You be the D1 coach

The coach and his staff only have their word.  If they gave their word and then go back on it it speaks volumns about them as men, the athletic department, and the school.  I guess that doesn't mean much for most folk's these days.  It just teaches young men to lie, cheat, and backstab and only do what's written on paper in a contract.  Money talks, BS walks.

Does that coach have a greater obligation to the one than he has to the other walk-ons?

Great question and the thought crossed my mind. 

infielddad - I am not sure if I am answering your question correctly, but I guess it comes down to what did the coach tell the "one" during recruiting.  If he said, I am offering you a chance to compete for a roster spot, then he owes no obligation to the one.  If he told more than "one" by accepting my preferred walk-on offer, I am guaranteeing you a roster spot (when he knew there were not enough spots), then I think I have a problem with that.  If he only told one that, then he ought to do what he promised.  Otherwise, don't make those types of promises. 

The coach may counter that by saying what is he supposed to do?  Every year he "averages" a certain percentage of attrition due to grades and injury.  Thus, based on that, he was "pretty sure" at the time the preferred walk-on offer was made that the spot would be there.  This year, the normal attrition did not happen and thus, the "one" is unfortunately squeezed out of a spot.  If that is the coach's justification, then he should have explained that his guarantee came with strings attached at the time the offer was made.

For prospective athletes out there, realize that there are no guarantees with a preferred walk-on offer.  There are no guarantees with a scholarship either.  If a coach decides he made a mistake with a scholarship player, many of them will find ways to run them off as well.

Infielddad,

Interesting topic idea.

I think the coach's obligations are to:

1) Avoid making promises unless he is confident he can keep them;

2) Avoid saying things that sound like promises unless they are promises he intends to keep;

3) Alert "promised" players in jeopardy of not making the spring roster of their status at the end-of-fall interview so they can make informed decisions about where to go to school in the spring.

All promises are made with assumptions about the future.  Unfortunately, reality changes.  Sometimes the player you were sure would earn a roster spot does not win a spot.  That happens.

When reality changes, you can't insist that the coach should ignore the latest version of reality that presents itself to him.  It would be nice if the coach honored his word, but it's hard to demand that standard from someone with as little job security as a D1 coach.  I like to think I would keep my word in that situation, but I don't really know.

However, I do think coaches ought to be able to figure out their rosters during the 6 weeks of fall practice.  I just can't believe that if you have 40 players in camp and 27 of them have guarantees, you can't figure out which five of the last thirteen to cut in six weeks.  Is it really that hard to decide whether player 35a or 35b gets to spend the season on the bench?

I believe every player who is invited back for the spring semester should either have a spot nailed down or know in clear terms that he is at risk of not making the team.   Cutting players after the spring semester begins reduces their options, burns the first year of their 5 year clock, and makes it harder to get a new start somewhere else.  Transfer rules are burdensome enough without putting the cut player in a deeper hole.

A couple of points I would like to make relative to this discussion.

Most HS players (and their parents) have no idea how competitive college baseball is. I was one of those. Get real about you, or your son’s realistic chances of making a squad, guarantees or not.

Is a roster spot very useful?  Maybe it is not. I would guess that most of the fringe players do not make it because they are not big, strong, and fast enough (or throw hard enough) to compete with the other players. If you don’t make the squad in the first year in college go focus on getting bigger, faster, stronger. You will probably have a better chance making it the next year than you would if you were on the 35 and getting scraps in practice and focus full time on strength and conditioning.

If just being part of a team and enjoying the benefits of being part of all that it offers, then go to a DIII program and be part of it. They have bigger rosters and you will likely have a better chance to compete, so this whole 35man roster discussion is a moot point.

Even though a coach might say “you have a roster spot”, go in with the assumption that you have to earn it and nothing will be given to you.

In the end, having a roster spot may not be all that valuable, and while you might be on the team for one year it is likely year two and beyond you (or your son) will not. What is that worth?

Finally, per my wife “most of the baseball coaches I met reminded me of used car salesmen, they tell you what you want to hear” Take everything verbal with a grain of salt and go in with the mindset that you have to earn everything -  you (or your son)  will be in a much better place if you do not.

My 2 cents.

What's best for the player?  If the coach gave his word he needs to keep it, but at the same time he needs to have a discussion with the player, who may opt to transfer, resolving the who issue.

Good post.

This problem can by avoided by a conference in December if the coach says, "I promised you a roster spot, and I'm prepared to keep my word.  However, this is the competitive situation you face.  You're not likely to play, and you should consider your other options.  I will support whatever decision you make."  

