“The ways we can turn over rosters!”

https://twitter.com/o3jfrye/st...383070404599812?s=21

When my son was in high school I attended some college games to chat with parents. One game (mid major) it turned out I was chatting with a pro scout. He was waiting for a certain pitcher to take the mound.

He handed me the roster and asked if I saw anything unusual. First there were only twenty-five on the roster. It was fourteen freshmen, ten soph transfers and one senior. I noticed and commented it was odd.

It was a warning. The program had some mediocre seasons. A new coach came in. He was a fast rising assistant from another program. He released the entire roster except one senior worth keeping.

I guess that is also not the same in every college. I assume there are some schools who are fine with competing and being somewhat comptetive and others are more like college WS or bust.

A kid my son had played against in HS was at fall practice at my son's college his freshman year.  I knew his parents a little bit...and had heard he was going to school there, but had no idea whether he was a walk on or had a scholly.  Get to the first day of scrimmages and his parents are there.  I start talking to them and found out he was a walk on.  They honestly had no idea that his chance of making the team was essentially zero.  He was a good HS player, but not a D1 caliber IF.  He was there thru the fall....then let go.  His parents seemed stunned that this could happen.  I guess my point is that you need to know the situation.  Granted, this one is probably stranger than most....and even strange because I know the kid and parents have friends who have gone thru this and could have given them some insight.

I get it, you don't want to pop their bubble. I know that is not being a friend, but when is it a good time to kill the dream?

The older brother of one of my son’s high school teammates headed for a mid major with an offer to walk on. The head coach wasn’t at the tryout. After forty-five minutes the players were called off the field.  They were thanked for the effort and told there weren’t any roster openings available. But the school met the NCAA requirements for open tryout.

It didn’t seem like the kind of program who could pass on finding a possible late bloomer, walk on stud. But it doesn’t take many swings to determine if a kid has a D1 swing or pitches to determine a D1 arm.

I must be in the minority.  Either that or I am cynical and lost.  But I am way passed the point of being shocked by people doing bad things and kids getting hosed by college coaches.  There are thousands of things in place that make it extremely unlikely to be fixed in our lifetime, so I see zero value in lamenting it.  It exists everywhere.  Think would-be actors don't face the same crap in Hollywood?  Of course they do and every single one of them knows it going in.  Yet they still flock there in droves for a shot.  Same deal for new politicians heading to DC.  If you CHOOSE to try to play in a cutthroat game, expect cutthroat risks and consequences.  Educate yourself and make the smartest decisions you possibly can to minimize risk, but never allow yourself to be fooled into believing you're safe from all risk.

My son is playing Juco ball with hopes of playing D1 ball.  If that happens, it'll be my son's choice.  And the moment he chooses that, he's signing up to play a game that can be very dirty at times.  A VERY cutthroat game with high exposure to risk around every corner.  Of course I'll feel bad for my son should he get "hosed" by a coach or whatever, but I won't be surprised.  And I'll work to ensure my son isn't surprised.  Let the buyer beware, I say.  If you're seeking a ton of fairness and men/women of their word, why on earth would you choose D1 sports?  Seriously?  There are no secrets that aren't exposed already.  Assess your tolerance for risk and then make a choice on a path that lines up best with your risk tolerance.

There is a lot of disparity as to what college athletes can do or not do but with the creation of the transfer portal it opens up more avenues for them to look out for themselves.  We have talked for years how it's unfair that coaches can pack up and leave for a better job but athletes were stuck.  First I don't see the problem with a coach looking for a better / different job.  I have that freedom in my profession and everybody else does to so why shouldn't coaches have that?  But I recognized some hypocrisy in forcing athletes to stay when the coach they wanted to play for bolted.  The transfer portal fixes this.

