Your opinions appreciated

I agree, Coach should never say you'll be a starter.
And you should not expect to be a starter as a freshman.
But if you work hard you may become a starter.
You may work hard and not become a starter.
That's what you should expect.

I told son a freshman, Your job is to work on your Academic's.
First and foremost.
That baseball thing will take care of itself.

As far as baseball, I said. Work on getting Bigger and Stronger
and Faster.
Your Junior year in College is your most important year.
That's when you want to be Healthy and in the best baseball shape of your life so far.
EH

I also don't think a coach should promise anybody a specific position, I hear parents say that the recruiting coach said he will be the starting player in "that" position, and I cringe, many things change from when they commit to when they start their first season, some players will take it easy and just glide through their senior year and not work hard over the summer, while others including returnees will continue to work hard and get bigger and better and should be the starting player in that position.

This is irrelevant of how much scholarship they did or did not receive.

I don't think freshman should expect not to start or be a impact to the team.

What I also don't like is when coaches recruit players making these promises of starting and continue to recruit other players for the same position, what are they telling them! The first player that they recruited for the position can be totally blind sided by schools over recruiting after they make their commitments.

TPM, while we don't like it, favoritism happens all the time in college baseball. If a coach believes in himself he will be partial to those players he spent the most money on and play favorites to those players. It happens because of $omething Homerun04 said --- This is irrelevant of how much scholarship they did or did not receive. I think it has MUCH to do with how much baseball scholarship they receive. We can't take a “cookie cutter” approach to what should be said during the recruiting talks. Coaches spend money on those players they think will be impact players. They give those impact players the opportunity to prove their worth. The reality (maybe inequity) of the whole process is the coach allows those players repeated opportunities that the player with little or no scholarship would never get. It is a know fact that some players have to prove they CAN play and some players have to prove they CANNOT play. If you get that promise of playing time on the front end I think you can expect to be given multiple opportunities to prove yourself. If you're good ---- those multiple chances are all you need!
My son was “promised” a starting role as a freshman by all colleges that offered. Since he was a two way player and wanted to catch, the actual position he would be playing was also include in the “negotiations” and all but one college promised a specific position. However, every player and parent going into college baseball should understand there are no absolute guaranteed “slots” in college baseball (we sure did). That not only applies to freshmen but to every player on the team up to and including the senior. I thought every player and parent understood the player had to perform on the field in order to remain on the field. So by a coach making a promise of a starting role as a freshman only means in the coach’s opinion he sees him in that starting role and that player will be given that special opportunity not afforded all players. I didn’t see these “promises” as misleading or deceptive but more of an honest discussion about what direction the coach was planning to take.
Fungo

The most over-used and later forgotten line from recruiters:

"Your son has a chance to make an immediate impact as a freshman".

This phrase, or something close, is heard and taken as all of the following:

1. My son is guaranteed to start.
2. My son might start, but certainly will see a lot of playing time.
3. My son is one of their top recruits.
4. My son should likley start as a freshman.
5. My son will probably start as a freshman.


When I mentioned this line to a group of Valley League (summer wooden bat league) players eating dinner during a rainout, it was met with laughter all around the table.

It's hard to internalize when recruiters' praise is in the air, but read the line again and realize that " a chance" means "a chance".

I agree with Fungo's assessment but will reiterate - the only guarantee is production.

Before kids get out and compete against other college teams, they are given opportunities to perform during practice and intrasquads. Maybe at this time the coach sees why he gave one kid ten times more money than another. Conversely, if you are a hitter and you consitently crush the ball in practice, you will likely find your way into the lineup eventually - regardless of what it says on your scholarship. Similarly, if you are pitching lights out when you get your chance in practice, that will likely influence things.

When you finally get your chance in a game, you have to produce somehow. For some, the pressure is less because they will be given a longer rope from the coach. For others, it is important to hit the ground running and essentially take the decision away from the coach. It may not seem fair to the lower-scholarship guy, but opportunities do exist. Once you get between the white lines, the amount that is written in your scholarship will not buy you an out as a pitcher nor will it buy you a hit as a hitter.

