Will Being a Walk-On Ever Be the Same Again?

Conference and post-season rosters will still be 25 spots. The bottom line is less roster spots, less non-scholarship players, more game ready rostered players.

Walk-ons will generally be better players, than in the past.

My sons coach said this week “And, with the anticipation of new rules coming into effect after January with the number of scholarships that are available, each team will sign fewer kids and the recruiting classes will begin to shrink.

“So, now we have to sign more guys who can come in immediately and make an impact,”

The effect will be for the kids that used to be D-1 walk-ons to trickle down to DII, NAIA, juco causing the lesser talented of those teams off their rosters.

The net overall effect will be a decline in quality with less overall talent concentrated over more games per week. There will be some ugly Sunday games with both teams out of pitching after two innings. The value of quality coaching and recruiting will be intensified. No longer can coaches have fall work-outs to see who they keep.

Players and their families should, and will, demand more of a commitment to the players from coaches during recruiting.The player effected most is the local, connected to the program, D-1 walk-on guy, happy to have a jersey and a spot on the bench for home games. He now watches the game from the stands.

Dawgs, I think there is no doubt that going forward the walk-on will now have a much higher value than in the past. A coaching staff from one school in NC was heard to say that they will now view all players equaly, not 27 & 8. I have never thought there should be a walk-on, "label" attached to a kid that wants to play at a certain school. If mine is given the opportunity at a school he likes, I'll gladly pay. But, I wonder if the kids worry about being labeled.

quote:

But, I wonder if the kids worry about being labeled.

Players equate each others "worth" with their on-field performance. They know who gets what, recognize and understand the obvious imperfections in the partial scholarship system. Bottom line is $ doesn't matter to the kids, cuz they are teammates. I know an 80% freshman player who redshirted in the fall and quit the game in the spring and walk-ons who play every day and make All-Conference. Its not a perfect system.

Most of the time, money is of much more concern to the parents who are footing the bill!

quote:

by D04: The effect will be for the kids that used to be D-1 walk-ons to trickle down to DII, NAIA, juco causing the lesser talented of those teams off their rosters

agree with that observation

quote:

by D04: The net overall effect will be a decline in quality with less overall talent concentrated over more games per week. There will be some ugly Sunday games with both teams out of pitching after two innings.

if the trickle down forces "lesser talent" off rosters - all teams should get stronger, not weaker

I too believe walk-ons will become a much more valuable commodity in the future. The key thing is to do your homework before accepting a recruited walk-on offer. How well do you know the coaches? What do you know about their integrity? I know there was a poster a few weeks back who was considering a walk-on offer. Someone posted that they knew a lot about this program and discovered that 15 walk-ons were being recruited for next year. Obviously, if all 15 arrive on campus next fall, 7 will have to be cut at some point. Walk-on recruits certainly don't want to put themselves in that position.

Poor communication on my part. The result will be

1) more parity at d1 (and d2) with players trickling down from top 20 to second 20-30 teams, looking for immediate and assured roster "gaps" at their position.

2) Less pitching to be used over more games. Hence, more ugly games. Not "all" teams will improve. There can be no addition by subtraction at the top of the pecking order. No longer will the freshman walk-on pitcher get garbage innings to get experience, during the 5 game weeks now scheduled. That kid will red-shirt, go D2 or further down the D1 pecking order. No longer can the kid say "Well, If I get cut or RS, I'll just transfer to U XYZ."

Could be wrong, but I'm guessing you'll see more Sunday games with 20-30 runs in the top 5 conferences, due to the more concentrated schedule and smaller rosters.