This now resembles real life a little more.  Coaches can go find better jobs.  Players can find schools they can play at or better fit.  Overall this is a good thing.  But if either group thinks they can't be replaced at any time then any hurt feelings is their fault. If a coach can find an incoming player through recruitment or portal who can play better than someone already on the team I don't blame them when coaches are fired for not winning.  Is that cutthroat?  I guess but if my job is on the line I'm making the change.  You can just be mad

I don't consider it cutthroat.  I think a coach's job is to put the best players on the field that he can.  If a player is brought in that is better than you, you either get better or find a new place.  How is that the coach's fault?  I've never met a coach that guaranteed playing time in college.  They may say we see you being able to compete to be our starting shortstop or something like that.  You may not see the new transfer coming in on the list of recruits but it is what it is.  I just don't see all the hate on here for coaches who bring in better players.  Now if they intentionally bring in 25 players a year knowing they can't keep them all then eventually it will bite them.  My son was recruited by a coach that yearly cut 10-12 guys after fall but he was not ever in consideration.  I don't understand the free pass everyone wants to give to parents and players who don't do their homework.   How do they not do research on such a life decision?

Older son had not made a commitment yet, and was asked (along w/ 5-6 others) to drive about 4 hours in September of senior year for a "tryout' at a mid major.  He pitched well and afterwards the head coach was brutally honest.  I'll paraphrase and note that the coach was entering his 2nd season in charge and the previous season did not end w/ a bang:

"in a normal year we'd love to offer you as we know that you'll be a good college pitcher SOON, however there is a good chance that when you become that pitcher who can help us win games, I may not be here anymore if I don't win THIS year and NEXT,  so we're going to bring in a ton of JUCO guys".

We drove back disheartened, but it all worked out as he ended up as a walkon w/ a secure spot at a mid major and finished with 50% $ over 4 years.

And you know what, that coach did not stay there more than 2 years.  He won big that year and the next and got a P5 job.     

I have an issue with grossly over recruiting. But outside this it’s survival of the fittest. Sometimes fittest comes down to being mentally tough to deal with what’s thrown at you rather than how talented you are. Everyone at the school is talented.

I believe players and parents hearing what they want to believe to be true rather than what the coaching staff is saying is not the coaching staff’s fault.

My kid’s high school puts a lot of boys and girls into college sports. The guidance counselors understand the process and the game. When it’s been identified a player is a college prospect the guidance counselors give the athletes a handout. The focus of the handout is do you want to go play where you are more likely to star (D2, D3) or where you might fight for your position or roster spot every year (D1, but can happen at every level relative to the talent).

My daughter (softball) was a P5 four year fourth outfielder. But she played a reasonable amount. She was where she wanted to be academically for her major.

My son won a P5 starting position mid freshman season when a previous year and a half starter stumbled. He returned soph year to see a JuCo All American at his position. He had hit well freshman year. He won another position. The next year he faced competition from incoming freshman who was  state Gatorade player of the year. He fended off the competition. Stay mentally tough and you will be fine. Stay focused. Stay mentally sharp. You hit, you play. It helps to be versatile enough to play anywhere.

I started this thread because of the sense that Riley’s comments reflect another new and very outspoken attitude about winning at the P5 (at least) level. Also extremely important to recognize the perspectives are completely approved, and in fact supported by their AD.

As I post this I wonder how Stanford and Cal., for instance, will respond to this. It is hard to conceive either will pay their football coach $10M per year, buy their mansions, provide 24 family access to private jets, etc.

To me (and our son is done with his playing and D1 coaching career), the message isn’t that every coach in college baseball coach is a used car salesman, a bad guy and, especially, not to be believed. Heck, in my view some lose their jobs because players do not carry their side of the bargain!
Riley is being very up front in the goals his boss has given him (winning and playing in the Championship game every year-or he gets fired too).

We may be starting to see  a fracture in D1 as I really cannot fathom Cal, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and others adopting this level of pay, etc.

In the interim I would tend to think every D1 potential player needs to recognize he is being recruited as expendable if he does not produce and perform.

He needs to have THE goal, and respond, of being a better player today than he was yesterday. He needs to be early for lifting and stay late. He needs to constantly be there for early work for practice and stay late. The same is true for all team activities…and he needs to compete and succeed in the classroom. He can never relax. He MUST produce every day and probably be even more productive every week of his college career, if he plays in programs which adopt the philosophy which USC and others are doing in football

PS-I very much question if USC will translate the philosophy to their baseball program-but UCLA may be a very different answer!

i think, with baseball, the situation is markedly different than football because of the  11.7 but not necessarily for the same reasons everyone is talking about.   since the teams are limited to 11.7, private schools are at a huge disadvantage out of the gate. this probably balances out, to some respect, the benefits that many private schools have with their usually bigger endowments and bigger boosters.

we have a friend whose son was talking to a private school (D1, good mid major level baseball).  at the last minute, a great in-state public school offered him and he accepted.  all in, his dad said he was getting a pay raise (the kid goes to a private hs) bc with the offer, his tuition, books and room and board were going to be less than his hs tuition!  with the private university, his hs tuition number would have been doubled.