Personally I am leery of any coach at the college level who promises that you will start as a frosh

My son was given a letter before the NLI which stated

you are one of the 32 players on the roster
you have to earn the right to start
you have to earn the right to travel


Great way to go about it---no delusions

fungo's accessment is exactly right - anyone going thru the recruiting process should read it several times then read it again, imo

some here are adding their own interpretations & dancing around the real issue prolly just adding confusion . . .
anyway, the fact is "THE PROMISE" IS a reality in college baseball -
and, it's totally unrelated to other statements re:

if you work hard,
chance to impact,
chance to earn,
if you get bigger/stronger,


few players get "the promise",
congrats to those that do - they clearly understand going in ...
but it could/should be an mportant factor in recruiting questions/discussions regarding your program choice, imo -
if my son was offered the "chance to earn/impact" - that's still GOOD,
but ... he didn't get "THE PROMISE"
however - the missing piece I'd need to clearly understand the situation is - if anyone he was competing against had "the promise" as it would drasticly change his opportunity. it's a fair question & coach might squirm a bit, but prolly will end up being honest with you - tho surprised that you actually knew what "the promise" was

.

I would be a little leery of a coach promising a starting job until I understood the circumstances surrounding his offer. If he had just graduated or lost to the draft his starter at the given position and he knew the talent he currently had was marginal and he explained the situation it might make sense that he make that promise to his number one choice. These are things you can probably certify by looking at his roster from the previous year. There is no guarantee that you will keep the starting position but from the standpoint of trying to land a top prospect it makes sense to make it clear that you will be given priority for the job.

Coaches that make those kind of promises and don't keep them will eventually have a history of transfers and that is another thing that can be determined by doing some due diligence.

I think the smart coaches are the ones that explain the circumstances and let you knw you have a good chance to earn the starting spot.

We had a D11 school garantee my son a starting position and the scholarship for 4 years not just 1. We were leary but my son wanted to play D1 in a warm climate and to pitch against top schools. We did go through the admissions process because the school was a great acdemic school. They would not give us a scholarship amount untill my son was admitted. It was the highest scholarship we received but the lure of D1 was too strong. He actually said he would rather work his way up to a starter and play D1. I liked the D11 for academic reasons.
I also don't put much store in promises in BB. You perform and you may get a chance to play again. Starting depends on who is in front of you and most colleges are going to give their JRs and Srs a greater chance to fail before they see bench time.
My son's coach was straight forward and pretty well to his word.
My son did very well in fall scrimages and won his WS game pitching scoreless innings and it made little difference.
I think most coaches feel some obligation to the JRs and SRs. We also saw this in the summer league but he got lots of starts as promised.

For sixteen years as a college head coach, I never told a kid he would come in and start right away. I did tell many players that they were in a position to compete for significant playing time......and it wasn't a line; it was the truth.

When my son was being recruited, I don't remember any conversations at all about playing time with any of the coaches. That discussion was not of concern to me. He did end up with over 60 innings pitched his freshman year, with 7 starts, 5 being in conference games......

Grateful:
You have a PM

Interesting thread...promises are made...not all coaches are like Grateful. However, it's up to players and parents to research and be realistic with the facts.

Not an easy thing to do though...we know from personal experience!

