old-testament NCAA God...
...shall have a new birth of non transferrin', short seasonin', 5 games a weekin', arm bustin', senior slashin', freshmen run offin', partial scholarshipin', sit a year even if you are a fall cutin', still overrecrutin' servitude...
...and that the heavy hand of the NCAA, by the NCAA, for the benefit of the NCAA, shall not perish from the landscape of college baseball.
44
,
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
Like many governing bodies, the NCAA invents rules that are not in the best interest of the student-athlete. I don't think they're evil or anything of the sort...just a little arrogant and full of themselves.
...And we here highly resolve that these institution benefitting decisions of 2008 shall not have been instituted in vain...
...that this college baseball nation, under the all-knowing-all-seeing-old-testament NCAA God...
...shall have a new birth of non transferrin', short seasonin', 5 games a weekin', arm bustin', senior slashin', freshmen run offin', partial scholarshipin', sit a year even if you are a fall cutin', still overrecrutin' servitude...
...and that the heavy hand of the NCAA, by the NCAA, for the benefit of the NCAA, shall not perish from the landscape of college baseball.
44,
OB44,
Good attempt to add some humor.
I went back and took a look at the player mentioned by Ryno. In 2007 the player was redshirted by the former coach. What statistics did he have to prove that he was a proven college player to the new coach? Was it not better to have found him a roster spot somewhere erlse (yes the current coach helped find them roster spots) than making him go through the fall to practice to find out maybe he had to sit again? 45 on roster what would you have done? Is this a case of former coaches over recruiting to begin with, or a player not really being where he should in the first place? Put this all together, and maybe the new rule isn't as bad as we think it is.
One of the reasons why the NCAA put this rule in place was to prevent over recruiting (then redshirts to follow) and players to not make hasty decisions (during recruiting) then transfer.
Don't ever try to dis anyone without knowing or understanding circumstances before you mention anyone's name (players and coaches alike).
Good attempt to add some humor.
I went back and took a look at the player mentioned by Ryno. In 2007 the player was redshirted by the former coach. What statistics did he have to prove that he was a proven college player to the new coach? Was it not better to have found him a roster spot somewhere erlse (yes the current coach helped find them roster spots) than making him go through the fall to practice to find out maybe he had to sit again? 45 on roster what would you have done? Is this a case of former coaches over recruiting to begin with, or a player not really being where he should in the first place? Put this all together, and maybe the new rule isn't as bad as we think it is.
One of the reasons why the NCAA put this rule in place was to prevent over recruiting (then redshirts to follow) and players to not make hasty decisions (during recruiting) then transfer.
Don't ever try to dis anyone without knowing or understanding circumstances before you mention anyone's name (players and coaches alike).
quote:I went back and took a look at the player mentioned by Ryno. In 2007 the player was redshirted by the former coach. What statistics did he have to prove that he was a proven college player to the new coach? Was it not better to have found him a roster spot somewhere erlse (yes the current coach helped find them roster spots) than making him go through the fall to practice to find out maybe he had to sit again? 45 on roster what would you have done? Is this a case of former coaches over recruiting to begin with, or a player not really being where he should in the first place? Put this all together, and maybe the new rule isn't as bad as we think it is.
One of the reasons why the NCAA put this rule in place was to prevent over recruiting (then redshirts to follow) and players to not make hasty decisions (during recruiting) then transfer.
Don't ever try to dis anyone without knowing or understanding circumstances before you mention anyone's name (players and coaches alike).
No dis on Florida -- obviously, the new coach had to make some cuts. However, I think the point RYNO is trying to make is that under the new rule, Ryan Lockwood would have had to sit out for a year or transfer to a lower-level program when he was cut. Obviously, he has D1 talent or he would not have made All-American. I don't believe it is fair to force athletes to sit out a year when transferring to another D1 program IF it wasn't their choice to leave the program in the first place.
Even the argument about the new transfer rule preventing players from making hasty decisions is dubious. When being recruited, players and their parents make the best decision they can with the limited information they are given. It is hard to predict how things will turn out when they arrive on campus. Sometimes a coach misleads with false promises and sometimes the campus environment just isn't to their liking. It's hard to determine whether a school will be a good fit after just a couple of days on campus and I hate to penalize players who end up being miserable at a place they originally thought was going to be a good fit.