Imagine if college coaches were managing in the corporate world.  Do you know how hard it would be to move on from underperformers for better talent?  Would take 6 months minimum with full write-ups including needed improvements in performance metrics and then bolo for the lawsuits.....   Now on the flip side being a college coach has to be a very challenging job.  Each of us on here has at least one son aged 18-23+.  Now imagine managing 40 knuckleheads.   I am not sure I would want that job although when I retire I would love to help a college program somehow.  Just my two cents.

If you encourage coaches to bring in transfers, then you are basically treating the athletes like professionals, and in that case, colleges should just pay them and get rid of the hypocrisy.  Notice we never have conversations about whether MiLB should be cutting players.  In the professional sports world, it's expected that this would happen.  But, college athletes are not professionals.

Colleges are part of the real world, in that college students are customers, and everyone at the college who caters to them, from professors to librarians to maintenance workers, are employees of the business of which the students are customers. If they defined athletes (or at least basketball and football) as part of the entertainment that was laid on as an amenity for the students, then the athletes could be paid employees and not students.

Colleges don't want to admit that they are hiring entertainment for their students, alumni, and communities - even though they pay for coaches, facilities, travel, etc.  They go out of their way to stress that the athletes are being paid with tuition and room-and-board, they are students like all the other students (yeah, right) - oh, actually, they are just students who happen to want to play sports for recreation and let other people watch. . . . It's a lot of hoops just to be able to say that the athletes are NOT employees hired to provide entertainment.  So since college athletes are not employees, why should they be treated like employees?

Students are not kicked to the curb when someone better comes along; they get to stick around and finish their degrees.

I assume that the problem is that the NCAA and most schools sell the idea of "scholar-athlete" so well that some D1 athletes (PitchingFan's "those who haven't done their homework") expect to be treated like students and not employees.

My biggest beef with all of this is the scholarship aspect.  If baseball players were all on full rides, I wouldn't have as much issue with players being processed.   

Infield Dad;

The Coaches will have many discussions at the January Baseball Coach's Convention in January. It will interesting, if the Coaches propose a "Freshman" Team program for their schools.

When I created the Area Code games, the College Coaches depended on the AC tryouts for their "prospects". We did not use "metrics" except the "gun and watch"!

The invited players paid NO fee.

The  two days of exhibition games provide the "visual" image to the Coach and Scout.

In the stands the polite exchange of information between the Scout and Coach was an symbol of cooperation and info sharing.

Bob

@infielddad posted:

I started this thread because of the sense that Riley’s comments reflect another new and very outspoken attitude about winning at the P5 (at least) level. Also extremely important to recognize the perspectives are completely approved, and in fact supported by their AD.

As I post this I wonder how Stanford and Cal., for instance, will respond to this. It is hard to conceive either will pay their football coach $10M per year, buy their mansions, provide 24 family access to private jets, etc.

Stanford is already paying David Shaw 8.9 million a year. 

They paid him that for one year. $2M was a one time payment.

His base is about $6.5M. Higher than I expected but still about $5M below Riley

with that said, I still would be surprised if Stanford could ever turn its roster the was Riley and the AD indicated will happen for USC to win and be top team immediately.

@infielddad wrote, “in the interim I would think every D1 potential player needs to recognize that he is being recruited as expendable if he does not produce and perform.”

Wait, what?!?  I mean, you are not wrong but this is hardly news. Top 25 D1 programs have operated this way for decades. The past two years may have put the spotlight on the issue more than in the past but nothing new to see here.

@adbono posted:

@infielddad wrote, “in the interim I would think every D1 potential player needs to recognize that he is being recruited as expendable if he does not produce and perform.”

