I don't think I can get more specific. Oh, South Carolina needs to be in front of North Carolina.... That is so hard for me to say... :-)
There can be opportunity at any school. I would think a truly talented player wouldn't want to sit the bench anywhere. The advice we liked the best was don't settle for the 33rd spot 'cause the coach may to everything to get you to leave. Go where you are wanted and based on scholly size, where you think you will play. Kids want to be on winning teams. Looking at past schedules, wins and losses, coaching etc, a player can find the right school. In fact, playing for a new coach building a program may be the right fit.
So I agree with rz1 - playing at the collegiate level is the next step for the majority of kids. Enjoy the game no matter what school it is! If they want to be drafted, sure take that into consideration - you only live once. If the players want to play for 4 years, then let that be your guide.
I still believe that if you are good enough, you will be seen.
quote:Originally posted by 55mom:
That's an interesting list.
Tarheels, ECU definitely, NC State - an ACC school, but ummm, (as a fan, just can't bring myself to say it) ...
I think App State is probably stronger than UNCG or UNCW. Wake Forest maybe an up and coming?? Don't know much about GWU, but Elon usually has a strong team too.
I don't think I can get more specific. Oh, South Carolina needs to be in front of North Carolina.... That is so hard for me to say... :-)
Of the ones in NC you mentioned and a few others here are the ranks last year, records, & conference.
I will take a stab at listing them as Top, Mid, or Low D1.
1) UNC-Chapel Hill 51-16 ACC * Top *
36) NC State 35-27 ACC * Mid *
29) East Carolina 41-21 Conference USA * Mid *
134) Appalachian St. 33-27 Southern * Mid *
94) UNC-Greensboro 34-20 Southern * Mid *
246) UNC-Asheville 15-37 Big South * Low *
100) UNC-Wilmington 31-28 Colonial * Mid *
92) Gardner Webb 34-23-1 Big South * Mid *
47) Elon 36-21 Southern * Mid *
66) Wake Forest 25-31 ACC * Mid *
73) Charlotte 43-16 Atlantic 10 * Mid *
222) Davidson 18-30 Southern * Low *
Anyone agree or disagree with any of them?
Major D1
UNC
East Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Duke
When you play in the ACC your conference schedule alone means your playing a Major College schedule and your a Major College program.
East Carolina is in a regional almost every year and competes for a conference title every year.
Mid D1
Elon
Western Carolina
UNC Wilmington
UNC Charlotte
App State
High Point
Low D1
NC A@T
North Carolina Central
Davidson
UNC Asheville
Gardner Webb
Campbell
UNC Greensboro
Just my take on it.
UNC
East Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Duke
When you play in the ACC your conference schedule alone means your playing a Major College schedule and your a Major College program.
East Carolina is in a regional almost every year and competes for a conference title every year.
Mid D1
Elon
Western Carolina
UNC Wilmington
UNC Charlotte
App State
High Point
Low D1
NC A@T
North Carolina Central
Davidson
UNC Asheville
Gardner Webb
Campbell
UNC Greensboro
Just my take on it.
Thanks for taking a stab at it.
A few of your choices are the reason many people have trouble understanding the differences.
Is it baseball alone or the reputation of their other sports teams? How can teams with losing records in recent years like Wake and Duke be considered Top D1's, yet top 100 ranked teams with winning records like UNC Greensboro and Gardner Webb be Low D1's?
You even have High Point listed as a Mid D1 when they came in 2nd to last in the Big South conference with a 24-32 record. Gardner Webb with a winning record of 34-23-1 came within one game of going to the regional, losing to Coastal Carolina in the Big South title game. How do you have them listed as Low D1?
Western Carolina was ranked 193 with a 23-31-1 record, so how are they Mid D1 on your list?
Duke has been losing every year in baseball, but everyone knows them for being a power in basketball, so does that help their status in other sports they do not do well in?
Sorry for all the questions but this subject can drive people crazy trying to figure out how teams get their reputation and status. Don't even get me started on California schools.
A few of your choices are the reason many people have trouble understanding the differences.
Is it baseball alone or the reputation of their other sports teams? How can teams with losing records in recent years like Wake and Duke be considered Top D1's, yet top 100 ranked teams with winning records like UNC Greensboro and Gardner Webb be Low D1's?
You even have High Point listed as a Mid D1 when they came in 2nd to last in the Big South conference with a 24-32 record. Gardner Webb with a winning record of 34-23-1 came within one game of going to the regional, losing to Coastal Carolina in the Big South title game. How do you have them listed as Low D1?
Western Carolina was ranked 193 with a 23-31-1 record, so how are they Mid D1 on your list?
Duke has been losing every year in baseball, but everyone knows them for being a power in basketball, so does that help their status in other sports they do not do well in?