I also think Ryno's point is a good one. Some great players get RS or even cut. Some languish on thje bench until given their opportunity.
BB is a very difficult sport to judge talent. I have seen guy signed based on one outstanding game whne the player is below average most of the time. Most players jump to sign at the 1st
offer that they are given. Very few have great choices to chose between.
Even when you meet coaches they all seem like great guys. They are4 in selling mode and are usually on best behaviour. It is very hard to make choices during the dating stage of recruiting.
College BB is a dynamic situation that is constantly changing. New recruits every fall, new coaches and players who develop and become better as they work at the game. There is no safe route for the majority of college players.
BB is a very difficult sport to judge talent. I have seen guy signed based on one outstanding game whne the player is below average most of the time. Most players jump to sign at the 1st
offer that they are given. Very few have great choices to chose between.
Even when you meet coaches they all seem like great guys. They are4 in selling mode and are usually on best behaviour. It is very hard to make choices during the dating stage of recruiting.
College BB is a dynamic situation that is constantly changing. New recruits every fall, new coaches and players who develop and become better as they work at the game. There is no safe route for the majority of college players.
quote:Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule.
"I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand."
TPM,
That's about as close as you can get to saying you support the rule, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is, the rule is completely unfair to the student athlete because there are going to be legit situations where it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the player transfer and making him sit out provides no positives and can actually be detrimental to him both as a student and athlete.
This is not an attack you TPM, but if you and others cannot see the injustice in this rule, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Its easy to say you agree with this rule if it has not affected your son personally. These rules give all the power to the coaches. believe me there are legitimate reasons for transfers as we are personally going through. If you never had a son in this situation its easy to say this is right move by NCAA, but firsthand it is very unfair especially to the players who did not sign letter of intent under these new rules. reality is you had to transfer before the spring semester of 2008 to not have to sit. You can practice the same as a redshirt but have to be part of the 35 man roster of team transferring to.I'm sure there are coaches that honor what they agreed to in scholarship money but there are many that will cut and change scholarships under these new rules and use the player to sitting out to help cutting scholarships.Players entering school fall 2008 get the benefit of 25% minium but not any player already in the school. 2009 players know the rules they signed under 2008 players and below had rules changed that they get no benefit but still get the shaft when it comes to sitting out. Anyone thinking this is good rule hasn't thought very long what it is like to be the player in Bad situation.If you are getting full scholarship in Football and Basketball coaches don't manipulate scholarship amount Baseball Coaches in may places do.
Very few players and parents want these new rules. They limit the opportunity for players in many ways, depriving of alot of young men the chance to learn and grow as part of college team. What the NCAA has done is hurt young players. Most agree with this. Now, how many of us have written to the NCAA to state objections? How many have followed up by writing his or her Congressman or Congresswoman to ask Congress to examine the NCAA's monopoly and the consequent abuses of power in which the NCAA engages?
If every player and parent who lost opportunity due to these new rules would write the NCAA first, and, if still not satisfied, write their Congressman or Congresswoman second, then the NCAA may have to reexamine its new rules with a view toward helping, rather than hurting, players.
And never let the NCAA argue that these rules were instituted to ensure that the student part of "student-athlete" is protected. That is simply untrue. These rules result in an larger burden on players than there was before. These rules in no way benefit the academic side of what players do.
So, please, write away--as often and as vehemently as you can stand. Maybe we can get things changed for the better. (As a cynic, I doubt it, because I think that ultimately big money (ESPN and major sponsors) is behind all of these changes. I think that the NCAA instituted these rules to take better control of the game so it can benefit from the gold mine that College Baseball is about to become.)
If every player and parent who lost opportunity due to these new rules would write the NCAA first, and, if still not satisfied, write their Congressman or Congresswoman second, then the NCAA may have to reexamine its new rules with a view toward helping, rather than hurting, players.
And never let the NCAA argue that these rules were instituted to ensure that the student part of "student-athlete" is protected. That is simply untrue. These rules result in an larger burden on players than there was before. These rules in no way benefit the academic side of what players do.