Wait, what?!?  I mean, you are not wrong but this is hardly news. Top 25 D1 programs have operated this way for decades. The past two years may have put the spotlight on the issue more than in the past but nothing new to see here.

Well, it is always a HSBBW communication issue when someone takes one part of the post to question the thought.  Here was the entire thought designed to help those on the way up:

"He needs to have THE goal, and respond, of being a better player today than he was yesterday. He needs to be early for lifting and stay late. He needs to constantly be there for early work for practice and stay late. The same is true for all team activities…and he needs to compete and succeed in the classroom. He can never relax. He MUST produce every day and probably be even more productive every week of his college career, if he plays in programs which adopt the philosophy which USC and others are doing in football,"

As to your point, it is overly broad. ASU and UofA, for instance have certainly acted this way. Stanford and Vanderbilt-not so much. Over time, with college coaching salaries increasing especially in the P5, the concept of turning over rosters has been much more cut throat.  I was on this board many years back when UNLV publicly hired a Las Vegas coach and pretty much cut any player and every NLI out of the area and it was a real shocker on this site. It was not decades ago.

With that said, since my longevity on this site is for decades, I personally think it is a bit rare for a college coach like Riley, backed by the AD, to be so open and brazen on turning over rosters as the method for immediate success.  Washington did it a few years back in baseball, also, but it was far less public.

There are always outliers like Stanford and Vanderbilt that do things differently. And my comment clearly defined top 25 D1 programs as those I was referring to - so that’s not very broad. It may be more out in the open now but this is not news. I played at a top 25 D1 program 40 years ago and it was that way then. If you didn’t perform you were shown the door. I will agree that it’s worse now than ever before but I witnessed it myself back in the day decades ago.

USC has an acceptance rate of 13% and an average SAT of 1440.  Hiring a coach who is boasting of churn and burn means they are not thinking of themselves in the rare air of Vandy (10% and 1505) or Stanford (4% and 1505).  So for all who debate what HA means...

And yes, I know that the athletes don't meet the same standards, and that, just as in other D1 programs, they cut players.  And also that USC has some very unique standards when it comes to their athletic admissions (think the scandal of 2019).

I’m not sure I would call USC HA. Maybe the next level. But the athletes don’t have to fall into the HA category. Our high school had a running back recruited by Vanderbilt. He had a 4.25. It wasn’t his gpa. It was his forty time. The kid graduated high school with a special ed degree. He lasted one semester at Vanderbilt. He transferred to a mid major and lasted there one year. Without a college degree he’s now a success in the distribution industry.

@adbono posted:

There are always outliers like Stanford and Vanderbilt that do things differently. And my comment clearly defined top 25 D1 programs as those I was referring to - so that’s not very broad. It may be more out in the open now but this is not news. I played at a top 25 D1 program 40 years ago and it was that way then. If you didn’t perform you were shown the door. I will agree that it’s worse now than ever before but I witnessed it myself back in the day decades ago.

Vanderbilt has a sliding scale for top talent...I don't mean to infer they shouldn't or it is bad just that they do.

There are very few if any, I am inclined to believe there are none, that don't have a sliding scale if they want to compete at the top levels. Some slide more then others and some are quieter about it but IMO nobody who is constant top 25 type school doesn't do this.

Some slide more for important sports (football, basketball, ladies basketball, ya got to be inclusive) some slide less for sports where a higher percentage of athletes are closer to the normal acceptance level but they all slide as needed to get what they want.

When my son was in high school I was talking with some Duke parents at a Duke - Boston College baseball game. I mentioned a neighbor’s kid was at Duke playing basketball. Two parents quickly responded the baseball players don’t get the academic slack in admissions the basketball players receive.

@RJM posted:

When my son was in high school I was talking with some Duke parents at a Duke - Boston College baseball game. I mentioned a neighbor’s kid was at Duke playing basketball. Two parents quickly responded the baseball players don’t get the academic slack in admissions the basketball players receive.

i think that is standard but i bet they get more slack then the random applicant from "anytown" usa.

@old_school posted:

i think that is standard but i bet they get more slack then the random applicant from "anytown" usa.