Sorry for all the questions but this subject can drive people crazy trying to figure out how teams get their reputation and status. Don't even get me started on California schools.
Playing in the ACC means your going to be playing against some of the best programs in the nation almost every weekend. It also means your non conference schedule is usually going to include some very very good teams as well. Just because your record is not very good does not mean your not a Major D1 program. There are other factors outside of record.
You can't go on record alone and definitely in a one year situation. I understand some will disagree with me. There are many factors at play here and some I will not go into on a public message board. I should have listed GWebb as a Mid D1.
I will just take Western Carolina as an example. The school is spending millions on facility upgrades. The commitment from the administration to build a top notch program is obvious to those that know. The coaching staff is outstanding and plays a very tough non conf schedule every year. They have outstanding fan support. If you ever go to a home game you will understand what I am saying. They have been to several regionals in the past. They routinely have players drafted. They are going to be very good if not this coming year without a doubt the following year.
If your going to go on a one year record then based on last season UNCG is a Mid D1. I think you have to look at more than a snap shot in time. And there are many factors in play imo. You can get fooled by looking at stuff from the outside. There is a lot more to it imo. And if you looking at just W's and L's then its a whole different ball game.
Its much easier to do this by simply going on records. But then your not getting a true reading imo either. Facilities, schedule, competition, etc etc.
You can't go on record alone and definitely in a one year situation. I understand some will disagree with me. There are many factors at play here and some I will not go into on a public message board. I should have listed GWebb as a Mid D1.
I will just take Western Carolina as an example. The school is spending millions on facility upgrades. The commitment from the administration to build a top notch program is obvious to those that know. The coaching staff is outstanding and plays a very tough non conf schedule every year. They have outstanding fan support. If you ever go to a home game you will understand what I am saying. They have been to several regionals in the past. They routinely have players drafted. They are going to be very good if not this coming year without a doubt the following year.
If your going to go on a one year record then based on last season UNCG is a Mid D1. I think you have to look at more than a snap shot in time. And there are many factors in play imo. You can get fooled by looking at stuff from the outside. There is a lot more to it imo. And if you looking at just W's and L's then its a whole different ball game.
Its much easier to do this by simply going on records. But then your not getting a true reading imo either. Facilities, schedule, competition, etc etc.
If one took every school that played in a major conference with a difficult schedule there could be more top D1 baseball programs than some think there should be. There are very few schools that really belong in the top category, maybe 25, the way I view it. The rest fall as mid/low.
Everyone sees things differently, but IMO there are clear definitions (for me anyway) that seperate between top, medium, low D1 baseball programs. LSU, UF, UM, Standford, Texas, USC east, UNC, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Cal State, Clemson, Oregon, Vandy, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Rice, fall within the elite. There is a big difference between a program such as UF (with millions to spend per year on athletics), than Stetson. Both fell in tht top 20 in RPI and wins last season. I definetly don't see Stetson as a top D1 baseball program.
Some classify by size, commitment to sports facilities, coaching staff, W/L, RPI, SOS, ISR, money spent on athletics, how many sports are in the program, etc.
Regardless, it's a good discussion.
Everyone sees things differently, but IMO there are clear definitions (for me anyway) that seperate between top, medium, low D1 baseball programs. LSU, UF, UM, Standford, Texas, USC east, UNC, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Cal State, Clemson, Oregon, Vandy, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Rice, fall within the elite. There is a big difference between a program such as UF (with millions to spend per year on athletics), than Stetson. Both fell in tht top 20 in RPI and wins last season. I definetly don't see Stetson as a top D1 baseball program.
Some classify by size, commitment to sports facilities, coaching staff, W/L, RPI, SOS, ISR, money spent on athletics, how many sports are in the program, etc.
Regardless, it's a good discussion.
Coach May: I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I'm not sure that simply being in the one of the top conferences makes a program a major one. To me it's more about commitment and resources as it relates to attempting to win conference titles and NCAA postseason bids against your chosen peers. For instance, schools like Elon and Charlotte consistently produce winning teams and battle for tournament berths, although I'll grant you that their conference competition isn't as deep as that in the ACC. On the other hand, Duke and Maryland play plenty of top teams but have struggled to make real headway in reaching postseason play. The major programs are the ones that consistently reach that level, as your example of East Carolina has shown.
To the OP's point, however, don't turn your nose up at any level of college baseball. The opportunity to play is what counts the most, whether it's D1, D2, D3 or NAIA. Everyone knows which schools field the elite programs, but so few kids get to play there. Set your sights on a school (and program) that you like and don't get too hung up on the actual classifications or the unofficial ones (hi, mid and low D1).