I haven't been picking apart the NCAA rules changes so this comment may be out of place but I will make it anyway. As I see it the small roster reductions at State University will have no impact on those that actually “play” for State University. The bench may be shallower but the ones between the lines will be the same players. The “trickle down” of the non-playing players to the smaller divisions will not change their impact players at the JUCO D-II etc. but might improve the quality of their non-playing players but what does that change???? Manipulating the numbers will have little impact on who actually plays the game. Remember there are still nine positions and the number of college teams remain the same so as I see it ---- the number of real “players” remains the same.
Fungo

I think WOs will still be valuable and possibly more valuable than before. With the Roster size and more importantly the 25% min rule you may see coaches very specific with their BB money than before. Im predicting more guys who get no BB money and a heavier reliance on other sources of funds, countable or otherwise.
A coach will spend his BB money on his required players which may be what he percieves as his best 15-20 prospects and then look at invited walk ons to fill out the roster. I am always surprised at the number of guys who get no BB money.

Fungo could be right. With 16-17 pitchers and 10 getting 95% of the innings now, maybe nothing changes on the field. Might be a little less crowded in thje locker room though.

27 guys max getting money. It may very well come down to who does the best job recruiting and getting the best (8) other guys that ends up having the best team. You have to have a certain amount of pitchers. Your posistion players have to be able to play. Who can get the most talented guys that are willing to come for no baseball money? That might just be the difference in these programs winning and or losing. Before many teams were carrying upper 30's low 40's in numbers. Now they have to manage the same program with max 35. Can they afford to have guys in the program that can not contribute? No. The recruiting of the players that are willing to play at state u for no baseball money vs playing at a lower level will be intense imo. They will be very valuable to these college programs. I have been told this by many college coaches. The two way guys are now way more valuable they have ever been before.

quote:

by Coach May: can they afford to have guys in the program that can not contribute? No.

do agree with other points of your acessment but...

the playing roster is 25, and tho it often changes "slightly" during the season, that still leaves 10 spots for guys not quite ready to contribute immediatly ...
actually that's precisely how those spots will likely be used.

why do I think that?

GT & others who had previously kept their numbers under 35, DID NOT have a fall tryout format, DID give young players time to develop & have been doing it that way for years

Good points Bee but look at this way. 35 players. How many are all available at the same time. How many pitchers are shut down do to arm problems at any one given time? How many posistion players are out due to injury? How many players are out due to academic problems or discipline issues?

The travel roster of 25 leaves only 10 behind. Chances are some of those will be victims of the aforementioned factors. Some will be freshman not ready to contribute. Or pitchers that are not ready to pitch on the weekend etc etc.

You are right there are programs that have always operated with less players than others. Now everyone will have to learn to do the same thing.

I agree with the idea that the talent will be more spread out. The same thing happened in D-I hoops when schollie count went from 15 to 13...and in I-A football when those schollie counts were reduced years ago. It creates more parity...and that isn't even an angle I thought about until Bee> brought it up.

I have been reading about this and a thought came to mind, the multi-position player will now become a more highly prized regarded commodity - particularly if that player also is a good pitcher. I'm not talking about the player that can be put at another position and hope that he doesn't hurt you but rather the player that has come up through HS and has played several positions and can play each well.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael'sDad:
I have been reading about this and a thought came to mind, the multi-position player will now become a more highly prized regarded commodity - particularly if that player also is a good pitcher. I'm not talking about the player that can be put at another position and hope that he doesn't hurt you but rather the player that has come up through HS and has played several positions and can play each well.

This is nothing new, players often get recruited and never play the position they played in HS.

As mentioned, many teams have been working with the 35 man rosters for years for them it is business as usual. There is absolutely no way a team roster has 35 ready to play or needs 35 ready to play.

As mentioned players aren't as concerned about this as parents, my son had no clue or cared who got what as a scholarship, in their eyes, once you gather on the field everyone is equal. They couldn't care less if someone walked on or had a 100% scholarship.

What will happen to the 100% scholarships guys?

You hear families say they are getting 100% scholarship; it does not happen as often as many families may profess, but it does happen. That means others will not get as much baseball money, remember I think the rule will be if a player gets any money, it will be 25%, it does not say there is a max %, so with pitchers and big bombers still getting the lion share of the money with some players getting more than 25%.

Some schools currently give very little "baseball" money to non-pitchers, I think that will continue and the amount of money going toward pitching may very well increase.