So, please, write away--as often and as vehemently as you can stand. Maybe we can get things changed for the better. (As a cynic, I doubt it, because I think that ultimately big money (ESPN and major sponsors) is behind all of these changes. I think that the NCAA instituted these rules to take better control of the game so it can benefit from the gold mine that College Baseball is about to become.)
quote:Originally posted by observer44:
.quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
Like many governing bodies, the NCAA invents rules that are not in the best interest of the student-athlete. I don't think they're evil or anything of the sort...just a little arrogant and full of themselves.
...And we here highly resolve that these institution benefitting decisions of 2008 shall not have been instituted in vain...
...that this college baseball nation, under the all-knowing-all-seeing-old-testament NCAA God...
...shall have a new birth of non transferrin', short seasonin', 5 games a weekin', arm bustin', senior slashin', freshmen run offin', partial scholarshipin', sit a year even if you are a fall cutin', still overrecrutin' servitude...
...and that the heavy hand of the NCAA, by the NCAA, for the benefit of the NCAA, shall not perish from the landscape of college baseball.
,
That boy just ain't right...
quote:Originally posted by theygrowupfast:quote:Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule.
"I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand."
TPM,
That's about as close as you can get to saying you support the rule, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is, the rule is completely unfair to the student athlete because there are going to be legit situations where it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the player transfer and making him sit out provides no positives and can actually be detrimental to him both as a student and athlete.
This is not an attack you TPM, but if you and others cannot see the injustice in this rule, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Ok, I said that
, I said RULES, what I did mean (sorry) was that it is a good rule if it it all works together. Especially if it works in improving the APR and graduation rates.Let me make my point, if the NCAA imposed a 35 roster limit and 10 wanted to leave voluntarily, what happens? In the past if the coach wasn't happy with players, he cut them, he had plenty more sitting for their turn, now how will he replace those players, by recruiting other D1 players and having them sit out a year? Do you think that good coaches want their reputaions on the line. Do you think that they want word out that have 45 show up and then let 10 go who now can't play for a year?
I do not support the rule if coaches continue to cut for over recruiting or because he comes into the program and wants his own players and not the ones that the former coach signed. THAT IS 100% WRONG.
I think that BHD made a good point, bb is a difficult sport to judge talent and recruiting is difficult. Most coaches do their homework, they begin looking year or two ahead for recruits, watch the player, develop relationships. Both sides get a chance to develop relationships, the player has the opportunity to visit unofficially to see the campus and faclilites and get a feel for the environment. Meet the team.
However, how often does the coach see a player play ONE time and calls with an offer? How many times does that player accept. How many players turn down good scholarship offers to accept recruited walk on at a higher profile school? How many players really know absolutely nothing about the coach or program before they say "yes". Another reason why I don't like very early commitments. Is a coach going to stay forever at the program, maybe, maybe not, make sure you love where you are going if the coach leaves. Do you have to now put up with the new coach (who you may not like), absolutely yes. Do some players get the shaft, absolutely. I know of only ONE HSBBW parent (in all my years here) who I think their son got royally shafted. Everything else has more or less been... son wanted more playing time, coach recruited someone else for that position..son had to have surgery (hurt when they came that's not coaches fault), didn't like new coach, coach turned out to be an idiot..didn't like the school (nothing to do with baseball), didn't do well in school, etc.
My son had a coach from a major SEC program call and offer a scholarship, he never saw him play, he "heard" he was good. If he had jumped on the offer and not happy, who was at fault? How many players do you know that have been in that circumstance? Many. How many players wait until the last minute to get themselves seen then take the first offer that comes along, many. How many players took the first offer because they were afraid they wern't going to get to play anywhere? Many. How many players refused to go to JUCO (when they should have) and went to a large program and didn't play. Many. How many players came to school hurt and never gave full details, many, many, many.
Many coaches make promises they can't keep. If someone makes a promise to your son, run the other way. Don't let your player jump at his first opportunity, even if it's his dream school.
As another suggests, if it affects or could affect your son, let the higher powers know how you feel. Let tehem know they set spring roster limits but they forgot the fall.