To the OP's point, however, don't turn your nose up at any level of college baseball. The opportunity to play is what counts the most, whether it's D1, D2, D3 or NAIA. Everyone knows which schools field the elite programs, but so few kids get to play there. Set your sights on a school (and program) that you like and don't get too hung up on the actual classifications or the unofficial ones (hi, mid and low D1).
Nice post catfish. I enjoyed reading that.
Interesting discussion. I agree with TPM's thoughts here. There are very few high level D1s. I've always said "DI" means very little when you say that. The talent and many other intangibles can vary greatly. Just by having grounds crews or resources at hands doesn't mean a team has the talent or ability to compete against the big dogs. I view "top level" by records, competition, etc. It's a small group. You go all the way to low level DIs - they can't beat many DIIIs.
quote:Coach May: I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I'm not sure that simply being in the one of the top conferences makes a program a major one. To me it's more about commitment and resources as it relates to attempting to win conference titles and NCAA postseason bids against your chosen peers. For instance, schools like Elon and Charlotte consistently produce winning teams and battle for tournament berths, although I'll grant you that their conference competition isn't as deep as that in the ACC. On the other hand, Duke and Maryland play plenty of top teams but have struggled to make real headway in reaching postseason play. The major programs are the ones that consistently reach that level, as your example of East Carolina has shown.
To the OP's point, however, don't turn your nose up at any level of college baseball. The opportunity to play is what counts the most, whether it's D1, D2, D3 or NAIA. Everyone knows which schools field the elite programs, but so few kids get to play there. Set your sights on a school (and program) that you like and don't get too hung up on the actual classifications or the unofficial ones (hi, mid and low D1).
Catfish. I couldn't have said it better...just because you are in a top conference doesn't mean you are a major program. There are many that fit that profile IMHO. In addition, some programs names have cache but they may or may not be a top team at that point in time, and rely on previous results from years gone by.
If the OP is looking for an exact answer, I don't think you can go wrong by looking at objective results.....numbers. Numbers such as www.boydsworld.com or www.warrennolan.com/baseball/2010/conferencenpi as well as a specific college's athletic operating budget http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Index.aspx. Numbers tell the story IMHO.
quote:To the OP's point, however, don't turn your nose up at any level of college baseball. The opportunity to play is what counts the most, whether it's D1, D2, D3 or NAIA. Everyone knows which schools field the elite programs, but so few kids get to play there. Set your sights on a school (and program) that you like and don't get too hung up on the actual classifications or the unofficial ones (hi, mid and low D1).
Posts: 122 | Location: Carolinas | Registered: June 20, 2009
Best advice on this thread!!!!
.
In my mind, "top level" means about the top 20% of D1, somewhere around 60 schools, plus or minus a few. Within that group is the super elite TPM described. Mid-level is the next 50% (about 150 schools), and low-level is approximately the bottom 30%.
I would not put too much emphasis on the results of one or even a handful of seasons. There is simply too much churn at the top, especially in the power conferences. LSU didn't stop being a top level program just because it missed the NCAA regionals this year. Georgia didn't stop being one even though it's had some hard times in the three years since it reached the championship game in Omaha. Similarly, a cinderella season or two doesn't necessarily put a team in the top group.
Top level is a reflection of sustained investment and success against top competition.
If you're mildly surprised that a team finished in the top fifty, they're not top level; if you're surprised they finished out of the top fifty, they might be top level.
I agree that membership in SEC/ACC/PAC10/Big12 by itself does not earn a team top level status, but I would only exclude the perennial bottom-feeders in those conferences that have gone a long time without notable success. Occasional success in those conferences is enough for me.
I do not agree that consistent success in a conference whose champion merits only a #3 or #4 seed in the regionals is enough to qualify. If you play in a one-bid conference, you need to do some damage in the regionals on a regular basis.
In my mind, "top level" means about the top 20% of D1, somewhere around 60 schools, plus or minus a few. Within that group is the super elite TPM described. Mid-level is the next 50% (about 150 schools), and low-level is approximately the bottom 30%.
I would not put too much emphasis on the results of one or even a handful of seasons. There is simply too much churn at the top, especially in the power conferences. LSU didn't stop being a top level program just because it missed the NCAA regionals this year. Georgia didn't stop being one even though it's had some hard times in the three years since it reached the championship game in Omaha. Similarly, a cinderella season or two doesn't necessarily put a team in the top group.
Top level is a reflection of sustained investment and success against top competition.
If you're mildly surprised that a team finished in the top fifty, they're not top level; if you're surprised they finished out of the top fifty, they might be top level.
I agree that membership in SEC/ACC/PAC10/Big12 by itself does not earn a team top level status, but I would only exclude the perennial bottom-feeders in those conferences that have gone a long time without notable success. Occasional success in those conferences is enough for me.
