So what happens to a juco kid soph who is going to a D1?  He goes in as a Jr now and the soph who was already there stays a soph and has an extra year ?

NLI's are fixed for this year so unless a college coach is successful getting an incoming 2020 to "volunteer" to go elsewhere (JUCO, D2, D3, etc.) then the one-year 25% minimum being lifted was absolutely necessary so teams can comply will the 11.7 scholarship number. So what that means is returning players will have $ reduced in order to meet the new 11.7/32 ruling.

And what about 2021's? They won't be signing NLI's until November so you can bet the "verbal" $'s will be much less than promised. But at least they will be 25% minimum. That is if they are still receiving athletic money. Current 2021 verbal commits will likely be given one of the four following options:

1. No athletic $ reduction (least likely)

2. Athletic $ reduced from what was verbally offered but no less than the 25% minimum (back to normal NCAA ruling of 11.7/27)

3. All athletic $ dropped (they will now be preferred walk-ons)

4. Verbal offer rescinded

@c2019 posted:

So what happens to a juco kid soph who is going to a D1?  He goes in as a Jr now and the soph who was already there stays a soph and has an extra year ?

The NJCAA has already made some changes that would allow kids to come back to NJCAA. For example, they won't be required to take a full load in their final semester as long as they're scheduled to graduate. I think the one change they REALLY need to make is to class eligibility requirements. Currently, you have to take 12 hours AT THE SCHOOL your playing for. It would help if they would allow kids to take concurrent classes from 4 yr schools online that would count toward the 12.

Another problem I see coming up at all levels is academic eligibility. Many schools went to pass-fail during this past Spring semester. I have also heard from several SA parents who tell me their kids did not handle online classes well. I think you're going to see a much higher than usual number of kids academically ineligible.

Okay, so if they stay at juco  they get another year . If they go on to D1 they lose a year per say-  

@ABSORBER posted:

NLI's are fixed for this year so unless a college coach is successful getting an incoming 2020 to "volunteer" to go elsewhere (JUCO, D2, D3, etc.) then the one-year 25% minimum being lifted was absolutely necessary so teams can comply will the 11.7 scholarship number. So what that means is returning players will have $ reduced in order to meet the new 11.7/32 ruling.

That is my point, why would any returning player voluntarily reduce their scholarship? Programs could absolutely stay under the 11.7. The draft would make it tricky for programs that planned on losing guys, but for the overwhelming majority it can easily be done. Bringing back seniors was optional, giving them money was also optional. 

Asking players to take less money so they can bring their competition back is not going to fly with most. We also know that money isn't going to seniors, but transfer portal guys. 

IMO it is going to get way uglier with this move. 

@c2019 posted:

Okay, so if they stay at juco  they get another year . If they go on to D1 they lose a year per say-  

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but, the 2020 season doesn't count against them whether they stay or go. A sophomore who stayed would still enter the NCAA in 2022 with two remaining years of eligibility.

@ABSORBER posted:

NLI's are fixed for this year so unless a college coach is successful getting an incoming 2020 to "volunteer" to go elsewhere (JUCO, D2, D3, etc.) then the one-year 25% minimum being lifted was absolutely necessary so teams can comply will the 11.7 scholarship number. So what that means is returning players will have $ reduced in order to meet the new 11.7/32 ruling.

 

Just heard third hand about an incoming freshman who was asked this week to give up his 25% scholarship the first year, but they still want him to attend. It's going to be a year like no other.

@PABaseball posted:

That is my point, why would any returning player voluntarily reduce their scholarship? Programs could absolutely stay under the 11.7. The draft would make it tricky for programs that planned on losing guys, but for the overwhelming majority it can easily be done. Bringing back seniors was optional, giving them money was also optional. 

Asking players to take less money so they can bring their competition back is not going to fly with most. We also know that money isn't going to seniors, but transfer portal guys. 

IMO it is going to get way uglier with this move. 

Another question would concern P5 schools who are required to give 4yr scholarships. If they gave a bunch of freshman 15% scholarships for 2021 would those automatically have to be renewed at 25% for 2022-2024?

Last edited by roothog66

Just heard third hand about an incoming freshman who was asked this week to give up his 25% scholarship the first year, but they still want him to attend. It's going to be a year like no other.

I just spoke to a dad of a kid at a P5 who spent 2020 as the backup to a guy expected to go in the draft. He still might, depending on what happens tonight, but it's looking like what was once a gimme he'd be gone is more like 50/50. In addition, this school just took two graduate transfers at his position, one of which was an All-American last year at his previous school. He is being asked to consider going to JuCO next year with a "promise" they'll bring him back. Hmmm. He had a scholarship considerably above 25%. 

Last edited by roothog66

I've said it on this forum several times already. Obviously it's an individual decision. I'd keep the scholarship and see what happens. 

Cant blame a coach for trying though! Just because he asks doesn't mean you have to give in. If he offered (and you signed) for 50% just six months ago don't you think he thought you were worth it then? Of course he wants to maximize, who wouldn't? At 50% AND that's the school I want to attend, I'd take my chances.