Don't blame coaches for trying to work with the little they have, it's not their fault that they are only allowed so few scholarhips. Most have good intentions, remember it's like a marriage and marriages don't always work out then there are consequences to pay. Does the coach get consequences, you bet, he loses those that contribute to his APR (not transfer).Don't allow your son to attend D1 school if you have any doubts that your player may get screwed, watch fall rosters, watch spring rosters, know what you are looking for.
If you've seen a program with few seniors, did you ask the coach why they have so few seniors, where did they go? How many of you have ever asked the question during recruiting how many on teh fall roster vs. spring roster.
I don't take this as personal, I do take it as a lot of people not really understanding from the beginning how things work, and that usually is because they feel their player is so good they can get the job done anywhere, when essentially that's a very difficult thing to do for most players, even very talented ones.
quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
That boy just ain't right...
Not right?...Me?
You talkin' 'bout me? 44.
In a perfect world you study and pay attention to every detail and when you get to campus everything is as it should be. With that said every player doesn't go to school and things work out as they planned.There are many, many kids that transfer for one or many reasons this doesn't make the player at fault or the coach.The new rules leave it open for coaches to hold all the cards. Our sons situation has nothing to do with coach abusing the new rules he just wasn't happy with situation and left. Although it is a tough situation ,sitting out is better than being unhappy for 4 years. The NCAA has not given the players much thought with the transfer rule and Coaches and Players feel it is very unfair. The new rules make it very hard to even go to JUCO as they changed eligibility requirements upon re-entry to DI. We got much advice from coaches and athletic advisors who looked at the best route back to DI and decided best route for son was to get enrolled in new school , focus on academics and improving as a player and biting the BULLET and sitting a year. The amount of scholarship isn't as important as developement as student,person and player and sometimes this doesn't happen in Wrong environment.Again this Rule was not made with the best interests of the Student it was made for APR which means you are trying to force players to stay and be unhappy or leave and be forced to sit. No player wants to sit but many times situation not as it seems until you actually get on campus.
Rob Oliver,
I see that you are a new HSBBW but your writing sounds familiar, either way welcome.
Again, your situation was as your son was not happy, not due to being cut or his scholarship (if he had one) taken away. Where are all the stories of players being cut by bad coaches. I don't really hear too many of those. I do not beleive that the new rules allow coaches to hold all of the cards. How about the coach from a smaller D1 program who has worked with a player who becomes his ace or one of his best and leaves for a bigger program? Did that coach hold the cards, or did the player? If the player was not granted a release, all he had to do was appeal it and it was granted. Now that player, who the coach is relying on to make significant contributions CAN'T leave.
Do coaches run players off, absolutely, but many times I think what players feel being run off is not enough playing time given.
Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.
I see that you are a new HSBBW but your writing sounds familiar, either way welcome.
Again, your situation was as your son was not happy, not due to being cut or his scholarship (if he had one) taken away. Where are all the stories of players being cut by bad coaches. I don't really hear too many of those. I do not beleive that the new rules allow coaches to hold all of the cards. How about the coach from a smaller D1 program who has worked with a player who becomes his ace or one of his best and leaves for a bigger program? Did that coach hold the cards, or did the player? If the player was not granted a release, all he had to do was appeal it and it was granted. Now that player, who the coach is relying on to make significant contributions CAN'T leave.
Do coaches run players off, absolutely, but many times I think what players feel being run off is not enough playing time given.
Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.
quote:Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.
To save the member school's money!
Smaller rosters,ability to force players to accept whatever amount of money the coach wants to offer in subsequent years. i.e. not fully funded program can use dollars on freshman/JC transfers by pulling it from players with no choice.
It certainly had nothing to do with improving APRs as the most impacted players, walk-ons, are not even counted in the calculation!
Just guessing.........
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.
Because of the widespread player poaching that went on in summer leagues.
Great point CPLZ
I am not sure, just my guess but I think that coaches were over recruiting, then sending players off to JUCO's with a promise they could come back in a year to play. This prevents that. Also, before you had to be eligible only in spring, now a JUCO player has to be eligible for the fall, giving less chance for the coach to see how he does and cut him using eligiblity as an excuse.