I do not agree that consistent success in a conference whose champion merits only a #3 or #4 seed in the regionals is enough to qualify. If you play in a one-bid conference, you need to do some damage in the regionals on a regular basis.
they are all college players---cASE CLOSED
.
That is so rude.
Nobody said anyone wasn't a college ball player or worthy of respect. In fact, nobody conveyed any disrespect to anybody except the sensitivity police who have repeatedly come in and tried to rule this discussion out of order.
People who don't want to participate in a thread are not obligated to do so.
However, they have no right to terminate a discussion just by declaring, "Case closed."
I reject the insinuation that there is somehow something wrong with attempting to clarify the terms commonly used to denote the levels that do exist within the vast universe of D1.
If you think anyone's feelings were hurt, you can go out and buy them participation trophies and ice cream cones.
In the mean time, the discussion thread remains open.
That is so rude.
Nobody said anyone wasn't a college ball player or worthy of respect. In fact, nobody conveyed any disrespect to anybody except the sensitivity police who have repeatedly come in and tried to rule this discussion out of order.
People who don't want to participate in a thread are not obligated to do so.
However, they have no right to terminate a discussion just by declaring, "Case closed."
I reject the insinuation that there is somehow something wrong with attempting to clarify the terms commonly used to denote the levels that do exist within the vast universe of D1.
If you think anyone's feelings were hurt, you can go out and buy them participation trophies and ice cream cones.
In the mean time, the discussion thread remains open.
I will just have to disagree with you guys on one main point here. I do believe that being in the SEC for example means your a Major D1 program. Your playing at elite programs almost every weekend or hosting them. Your going to have to maintain a certain level of facility and program to remain in the conference. Is Kentucky not a Major D1 program simply because they do not finish at the top of the SEC? But another D1 program is that plays in a much weaker conference and makes a regional almost every year?
Major D1 to me means your playing Major D1 competition on a routine basis. Maryland might be at the bottom of the ACC. They may have struggled for many years. I hope that changes in the near future. But I still see them as Major D1.
Tenn has been down for a few years. Are they now Mid Major? No. Not imo. Duke is not a major D1 program because they struggle to reach the upper levels of the ACC? No not imo.
Thats just my opinion. I respect others opinions and see your points. When your playing FSU, UNC, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia your a major D1 program. When your playing UF, LSU, Vandy, Ga, So Car, Miss State, Ark, your a major D1 program.
Thats how I see it. Those programs at the bottom understand they are not going to get to the top recruiting players that are not major college players. They are not going to get to the top with facilities that are not major college facilities. If not there yet they are striving to get there.
Just my take on this whole thing. I understand the difference in levels of college play within D1 baseball. I have seen it first hand for many years. But a player who plays the likes of those teams on a week by week basis is not playing mid or low D1 if he is facing those teams on a week by week basis. He is playing Major D1 baseball. JMO - I am not here to argue. In fact I have enjoyed the discussion. And Catfish makes some outstanding points imo. As do others.
Major D1 to me means your playing Major D1 competition on a routine basis. Maryland might be at the bottom of the ACC. They may have struggled for many years. I hope that changes in the near future. But I still see them as Major D1.
Tenn has been down for a few years. Are they now Mid Major? No. Not imo. Duke is not a major D1 program because they struggle to reach the upper levels of the ACC? No not imo.
Thats just my opinion. I respect others opinions and see your points. When your playing FSU, UNC, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia your a major D1 program. When your playing UF, LSU, Vandy, Ga, So Car, Miss State, Ark, your a major D1 program.
Thats how I see it. Those programs at the bottom understand they are not going to get to the top recruiting players that are not major college players. They are not going to get to the top with facilities that are not major college facilities. If not there yet they are striving to get there.
Just my take on this whole thing. I understand the difference in levels of college play within D1 baseball. I have seen it first hand for many years. But a player who plays the likes of those teams on a week by week basis is not playing mid or low D1 if he is facing those teams on a week by week basis. He is playing Major D1 baseball. JMO - I am not here to argue. In fact I have enjoyed the discussion. And Catfish makes some outstanding points imo. As do others.
Coach May,
I think our only disagreement is over the theoretical possibility of an SEC or ACC team not being considered top level.
I think they can, but they have to demonstrate over a long period of time (like a generation) that they're not able to compete within their conference.
I would exclude only one or maybe two from the top conferences. You would exclude none. That means we're not far apart.
Best wishes
I think our only disagreement is over the theoretical possibility of an SEC or ACC team not being considered top level.
I think they can, but they have to demonstrate over a long period of time (like a generation) that they're not able to compete within their conference.
I would exclude only one or maybe two from the top conferences. You would exclude none. That means we're not far apart.
Best wishes
This discussions offers lots of good information and perspective.