This really shouldn't be that complicated.  The reason that only 27 can be on scholarship is because the NCAA studied D1 roster use and determined that on most teams only 27 kids get significant playing time.  Allowing 35 on a roster gives the coach 8 additional spots to play with.  Call it a margin of error if you will.  If a coach mis-evaluates 2 or 3 (not unusual), or even 7 or 8 guys (unusual), out of his original 27, he still has 8 more guys that might be better (unlikely, but it happens).  

Don't get me wrong, sometimes 1-2 of these final 8 guys will be major contributors.  Heck, I've seen them shine in Omaha.  But, statistically, it doesn't happen that often. And, it is very rarely the 35th guy on the roster.  If a coach is agonizing over No. 35 versus No. 36 he'd be better off to just pick one and buy a lottery ticket.

When a coach brings in more than 8 walkons, he's basically admitting that he's not a very good evaluator.  Just recruit the best 35 kids you can get and STOP.  

So one kid flunks out and one gets kicked out and you are left with 33 on the roster.  BIG DEAL.  There is no rule that says you have to carry 35.  Teams have gone to Omaha, and won, with less than 35.  Better to risk playing with 33-34 than lie to kids.

You are only as good as your word.  if you lie, you lie, if you don't you don't.  

It all goes back to the recruiting advice of go where you are loved, not where they're interested. Go where they're willing to invest at least 25% of a scholarship. On most teams only twenty players get reasonable playing time. Talking a walk on spot is asking to play beat the odds right from the start.

But if the coach told the kid he has a place on the team he should honor his word. But the reality is the player would probably be released after the season.

MTH,

I think you could be oversimplifying, by a considerable amount.

Part of that is because coaches are trying to project 11.7, the draft, injuries, grades, attrition and other factors at least 8-12 months or more into the future,  Some coaches are very hard working and honest in the process. Some are not.

One successful D1 coach told me some of the background which led to the 11.7, the 35 man roster and the one year sit rule. Prepster posted a very good summary of much of the background. Going further behind that, what I learned was that a major reason for some of those changes was to try and curb coaches who were abusing the previous system, especially by over-recruiting during the Fall into the NLI period and, in addition,  scouting and recruiting players out of Summer leagues.  These coaches were, in addition to over-recruiting,  cherry picking top players, cutting recruits or players to whom commitments had been made, and leaving the programs from whom the Summer league player had been recruited short handed in August before schools starts.

So the changes come in and those very same coaches look for different angles.

One of the angles which is quite repugnant, for me at least, is yanking or reducing scholarships of juniors and especially seniors to be, knowing the player will have to sit one year if he tries to transfer. Another is the over-recruiting in ways the rules still permit, such as this discussion.

In the overall, I would bet most coaches  work hard at complying with a complex set of rules, projecting 12 months out, working around the draft, and some signing and some unexpectedly returning, grade attrition, injury issues, other attrition and wanting to honor scholarship obligations even though they realize they are year to year.

Over the past 2 weeks, I have been following the roster on a website for a top program which many who post here would relish for their son. As of yesterday, the roster was 43. Even this morning, it was 37. 

Recruiting the best 35 and STOP will end up with that coaching staff likely looking for work in the near future.  Somewhere between your perspective, however, and the coaches who are known abusers will likely be better answers for my questions.  Does anyone want to wait for the NCAA to find them?

I think a lot of this is base on one persons perspective.  It sure would be nice to know the actual wording of the coaches offer.  I am of the opinion that a coach should honor his word.  But, who is to say that this coach did not. one thing I did not hear in the other thread is that that OP felt that his son was better than any of the players who made the 35 man roster.  My son went committed to the school that showed the most love and is going in knowing that he still has to earn a spot, even though they have invested money.  I would imagine that a coach that develops a habit of over recriuting for misleading recruits and breaking his word won't be successful, or employed, for very long

My assumption that when the new rules were created for 27 scholarships that the other 7-8 players allowed on the roster where still highly recruited yet received no money other than academic. Then all of a sudden an invited walk on showed up and found that there were another 10-15 with the same offer.

There is no rule that limits your fall roster, yet I am not sure how a coach can work with so many players during instruction time, how can you build a solid program when you can only give your staff half of the attention they deserve? Do they bring on extra players to let the guys they know will have the job work harder for it like they do in probball?

Obviously does not limit at some programs the amount of players that one can "invite" to come "try out". Maybe this is what has to change?

I get the part about college baseball being very competitive. I think for many they just don't get it. They have no clue until their player gets there and they see it for themselves.   

IMO, the attention you receive from programs during recruiting should be to you and him an indication of your sons skill ability.  If he is getting attention or some offers mostly from, lets say D2 or JUCO programs, why would you encourage your son to walk onto a  D1 program?  Did you or your player not believe the rating your son received from PG?

