Skip to main content

For those of us in the situation, this is a great thread. I have a few new comments.

On the hazing thing, I haven't heard about it happening to my son, although I now will ask him. He would not respond well to a request to carry an older player's bags,or to sleep on the floor although I don't think raking the field, etc., would even be considered "hazing" by him unless the coach or other players put it that way. Even then, so long as all freshmen are doing it, most kids like to go along with "their group", so I don't see it as a problem. They all should have learned to do things like this in high school, just being part of a team and helping to carry the load.

On the other issue, my son has pretty much decided to transfer,if he can. To do it right, he needs AD permission, so he'll be talking to the coach about it soon. When I tell our local scouts he is a "red shirt" they say that he needs to make a move (in their opinion, he needs to play, anywhere, rather than sit at a "national" program). And while he has been told that things look good as far as starting next year is concerned, he has made up his mind to transfer because of the way the Coach has handled it. Red shirts at his school do not travel, and generally are made to feel as if they are not a part of things. He was told certain things about the situation regarding his chances of playing as a freshman that he feels were not accurate. Therefore he's not sure he should trust what is said about next year. Of course, he also feels that he deserves to play on ability, and thinks he should be palying instead of sitting while seniors and juniors play (and the ones that compete for the positions he plays are off to very slow starts). and of course the fact that he's the youngest player on the team, and has used the oportunity to add muscle, drop body fat, and add a tremendous amount of distance to his bp/scrimmage homeruns doesn't make him feel any better about sitting out a year.

Finaly, TRHit is right. I think we as parents need to let our sons handle things directly with the coach, without our direct invovement (but with our advice, of course). Whether or not the Coach minds our calling (and some do get upset about it) these "boys" are young men now, and learning how to deal with disagreements, and even unfairness, is an important life lesson. It's gonna happen to them again, so use this as a learning experience. I'll bet that's how infielddad's family handled it, and that positive attitude in the face of adversity will help them get through this period of disappointment, and ultimately get the most out of their baseball talents, and college career.
Been, if you participate in one inning, one at bat, or one pitch where your son is in the scorebook, that uses the year of eligibility unless there are medical issues involved. Absent a medical reason for limits on playing, be in the scorebook for one pitch and that is your year of NCAA eligibility.
This quote is from the NCAA website on redshirting is the direct answer:

"Each student is allowed no more than four seasons of competition per sport. If you were not a qualifier, you may have fewer seasons of competition available to you. You should know that NCAA rules indicate that any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition."
Last edited by infielddad
It's sometimes difficult to find the fit. Bottom line...whether it be D1, D2, or D3 you want to be the player that the coach wants to succeed. You want your son to be the position player that is given the opportunities to perform well...or the pitcher that is given "quality" innings. There are probably no more than a handful of these players on every roster. Whether it be scholarship $$$ or the coaches' ego (first and foremost he wants to be correct) want your son to be one of the players the coach is "invested in".
HRDAD, while there may be exceptions, I doubt there are many college situations where players are "given" positions and opportunities. They might be "given" a scholarship, but more often than not playing time is earned. It is earned in the Fall, it is earned in the weight room, it is earned with extra BP and ground balls,it is earned with 6am workouts and it is earned by being productive and making plays. Playing opportunities can also be lost using the same criteria. IMO, suggesting that a "handful" of players per roster are "given" the opportunity to perform well does not reflect the reality of how hard it is to compete at the oollegiate level and the effort it takes for those who succeed.
I still recall the letter my son got explaining his position with the team before he got therew

01-- he is a member of the 32 man squad--there is a uniform with his name on it
02-- he has to earn the right to start
03-- he has to earn the right to travel ( 25 man travel squad)

No guarantees--no assurances-- Fair enough

Folks do your homework--know what is ahead of you-- A stud in HS is not necessarily a stud in college--from the small pond to the ocean !!!!
Last edited by TRhit

You are right, most college players were "studs" in high school, or they wouldn't be on a college team in the first place. They can't all be the best player now on a college team made up of the best players from several different graduation years and high schools

However, college coaches are far from perfect, and that applies to even the best coaches at the best schools. Some of them don't play freshmen who are clearly studs at the college level, for a variety of reasons. For some it's a personality conflict, for some it's the respect or affection the coach has for a certain upper classman, for some it's reasons nobody can fathom. While the coach can make whatever decision he pleases, so can the player, within the rules.

While you would expect that the team's record of success or failure would serve as some kind of check on the Coach's actions, the sad truth is that many D-1 coaches have losing records, year-after-year, but remain at the school. Baseball is not a glamor sport at most schools, and many ADs are happy if there is no controversy; a winning season would be nice, but isn't important. Unlike football or basketball, as a head baseball coach you can do a bad job in the w-l columns for many years, and still have your job security (with the exception of the "top 40 " programs like LSU, Texas, Miami, etc.. So, if a player perceives that he is stuck in such a situation, and there is no real motivation for the coach to get it right, he needs to seriously consider a transfer. And I would urge parents thinking about where their son is going to sign, to check the coach's and school's record over the last several years, to get an idea of their philosophy on the issue.
RipEm, I would anticipate there have been situations like you describe. However, with money becoming the critical issue in most athletic departments and baseball being such an expensive sport at the DI level, coaches are becoming more accountable at more and more schools. Personally, I think your post is extremely important for a different reason. If situations like you describe exist, that is an even more important reason for players and parents to very carefully and thoroughly evaluate a school, the baseball program and coach before committing. The allure of playing at a "DI" seems so often to affect what a recruit might hear and see. I think that situations such as you describe can and should be discovered during the recruiting process, not after your son has committed.
Last edited by infielddad

I'm pretty familiar with college ball, in most programs all the players are not given equal opportunities. The high profile player, perhaps the player with the large scholarship is normally given more opportunities. That is reality. If you are going through the recruiting process or looking to transfer, you'd like to be one of the players that is given more opportunities to succeed. That is all I was saying.
HRDAD, I am not sure we are too far apart and maybe only in semantics are we differing. I will readily acknowledge that coaches have players they are willing to go further with in game situations, players they are more confident with in critical situations and perhaps even players they want to see succeed. IMO, more often than not, that is a confidence the player "earned" at some point, it was not "given." I have been witnessing a local situation where a senior hitting .375 was benched in favor of a junior who at the time was hitting below .200. Made no sense to me and I clearly think this reflects what you are pointing out. What I don't know is how hard they each worked when they are not in games and whether the coach "gave" the sub .200 hitter something or he actually earned that confidence. I would like to think the latter based on my years of watching and dealing with college coaches.
Last edited by infielddad

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.