I still believe geography has a lot to do with us. Players/families in the north and midwest are pretty much told in every book, guide, and reference, not to waste our time and money trying to be recruited in the south. "They don't have to come north to find talent" is what we are told. I get that.
So, when a coach in Indiana or Illinois says your kid is High DI, they are probably talking about a school that may not even be on the radar of players and families in the ACC or SEC.
I still believe geography has a lot to do with us. Players/families in the north and midwest are pretty much told in every book, guide, and reference, not to waste our time and money trying to be recruited in the south. "They don't have to come north to find talent" is what we are told. I get that.
So, when a coach in Indiana or Illinois says your kid is High DI, they are probably talking about a school that may not even be on the radar of players and families in the ACC or SEC.
quote:Originally posted by 2013 Parent:
This discussions offers lots of good information and perspective.
I still believe geography has a lot to do with us. Players/families in the north and midwest are pretty much told in every book, guide, and reference, not to waste our time and money trying to be recruited in the south. "They don't have to come north to find talent" is what we are told. I get that.
So, when a coach in Indiana or Illinois says your kid is High DI, they are probably talking about a school that may not even be on the radar of players and families in the ACC or SEC.
Respectfully disagree with just about all of that.
Roster spots in the south and in the west are open to the nation. Every kid and his brother is fighting to play there. Coaches may not be flying up North to find kids but if you showcase before them and they like you, they'll offer you a spot regardless of your home geography.
I disagree with Coach May slightly. If I think basketball, I think of Kentucky and Duke. If I think football, I think Alabama and Florida State among others. I don't think of schools like Florida State and Alabama for basketball however although every once and awhile for basketball, one of those will sneak into the NCAA tournament. When it comes to baseball or football, Kentucky and Duke are a notch behind based on the same analysis as the aforementioned sports.
The idea behind sports is about winning not about who you are getting your butts kicked by. For basketball, the prize is the NCAA tournament. I think baseball is pretty much the same thing. You regularly participate in the tournament (e.g., Gonzaga) then the conference affiliation does not mean as much. I realize that a .500 SEC school is often times better than a champion from a lessor conference. Those type of ".500" schools are most often in the tournment anyways however as the SEC typically places 9 or 10 schools in the tournament.
Good points by many here. And since CD rang in, I'll add this point. Coastal Carolina, for instance, is a high major program. Despite being an FCS football school and a mid-major basketball school, it has shown in baseball that it's a top major because of its continued commitment in hiring top coaches, improving facilities, and recruiting nationally. What has followed are a long string of NCAA appearances and drafted players. Despite being in the Big South, which is a decent mid-major league, the Chants have pushed their way onto a much bigger stage. It goes back to CD's point that a school can be a national player in football or basketball but that doesn't automatically transfer to baseball.
And I agree with Coach May with his belief that all teams in the ACC and SEC are playing major college baseball. Of course, in the SEC, all of those programs have participated recently enough in the NCAA tournament to make that case. You can't make the same case about the lower tier in the ACC. My previous examples of Duke, which hasn't made the tournament in 50 years, and Maryland, which hasn't made it in 40 years, were simply to show that the school must make a greater commitment than simply playing top conference opponents on the schedule. They have to put in the resources to be competitive enough to be one of the best teams.
Look at what Tim Corbin has done at Vanderbilt. The school decided it didn't want to be an SEC also-ran any more and through his efforts have developed the program into one that's as good as any across the country. And that's at a high-level academic school.
I think this is a good discussion as well if it helps inform people about what to look for as far as schools making a strong commitment. That applies to all levels. There are D2 and D3 schools as well that are far more serious than some of their peers about supporting their baseball programs.
And I agree with Coach May with his belief that all teams in the ACC and SEC are playing major college baseball. Of course, in the SEC, all of those programs have participated recently enough in the NCAA tournament to make that case. You can't make the same case about the lower tier in the ACC. My previous examples of Duke, which hasn't made the tournament in 50 years, and Maryland, which hasn't made it in 40 years, were simply to show that the school must make a greater commitment than simply playing top conference opponents on the schedule. They have to put in the resources to be competitive enough to be one of the best teams.
Look at what Tim Corbin has done at Vanderbilt. The school decided it didn't want to be an SEC also-ran any more and through his efforts have developed the program into one that's as good as any across the country. And that's at a high-level academic school.
I think this is a good discussion as well if it helps inform people about what to look for as far as schools making a strong commitment. That applies to all levels. There are D2 and D3 schools as well that are far more serious than some of their peers about supporting their baseball programs.
Catfish, good stuff.
Vandy is an excellent example of commitment, Coach Corbin has turned it into a baseball powerhouse.
Keep in mind that as far as the power conferences, most don't join a specific one for baseball, but for other sports. College sports is driven by football and basketball. Duke, BC, Wake, Maryland, etc. Let's face it some of those bb programs aren't nearly as good as others around the country, but their involvement (with other sports) in their confereneces makes them power schools. Take out baseball, those are premier schools to attend for your education.