I don't really have an issue with a player that is cut from a D1 team having to sit to out a year. If one has to do that, the quality of the academic program should be what is first and foremost not where you will get the better exposure to get drafted. Sitting out a year, does nothing to make you a better player (of course this does not include an injury).

Years ago it was a zoo, with D1 players playing one year and then not being happy and seeking other options during summer ball and a quick transfer to another D1.  A D1 coach told me that they liked  the stability that comes with the transfer rules.  I would like a take on that from infielddad and Prepster, if that has ever been conveyed to them.

Anyway, the long and the short of this for me and always will be, go where you are REALLY wanted which would be to include baseball $$, not promises that IMO, most likely are misunderstood at some point along the way.

Obviously there are some walk on players that defy the odds, but is it safe to really play those odds? There are very few of them to be found, that should be proof within itself, despite hearing how honest the coach may be!

TPM - I couldn't agree any more with your thoughts.  

Also, I would add that just about EVERY coach at EVERY level over-recruits because they can, and they need to.  The level of over recruitment is directly related to the athletic level. Coaches over-recruit to protect themselves and their program, and increase competition where it is needed.   Where things go sideways is:

1) when the coach is not clear and the recruit & recruit parents fail to understand their exact predicament or situation

Or

2) the coach deceives the recruit into thinking the recruit is a better predicament than he actually is.  I have a huge problem with this.

It has been suggested many times on the website over the years.....caveat emptor.  And sometimes caveat emptor isn't enough.  You never know everything until you are part of the team just like you don't fully know what it is like to take a new job with a company.

To answer infielddad's question directly....I think it is up to the coach to tell the walk-on player his role, expectations and how he is going to be measured.   If he does those 3 things he is doing what is in the players best interest and the teams best interest.  Yes, it is the coaches responsibility to put the 35 best team players on the field.   Anything less than that is 100% on the coaching staff.   JMO.

Please read the article I posted about a student athlete from FSU who was cut his freshman year but was able to use the facilities in order to continue conditioning and refining his pitching.  He played summer ball and came back the following year, made the team, and has been contributing ever since.  I know it is an exception, but it does happen-- and in my mind it is important to know that.

I do believe that the parity in baseball along with the scholarship limit to 27 players and 35 total players along with new draft conditions (slot $) is causing people to change their verbage when recruiting, especially those that don't receive $.  At one time, they were able to keep to their word, but what do you do when you were expecting 8 student athletes to leave via draft, but only 3 go because they were either a. not drafted or b. didn't like place in draft and chose to come back?  What about the high level player who was injured but still drafted and decides to come back to get his draft stock up to where it was previous to injury?  Are you going to cut him because you were expecting him to be gone? No.  Hard situations, and I think today's coaches at all levels will be changing the way they talk to recruits.  (JMO, and probably not worth much)

People need to realize that it is not as simple as applying a PG rating or adding up the number of D1 offers.  Is a kid who got ten D1 offers ten times better than a kid who got 1 D1 offer? 

Tom Brady was taken as the 199th pick in the sixth round.  Kurt Warner went undrafted.  Both are likely future hall of famers.  Sometimes, the walk-on guy has to go against the grain.  Sometimes the only ones who believe are the walk-on guy and his family.  Sometimes the D1 coaches who have seen the respective prospect and PG are wrong. 

Walking on is not as easy as it used to be, there is too much talent and too many really good players and the stakes are much higher for coaches to have winning programs.  In the case of the player from FSU, he had a skill that Mike Martin likes that many top D1 programs won't touch. Getting stronger and practicing harder would pay off.  MM doesn't build his team around pitching, so this obviously works for him. It's not unusual for him to carry a sidearm or submarine guy.  Not taking anything away from the player, but sometimes (very much so) it is about being at the right time at the right place. FWIW, there are sidearm/submarine pitchers in the pro game. 

As far as the draft, I know of programs that give future pro prospects  3 years, and make that understood when the player is recruited. Injury is another issue. That is where good management comes in, and IMO lots of HC don't have that skill.  I don't see a coach cutting a draft prospect because he wants more draft $$, but in most cases his scholarship dollars are already spent and this may have been in the discussion when the player was recruited, I know it was with my son, told that you will get 3 seasons, make the most of it.  Besides, its silly not to go pro after 3 years just because you want more money (for the average player how much more will you get), who now will be a year older the following year. 

JMO

CD good post.

My new PROSPECT is Tyler and  kid from USC drafted in 37th round and made the 40 man for the Cardinals. I wish with all the wishes I have that they both make it to the SHOW. Love the grinder kids who fight for every inning and at bat they get. I have that type of kid as well, and although baseball is over for him, he is on his way to a bright future because he never took NO for an answer.

Don't let the NO and naysayers knock you down. Fight until no stone left unturned.JC ball isn't bad idea)