I believer there will be more guys that will be walk-ons in terms of not getting "baseball" money.

The problem is you will not know how truthful the coach is as to how many walk-ons are coming as they do not sign NLI's and are not published because their is no binding document. Those schools that over recruit will continue to as they don't know for sure if the player will actually step foot on campus and they will cover their bases.

The 25% minimum is in any combo (baseball or academic) or just baseball or just academic. The max schollies is 28 on a 35 man roster, however, I have heard that there is talk of changing the max schollies to 35 same as roster max, stay tuned.

Coaches will still give larger scholarships to whoever they wish. It's all numbers, they just have to figure how to rework them.

I am not sure I understand where the 8 walk ons come from. I don't beleive for a minute that a coach will be spreading the 11.7 over all 27 players. I think the academic money may help that 11.7 strech a little, but are walk ons limited to 8, so if 17 guys get money the roster is limited to 25, or can he bring on 18 walk ons to meet the 35?

quote:

I think the academic money may help that 11.7 strech a little, but are walk ons limited to 8, so if 17 guys get money the roster is limited to 25, or can he bring on 18 walk ons to meet the 35?

As I understand it, 18 walk-ons could be brought on to meet the 35 max.

The athletic scholarship limit says "up to" 27 players.

And, of course, all the walk-ons could be receiving academic or other types of scholarships from the school.

Infield08 hit it right on the head.
ROSTER SIZE= 35 MAX.
MAXIMUM COUNTERS(i.e. guys who receive scholly $$)= 27
Simple math gives you the 8 walk ons everyone talks about......

Also, as you stated someone who receives academic or need based $$$$ would NOT be considered a "counter". In other words, they are technically defined as a walk on.

ALSO, the 2008-2009 Academic year is a transition year. Teams are in fact allowed 30 counters. After that, they move down to the 27 limit (assuming no changes at the January 2008 meeting).....

More than 8 can walk on .. I don't see many colleges giving 27 out with thye pitchers getting the bigest share of the pie. If your pitchers get 60-79% and there are for argument 10-12 pitchers that get that kind of money you are going to see lots of guys signing for no BB countable money.

Lets say your school is fully funded at 11.7 and you give out what averages out to be 60% (50% to some & 70% to others) to 14 pitchers. The way I calculate it that means you can give the minimum 25% to 13 position players and still have a little .05 scholarships left. That is a total of 27 players receiving money.

That is .6 x 14 = 8.4 scholarships.

11.7 - 8.4 = 3.3 scholarships left to give. 3.3/.25 = 13.2 more players that can receive 25%.

That doesn't take into consideration academic money that most likely will come into play for some players.

To me this sounds logical. Not as good as being able to give money to all 35 on the roster but at least it is doable within the current framework and would allow substantially more money for the pitchers.

There are only a handful of pitchers on a team that get big scholarship money.

Plus there are lots of other variables.

As TPM taught me some time back, 11.7 doesn't always mean 11.7. The NCAA takes an average cost of attending, multiplies that by 11.7 and gives the team a $ budget to work with. If a state university gives an in-state guy 50%, then he's getting money equal to 50% of the in-state cost, but that is less than 50% of the AVERAGE cost of attending. So a team that focuses on in-state guys can milk far more out of its 11.7 allotment.

There are sometimes special advantages as well. Clemson, for example, has a program where if you graduate in the top 10% of your high school class, as an out-of-state student you can get in-state tuition. So you can recruit an out-of-state player with high grades and get him for less charge against your baseball budget than you could if he had lower grades. I can tell you I know they take full advantage of that.

In contrast, private U's don't get this advantage at all, so 11.7 means 11.7 for them. (Just another way that the NCAA shows every day that it has no idea of what it is doing to baseball.)

Other notes:

State U's in FL, GA and TX can get kids on Hope scholarships or similar programs and not have their Hope money count against the team. So they can be had on the cheap, so to speak. Give them room & board only and they can come to college for free, essentially while maybe counting only 40% against the team. Or, give them the 25% minimum and they get the equivalent of an 85% ride, which is a very rare % outside of this context.