Keep in mind that some of these schools don't fit some of our baseball criteria for top D1 baseball programs but I'd take a Duke, WF, Maryland degree anyday over a degree from better mentioned baseball programs.
JMO.
Vandy is an excellent example of commitment, Coach Corbin has turned it into a baseball powerhouse.
Keep in mind that as far as the power conferences, most don't join a specific one for baseball, but for other sports. College sports is driven by football and basketball. Duke, BC, Wake, Maryland, etc. Let's face it some of those bb programs aren't nearly as good as others around the country, but their involvement (with other sports) in their confereneces makes them power schools. Take out baseball, those are premier schools to attend for your education.
Keep in mind that some of these schools don't fit some of our baseball criteria for top D1 baseball programs but I'd take a Duke, WF, Maryland degree anyday over a degree from better mentioned baseball programs.
JMO.
No question on that front, TPM. Those are fine academic institutions, and ultimately, that's what going to college is all about. I also am quite certain that they're fine places for any young man to play college baseball. My points extend only to how they match up against their conference brethren and on the national stage since we were designating the differences between high, mid and low D1s.
And, yes, the baseball powerhouse discussion is going to involve some schools that you will not see discussed in the conversation involving football and basketball.
And, yes, the baseball powerhouse discussion is going to involve some schools that you will not see discussed in the conversation involving football and basketball.
2013 parent. If a player wants to play at one of these schools and he has the talent to do so all he has to do is get in front of the coaches from these schools. They might not come to Ill to scout them. But they are at all the WWBA Area Code games TOS -looking for players regardless of where they are from. And of course when they hold a prospect camp they could careless where the player is from if they can play for them.
Many programs recruit on a national level. Some stay closer to home for almost all their players. I can tell you none of the ACC schools limit themselves to local talent. In fact some have no choice but to look outside the area in order to compete.
Many programs recruit on a national level. Some stay closer to home for almost all their players. I can tell you none of the ACC schools limit themselves to local talent. In fact some have no choice but to look outside the area in order to compete.
OK let me give this a try.
Definition of top level of DI
Automatically all Dl colleges in the SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big12 (there would be another definition for top level within each of those conferences)
Also several colleges from other top conferences.
All DIs that can and do compete with those schools above on a consistent basis.
Colleges that are out there recruiting the top prospects in the country. Believe me that would include the previously mentioned Duke and Maryland among others.
I can’t buy the thing about the bottom of the conference or never winning the conference. It’s been over 100 years for the Chicago Cubs and they are still at the top possible level of baseball.
Actually guess I could go even further… Most DI colleges play at a very high level. Are there top level DI teams in Ohio, Indiana, and the northeast?
Three players from U of Indiana were first round picks in 2009. Another was drafted in the 9th round and three others were also drafted. In 2010 and 2011 Indiana had 6 more players drafted including a third round pick. That is thirteen draft picks including three first rounders and five in the first 9 rounds, all from one college team. What do we call them? Low Level DI?
Every ACC and SEC college covers the PG National Showcase every year. Even those teams in the college World Series at that time send people to cover the event. The players are from coast to coast and arguably the very best prospects in the country. I would consider nearly all those schools that attend are top level DIs and they would include Duke, Maryland, Kentucky, etc.
Players that can't play for the very best team want to play against them.
Definition of top level of DI
Automatically all Dl colleges in the SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big12 (there would be another definition for top level within each of those conferences)
Also several colleges from other top conferences.
All DIs that can and do compete with those schools above on a consistent basis.
Colleges that are out there recruiting the top prospects in the country. Believe me that would include the previously mentioned Duke and Maryland among others.
I can’t buy the thing about the bottom of the conference or never winning the conference. It’s been over 100 years for the Chicago Cubs and they are still at the top possible level of baseball.
Actually guess I could go even further… Most DI colleges play at a very high level. Are there top level DI teams in Ohio, Indiana, and the northeast?
Three players from U of Indiana were first round picks in 2009. Another was drafted in the 9th round and three others were also drafted. In 2010 and 2011 Indiana had 6 more players drafted including a third round pick. That is thirteen draft picks including three first rounders and five in the first 9 rounds, all from one college team. What do we call them? Low Level DI?
Every ACC and SEC college covers the PG National Showcase every year. Even those teams in the college World Series at that time send people to cover the event. The players are from coast to coast and arguably the very best prospects in the country. I would consider nearly all those schools that attend are top level DIs and they would include Duke, Maryland, Kentucky, etc.
Players that can't play for the very best team want to play against them.