I understand parents concerns. I think that for those whose sons have not yet gone off to college to play, there is a certain fear of the unknown, that a "what if things don't go right, now my son can't transfer without sitting out a year" way of thinking. There is always the unknown, and yes things don't always work out as we want them to. I know some people whose sons transfered and had legit reasons other than they "just weren't happy". Distance, finances, etc. Many reasons why many transfer. Just as there are many reasons why players get cut.
I don't mean to speak for anyone. FrankF, Rz1, Former Observer, Academydad, Clevelanddad, Infielddad, FBM, justbaseball, TRhit, Bobbleheaddoll, Dad04, Bordeaux, Bullwinkle, luvbb, Fungo,Bear, Orlando, Bee>, just a few regular posters here whose kids went off to school, and have played at all types of programs, some of their players graduated, some transfered from JUCO, some getting drafted, some not, some hurt, some went through coaching changes, some redshirted. Some had to wait their turn, some played right away, some had to be backups to other players, some lost their starts, gained it back. Was it always easy street for all of them, were their players happy 100% of the time? Or maybe felt they may have made bad choices?
Our kids survived, they weren't cut, they made careful choices, followed team rules, stayed away from the temptations and went to class when they were supposed to and understood (though may not have liked it) that college baseball experience is what it is. Oh and eventuallyyou learn yor degree is important too. And I am sure when the times got tough, mom and dad told them to stick with it, work harder and not sulk on the bench, be a good team player, listen to the coach and show respect. Because in the end, that's what gets you to keep your scholarship.
I understand parents concerns. I think that for those whose sons have not yet gone off to college to play, there is a certain fear of the unknown, that a "what if things don't go right, now my son can't transfer without sitting out a year" way of thinking. There is always the unknown, and yes things don't always work out as we want them to. I know some people whose sons transfered and had legit reasons other than they "just weren't happy". Distance, finances, etc. Many reasons why many transfer. Just as there are many reasons why players get cut.
I don't mean to speak for anyone. FrankF, Rz1, Former Observer, Academydad, Clevelanddad, Infielddad, FBM, justbaseball, TRhit, Bobbleheaddoll, Dad04, Bordeaux, Bullwinkle, luvbb, Fungo,Bear, Orlando, Bee>, just a few regular posters here whose kids went off to school, and have played at all types of programs, some of their players graduated, some transfered from JUCO, some getting drafted, some not, some hurt, some went through coaching changes, some redshirted. Some had to wait their turn, some played right away, some had to be backups to other players, some lost their starts, gained it back. Was it always easy street for all of them, were their players happy 100% of the time? Or maybe felt they may have made bad choices?
Our kids survived, they weren't cut, they made careful choices, followed team rules, stayed away from the temptations and went to class when they were supposed to and understood (though may not have liked it) that college baseball experience is what it is. Oh and eventuallyyou learn yor degree is important too.
And I am sure when the times got tough, mom and dad told them to stick with it, work harder and not sulk on the bench, be a good team player, listen to the coach and show respect. Because in the end, that's what gets you to keep your scholarship.quote:Reply
TPM actually I write under LexBaseballeagle but when first signed up didn't realize name was on web. Never changed it and at work this name came up and I didn't even see it. No big deal as I really don't care if anyone knows who I am. I don't have negatives to say about our sons situation , just thought could shed light on the subject from someone going through this situation.
So explain what was wrong with thje old transfer rule? You had to be released or you sat 1year. If a player wanted a release he had to beg for it. He had to explain and if the coach said no he didn't get it. If a coach said yes with restrictions, Ie not in our conferencs he could transfer to a team in another conference.
In the case of a cut player he should be released and allo0wed to play at another D1. Don't argue about lack of ability because that had been shown to be far from the truth. There are many cut players who went on to be great players. Coaches are human and make judgemental mistakes just as often as not. Ther is not bonafide reason for the rule change.
In the case of a cut player he should be released and allo0wed to play at another D1. Don't argue about lack of ability because that had been shown to be far from the truth. There are many cut players who went on to be great players. Coaches are human and make judgemental mistakes just as often as not. Ther is not bonafide reason for the rule change.