At the time (son was sixteen twelve years ago) I was told Duke’s scale for baseball players was similar to the Ivies for players. But even Ivies can be different. At that time Columbia and Princeton had different numbers for baseball players.

There was a time when Duke wouldn’t hang a basketball ACC, regional or national championship banner until every player on the roster graduated. With one and done they had to end the policy.

we were just at a uc santa barbara camp and i got talking with the recruiting coordinator. if you look online, the average incoming freshman hs gpa is 4.1.  the RC said that, if they want a player, they can go as low as 3.0

@mattys posted:

we were just at a uc santa barbara camp and i got talking with the recruiting coordinator. if you look online, the average incoming freshman hs gpa is 4.1.  the RC said that, if they want a player, they can go as low as 3.0

A few years ago a top Ivy coach said his minimums for a stud were 1300 and 3.5. He said to justify that a player needs to have the ability to be a starter on day 1

All well and good getting in if you are a "athletic stud" - but you will have to compete in the classroom with some of the brightest kids in the country. Good luck keeping up GPA just to stay eligible, this is not basketball where a draft eligible player can skate for a year and leave.

In a world of grade inflation it’s not hard to get a 3.5 in high school. Just avoid the challenging classes. I know two kids who went to a high ranked HA D1 taking only general college courses and zero honors courses. The “average” high school student now graduates with a 3.0 (of 4.0)

The part the player can’t avoid are the hard questions on the SAT/ACT test. When my son went through recruiting he heard 1300-1350 from Ivies. If a kid can get a 1300 on the SAT he’s likely going to be able to survive the classroom. No one I know who went to Ivies said it was hard. They said it was very competitive to finish at or near the top of the class.

I don’t think it is important to finish at the top of the class….just get it done

@old_school posted:

I don’t think it is important to finish at the top of the class….just get it done

There’s also rampant grade inflation in college. If a student wants the pick of the jobs or attend a quality grad school they need a 3.5. I told my kids if they didn’t get a 3.5 they were as average as most of the rest of the students. The bar is a little lower if they’re already in a HA undergrad.

@RJM posted:

There’s also rampant grade inflation in college. If a student wants the pick if the jobs or attend a quality grad school they need a 3.5. I told my kids if they didn’t get a 3.5 they were as average as most of the rest of the students. The bar is a little lower if they’re already in a HA undergrad.

I am gonna stick with whatever

@RJM posted:

In a world of grade inflation it’s not hard to get a 3.5 in high school. Just avoid the challenging classes. I know two kids who went to a high ranked HA D1 taking only general college courses and zero honors courses. The “average” high school student now graduates with a 3.0 (of 4.0)

The part the player can’t avoid are the hard questions on the SAT/ACT test. When my son went through recruiting he heard 1300-1350 from Ivies. If a kid can get a 1300 on the SAT he’s likely going to be able to survive the classroom. No one I know who went to Ivies said it was hard. They said it was very competitive to finish at or near the top of the class.

Our experience so far is the “elite” HA D3 schools are paying a lot more attention to grades, rigor, and math courses. The SAT and PSAT have also been mentioned. Ivies have only asked about GPA and scores. Most have said kids who won’t be successful there don’t get in.

@TerribleBPthrower posted:

Our experience so far is the “elite” HA D3 schools are paying a lot more attention to grades, rigor, and math courses. The SAT and PSAT have also been mentioned. Ivies have only asked about GPA and scores. Most have said kids who won’t be successful there don’t get in.

The HA D3’s have always been rigid. One parent told me if there’s a test and a post season game the kid isn’t going to be on the bus. The HA D1 I was referencing is Vanderbilt where the kids didn’t have any honors courses in high school. Both of the kids had about 2.7 GPA’s there. One is now finishing up after eight years in the majors in case he wants to become a coach. Right now he’s a MLB scout. The other changed his major away from neuro science after the first year to something easier. His mother is a nurse.

Middle son was recruited by a HA P5 and the RC told him I can get you in, we have a couple of exclusions, I'm just not sure I can keep you in.

@PitchingFan posted:

Middle son was recruited by a HA P5 and the RC told him I can get you in, we have a couple of exclusions, I'm just not sure I can keep you in.

Interesting you are one of the few posters who kid isn’t either world class player and / or a rocket future rocket scientist.