PG - I know you love all sports so lets switch this same topic to basketball. Is Baylor a top basketball team? How about Penn State? or Texas A&M? or Nebraska? or Southern California? I've followed college basketball my whole life as I am sure you have and none of those are household names. The same must also hold true for baseball. I am not at all sure about Kentucky but freely acknowledge they have produced some fine baseball players. How about Duke in football?
I really think this whole discussion gets down to coaching as you alluded earlier in the thread. Where was Vanderbilt before Tim Corbin arrived? What if a baseball version of Coach K suddenly arrived at Duke? I'll bet most people's estimation of the Tennessee program is now off the charts. What we might all be arguing here about is coaching.
I have found this to be an interesting topic.
I really think this whole discussion gets down to coaching as you alluded earlier in the thread. Where was Vanderbilt before Tim Corbin arrived? What if a baseball version of Coach K suddenly arrived at Duke? I'll bet most people's estimation of the Tennessee program is now off the charts. What we might all be arguing here about is coaching.
I have found this to be an interesting topic.
Same applies to cities, CD. Dallas is clearly a top D1 while Cleveland is a low D3. 
quote:Originally posted by Tx-Husker:
Same applies to cities, CD. Dallas is clearly a top D1 while Cleveland is a low D3.
LOL - you got me there
CD,
Good points.
Does seem that the programs that are consistant year in and year out have the best coaching/recruiting staffs.
Seems like yesterday we talked about all of this changing when the new scholarship, roster, practice rules came into being, yet much hasn't really changed. The same programs still make the post season, same with hosting regional and super regionals, even with coaching changes. A lot also has to do with the draft as well, something that football and basketball do not have to contend with.
Sorry for rambling.....the real deal in all of this is that one does NOT have to attend a top, med or low D1 to have a great college/baseball experience.
Good points.
Does seem that the programs that are consistant year in and year out have the best coaching/recruiting staffs.
Seems like yesterday we talked about all of this changing when the new scholarship, roster, practice rules came into being, yet much hasn't really changed. The same programs still make the post season, same with hosting regional and super regionals, even with coaching changes. A lot also has to do with the draft as well, something that football and basketball do not have to contend with.
Sorry for rambling.....the real deal in all of this is that one does NOT have to attend a top, med or low D1 to have a great college/baseball experience.
This is a very interesting discussion.
My son plays for Duke, and to be completely honest, I can't say I would call it a "top D1 program."
It may be a definitional thing. To be considered a "top program "in my mind implies a level of consistent success that Duke has not reached.
Coach McNally is certainly trying to bring Duke to that level, and I hope my son is a part of the equation in getting there. But until it starts reaching the post season, by my personal definition, it is not a "top program."
So what is it? What label describes the schools that are the lower tier in the top baseball conferences? I don't know!
They play at least a third of their games against top 20 opponents. While that doesn't make them a "top program," it does make them different than the many D1 programs that play in much less competitive conferences.
So I don't know how to describe or label it. I know that when he decided to go to Duke, we were thrilled because our goal was that he end up at a school that had the best combination of high level academics and high level baseball. So I have never worried much about whether Duke is "top D1" or not.
But when I look at UVA, Stanford and Vandy, I have a hard time saying Duke is "Top D1."
Just my two cents.
My son plays for Duke, and to be completely honest, I can't say I would call it a "top D1 program."
It may be a definitional thing. To be considered a "top program "in my mind implies a level of consistent success that Duke has not reached.
Coach McNally is certainly trying to bring Duke to that level, and I hope my son is a part of the equation in getting there. But until it starts reaching the post season, by my personal definition, it is not a "top program."
So what is it? What label describes the schools that are the lower tier in the top baseball conferences? I don't know!
They play at least a third of their games against top 20 opponents. While that doesn't make them a "top program," it does make them different than the many D1 programs that play in much less competitive conferences.
So I don't know how to describe or label it. I know that when he decided to go to Duke, we were thrilled because our goal was that he end up at a school that had the best combination of high level academics and high level baseball. So I have never worried much about whether Duke is "top D1" or not.
But when I look at UVA, Stanford and Vandy, I have a hard time saying Duke is "Top D1."
Just my two cents.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:quote:Originally posted by Tx-Husker:
Same applies to cities, CD. Dallas is clearly a top D1 while Cleveland is a low D3.
LOL - you got me there
That's really funny.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
This is a very interesting discussion.
My son plays for Duke, and to be completely honest, I can't say I would call it a "top D1 program."
It may be a definitional thing. To be considered a "top program "in my mind implies a level of consistent success that Duke has not reached.
Coach McNally is certainly trying to bring Duke to that level, and I hope my son is a part of the equation in getting there. But until it starts reaching the post season, by my personal definition, it is not a "top program."
So what is it? What label describes the schools that are the lower tier in the top baseball conferences? I don't know!