There are also MANY cases of true stud players taking lower %'s than they perhaps could have commanded because they had their heart set on one place, or because they wanted to get the in-state tuition break, or other factors. I even know of scholarship caliber players who have agreed to be recruited walk-ons in order to get nothing more than help with the admissions department. Which, by the way, I don't disagree with at all. There's more than one way to maximize the benefit of your baseball capabilities.

I know my alma mater, William & Mary, has maybe half of its allotment budgeted, but if you agree to play baseball there they will help you pass admissions. For a lot of people that is a big upgrade from their alternatives (if you'll let me brag on my school!). If you consider that many of their recruits pass up out-of-state alternatives to go there with in-state tuition, you can see that for the players it makes a lot of financial sense, too.

Bottom line, the coaches at these schools learn their respective advantages and disadvantages and they work with what they have. It's fairly byzantine and I'm sure they'd rather have 35 full rides to deal with like a football program, but like everything else you learn to play with the hand you're dealt.

quote:

State U's in FL, GA and TX can get kids on Hope scholarships or similar programs and not have their Hope money count against the team. So they can be had on the cheap, so to speak.

I had never heard of the HOPE Scholarship in Texas, so I googled it and came up with this:

Hope Scholarship Credit
This tax credit is only available for the first two years of post-secondary education. The credit of up to $1500 per student is calculated as 100% of the first $1100 of tuition and fees plus 50% of the next $1100 (2006; as indexed for inflation). The credit is used to reduce your income taxes, but it is not refundable if the credit reduces your taxes to less than zero. To qualify for the Hope Credit, a student cannot have been convicted of a federal or state felony involving the possession or distribution of a controlled substance. Married taxpayers must file jointly to claim the credit. This credit cannot be used for classes to improve or acquire skills.

Is this the same type of scholarship students in Florida and Georgia get?

I think those Southern States that offer discounted tuition for HS grad with a "greater than" GPA will benefit even more than they do now from scholarship rules and walk-on issues. I've never understood those State rules but they sure make the discounted costs of education easier to swallow

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:

quote:

State U's in FL, GA and TX can get kids on Hope scholarships or similar programs and not have their Hope money count against the team. So they can be had on the cheap, so to speak.

I had never heard of the HOPE Scholarship in Texas, so I googled it and came up with this:

Hope Scholarship Credit
This tax credit is only available for the first two years of post-secondary education. The credit of up to $1500 per student is calculated as 100% of the first $1100 of tuition and fees plus 50% of the next $1100 (2006; as indexed for inflation). The credit is used to reduce your income taxes, but it is not refundable if the credit reduces your taxes to less than zero. To qualify for the Hope Credit, a student cannot have been convicted of a federal or state felony involving the possession or distribution of a controlled substance. Married taxpayers must file jointly to claim the credit. This credit cannot be used for classes to improve or acquire skills.

Is this the same type of scholarship students in Florida and Georgia get?

Not in Florida. Bright Futures is funded by the state lottery and awarded in levels if you make certain GPA, SAT and service hours. The student still has to maintain the required GPA to keep it each year. It pays for the school's tuition only of a state school If the student decides to attend a prvate school in FL (ex UM), the amount given for tuition is based on a formula for average state tuition.

One of the reasons why it's hard to gain entrance to FL state schools for out of state applicants, the money has kept FL students in FL.

I do beleive we still have another program, called talented 20. If you are in the top 20% of your schools class you are guaranteed admission to a state school but may not be of yor choice.

What spurred our conversation was we received a financial aid form from one of his top school choices and considering he is an '09 I thought it a little unusual. Thought maybe it was because schools might be trying to figure out who can afford to be a preferred walk-on, but have since been told that is standard procedure for some schools. Any words of wisdom?

Standard proceedure. They are looking at all ways to avoid dipping into the BB money until they have to.