As far as the P5 4-year scholarships are concerned: that's not a NCAA rule so I don't know how each school and conference will handle it. I'd be surprised if the $$ amount CAN'T be adjusted; that's between each school and the player. I'm no expert so perhaps someone else knows about P5 "adjustments" from year to year and can add some insight.

Just heard third hand about an incoming freshman who was asked this week to give up his 25% scholarship the first year, but they still want him to attend. It's going to be a year like no other.

That's not uncommon, but the coach needs to double up the next year.   

I really feel that most coaches will do the right thing as they are trying to deal with a really tough situation, which is too many players and too many changes.

@TPM posted:

That's not uncommon, but the coach needs to double up the next year.   

I really feel that most coaches will do the right thing as they are trying to deal with a really tough situation, which is too many players and too many changes.

Hopefully this is true or rosters will be huge. Don't see too many coaches wanting 50(+/-) on their roster, but who knows.  The NCAA certainly seems somewhat diabolical here in that they could have done this 2 months ago when they extended a year of eligibility to everyone.

But the only things on the NCAA's mind right now are keeping the college football season intact, the next basketball season, and addressing NIL.  They really don't care at all about college baseball, players or coaches. 

A better solution would've been to keep the 35 roster limit(except for returning seniors), but allow 11.7 scholarships to be divided amongst all 35.

Seriously,  thanks to the NCAA, how many awkward conversations already took place and how many going forward are going to start with, " Coach, you said you didn't have room for me?, but the NCAA just lifted roster restrictions.  So....?"

And the conversations that start with "I know we said we had room for you, but now that the NCAA opened the rosters you will have to beat out not only the ones who are here but the 5 juco guys that we have coming in now that we can have more."

finding all this fascinating...the transfer portal info is definitely not up to date as I personally know two names on it from a P5 who weeks ago found homes.  In addition, while it does not include D3 transfers, the info sometimes shows when the transfer is going D2 or D3 but is not showing a lot of the grad transfers finding new homes.  There are some HA D3 that are stocking up on D1 grad transfers, going to be an interesting year for sure.

The transfers in the portal are getting more interesting.  Now that roster sizes are unlimited for the 2021 season, more guys seem to be finding new baseball homes, at least for next year. 

The NCAA just continues to create messes when it comes to college baseball.  If the NCAA fails to act on time( addressing the 35/27/11.7 before 2021s are due to sign NLIs in November), they are going to create a new mess for college baseball coaches and players to deal with just as they are preparing for their do-over season. 

@Pedaldad posted:

The transfers in the portal are getting more interesting.  Now that roster sizes are unlimited for the 2021 season, more guys seem to be finding new baseball homes, at least for next year. 

The NCAA just continues to create messes when it comes to college baseball.  If the NCAA fails to act on time( addressing the 35/27/11.7 before 2021s are due to sign NLIs in November), they are going to create a new mess for college baseball coaches and players to deal with just as they are preparing for their do-over season. 

I'm seeing the same thing. I see guys getting picked up a the D1 level out of JC that you normally might not see there. What happens next year to the kid who goes onto a D1 roster of 45 players who doesn't belong there? In 2022 when they reinstate the limits, there will be a lot of disappointed players in a crunch. 

The more this goes on, the more I think the NCAA - at least for baseball - jumped too quick to find a solution. In retrospect, the better plan may have been no plan at all. 

@roothog66 posted:

I'm seeing the same thing. I see guys getting picked up a the D1 level out of JC that you normally might not see there. What happens next year to the kid who goes onto a D1 roster of 45 players who doesn't belong there? In 2022 when they reinstate the limits, there will be a lot of disappointed players in a crunch. 

The more this goes on, the more I think the NCAA - at least for baseball - jumped too quick to find a solution. In retrospect, the better plan may have been no plan at all. 

The NCAA cow towed to the student athlete council and responded on emotion without using any rational thinking or common sense about the consequences. It was a very poor decision all to make people feel good. But that’s how we do things these days.

The NCAA cow towed to the student athlete council and responded on emotion without using any rational thinking or common sense about the consequences. It was a very poor decision all to make people feel good. But that’s how we do things these days.

100% correct on all fronts. 

The NCAA cow towed to the student athlete council and responded on emotion without using any rational thinking or common sense about the consequences. It was a very poor decision all to make people feel good. But that’s how we do things these days.

Agree as well 100%.

 

The NCAA cow towed to the student athlete council and responded on emotion without using any rational thinking or common sense about the consequences. It was a very poor decision all to make people feel good. But that’s how we do things these days.

Unless something has changed for non-revenue sports, hasn't it always been about how to increase school enrollment? Overall enrollment provides simple revenue (tuition, room and board). 

The governing bodies are just the supply chain for Human Capital Management.

Indentured is a good book about the NCAA.

https://books.google.com/books...html?id=UO5AtwEACAAJ

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×