They play at least a third of their games against top 20 opponents. While that doesn't make them a "top program," it does make them different than the many D1 programs that play in much less competitive conferences.
So I don't know how to describe or label it. I know that when he decided to go to Duke, we were thrilled because our goal was that he end up at a school that had the best combination of high level academics and high level baseball. So I have never worried much about whether Duke is "top D1" or not.
But when I look at UVA, Stanford and Vandy, I have a hard time saying Duke is "Top D1."
Just my two cents.
Rob: That's really an honest and spot-on assessment and all I was trying to say earlier. (FWIW, I have a good friend in the Duke athletic department, and I think the school is one of the best in the country.)
I also respect PG's knowledge and opinions, but I would say to him that I still believe success is an important part of being labeled a high-major program. To me it involves more than just playing the top teams. And as for his point about the Cubs, I'd add that at least they've been to the NL playoffs six times since the 1983 season.
quote:Originally posted by 2013 Parent
I still believe geography has a lot to do with us. Players/families in the north and midwest are pretty much told in every book, guide, and reference, not to waste our time and money trying to be recruited in the south. "They don't have to come north to find talent" is what we are told. I get that.
So, when a coach in Indiana or Illinois says your kid is High DI, they are probably talking about a school that may not even be on the radar of players and families in the ACC or SEC.
2013 Parent:
I hope you had a chance to hear what my son had to say about this in this past Sunday night's webcast. He was very emphatic about it.
Most of the top programs in the Sunbelt recruit players outside of their region on a regular basis. If your son aspires to play at one of them, just make certain that he has an opportunity to play in front of their recruiters.
Best of luck to him!
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
If one took every school that played in a major conference with a difficult schedule there could be more top D1 baseball programs than some think there should be. There are very few schools that really belong in the top category, maybe 25, the way I view it. The rest fall as mid/low.
Everyone sees things differently, but IMO there are clear definitions (for me anyway) that seperate between top, medium, low D1 baseball programs. LSU, UF, UM, Standford, Texas, USC east, UNC, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Cal State, Clemson, Oregon, Vandy, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Rice, fall within the elite. There is a big difference between a program such as UF (with millions to spend per year on athletics), than Stetson. Both fell in tht top 20 in RPI and wins last season. I definetly don't see Stetson as a top D1 baseball program.
Some classify by size, commitment to sports facilities, coaching staff, W/L, RPI, SOS, ISR, money spent on athletics, how many sports are in the program, etc.
Regardless, it's a good discussion.
I do think reputation has a lot to do with it especially because of other sports. If a school is on TV or you read about them all the time for football or basketball, people form opinions about a school they know nothing about in baseball. You can take other schools who are great in baseball, but suck in football or basketball, and some people who dont follow college baseball will say they never even heard of the school.
I agree with you about UF vs Stetson. Coach May said one years accomplishments does not make a top D1 and I agree. Taking a couple Florida schools for example, Stetson and FGCU both had great seasons last year or the year before, but I would not say they were top D1.
I like this topic. Everyone has excellent points. Maybe it is as simple as, if you have to ask if the program is elite d1, then it is not. I don't think anyone would honestly disagree that the schools I and also TPM mentioned earlier are elite d1 (UM, Rice,UF, FSU, LSU, Texas, S.Carolina and others). These schools are clearly elite D1.
There may be arguments as to others such as Auburn, Duke, Kentucky, etc. These imo are not elite. It has to do more with consistency over the years. One or two good seasons does not make you elite just as one or two poor seasons does not strip a team of its elite status.
There may be arguments as to others such as Auburn, Duke, Kentucky, etc. These imo are not elite. It has to do more with consistency over the years. One or two good seasons does not make you elite just as one or two poor seasons does not strip a team of its elite status.
rz1,
You have a PM.
You have a PM.
quote:Originally posted by 2013 Dad:
I like this topic. Everyone has excellent points. Maybe it is as simple as, if you have to ask if the program is elite d1, then it is not. I don't think anyone would honestly disagree that the schools I and also TPM mentioned earlier are elite d1 (UM, Rice,UF, FSU, LSU, Texas, S.Carolina and others). These schools are clearly elite D1.
There may be arguments as to others such as Auburn, Duke, Kentucky, etc. These imo are not elite. It has to do more with consistency over the years. One or two good seasons does not make you elite just as one or two poor seasons does not strip a team of its elite status.
Recently, I read somewhere that what seperates elite from others is by how many appearances (and possibly wins) were made in championship games (conference and Omaha).
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Recently, I read somewhere that what seperates elite from others is by how many appearances (and possibly wins) were made in championship games (conference and Omaha).
That should only count for a period of time, not forever. You would be hard pressed to call Southern California an elite team now even though they were once one of the best.