I used to think as most have posted in this thread. After having been through college and with a few years of how things are done in minor league ball, my views have changed...a bit.
If a college coach wants to commit to a 17/18 year old player that he will start them as a freshman, it is the coach who bears considerable risk. He might be doing it to motivate that player, he might be doing it because he really and truly believes it, he might be making the statement just as a recruiting "tool," and/or he might be making it because he is competing with professional teams/draft where that will be the committment.
Ultimately, I agree that production on the field should decide whether the playing time continues to be justified. However, it is the college coach who gets paid to recruit and to succeed within the goals set by the athletic department/AD. If his teams fail, he will lose his job and his paycheck. Given these criteria, I think the coach is entitled to make the decisions on who to recruit and how to do it. His job is on the line if he does not get the recruits or they do not perform.
While I think it is easier to not make any promises, I also think there are some coaches good enough to make those committments work. The problem is there are not enough of those coaches and the ones who are good enough may not be the ones likely to make those committments.

quote:

by Grateful: For sixteen years as a college head coach, I never told a kid he would come in and start right away

as always, appreciate your input Grateful ...
but with all due respect, how many of those 16 yrs were DI with 11.7 fully funded (athletic) schollys recruiting guys who'd likely be top draft picks?? (rhetorical Q)

it's a much different world

.

I am having a hard time understanding this thread....based upon what I hear from the mouths of NLI'd players and parents...

...Isn't EVERY player promised a starting position?

...and isn't EVERY player getting a full ride.

44

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

by Grateful: For sixteen years as a college head coach, I never told a kid he would come in and start right away

as always, appreciate your input Grateful ...
but with all due respect, how many of those 16 yrs were DI with 11.7 fully funded (athletic) schollys recruiting guys who'd likely be top draft picks?? (rhetorical Q)

it's a much different world

I understand your point, Bee, and appreciate the rhetorical question........but this thread doesn't seem to be dominated by a DI theme. Some of the contributors have kids playing outside of DI........

So therefore, the thread has implications that one of the recruiting tactics (for the purpose of getting commitments) is to promise playing time, starting positions, etc. I was at an NAIA school, and I was competing with several other schools (DI, DII, DIII, JUCO, NAIA) to land quality recruits.....I had scholarship monies available as well as a history in our state as being the only non DI four year school getting kids drafted for a long period of time.

I also used my son's recruitment as an example....that there wasn't any discussion of playing time at all, and I had no intention nor desire to initiate such discussion with those coaches, either......there was plenty of discussion about the draft though, and what kind of bonus would influence my boy to sign.

If we use these discussions only for talking Division I and high profile guys, we are leaving out the vast majority of players. Small school coaches, with or without scholarships, still need to sell recruits on something......promised playing time, starting positions, etc., was not in my methods.

As an added point, I'm not sure if this is the thread touched on this topic, but as a coach I sometimes played guys who didn't have scholarships over players with significant schollies.....trying to win, and doing it the right way, by using players who deserved playing time, was more important than trying to show anybody that I used good judgement in awarding scholarship money during recruitment. I have witnessed DI coaches do the same thing......give playing time to non-scholarship kids while the scholarship guys sit the bench.

Bottom line is that it isn't necessarily a much different world. All coaches have to compete for recruits. Small school coaches do often promise playing time, and others do not.....same thing with the high profile DI schools. It is the same world; the major difference is the quality of the entire roster.

quote:

As an added point, I'm not sure if this is the thread touched on this topic, but as a coach I sometimes played guys who didn't have scholarships over players with significant schollies.....trying to win, and doing it the right way, by using players who deserved playing time, was more important than trying to show anybody that I used good judgement in awarding scholarship money during recruitment. I have witnessed DI coaches do the same thing......give playing time to non-scholarship kids while the scholarship guys sit the bench.

grateful - your entire post was outstanding. These are the principles that I believe in as well. I am guessing that more often than not, the coach is right about the kid who got the most money is also the most likely to be the most productive. We all know that this is not an exact science however.

As a side note, here is a compliment for both Bee> and you. It is nice when people can disagree or raise a point respectfully without taking offense to the opposing viewpoint or without personalizing it. It has been demonstrated nicely in this thread. Frankly, I am not certain that you and Bee> are not in fact arguing the same point but in just a different manner.

I feel better with "the selection".

If I were a coach, I play the best, regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Frankly, I am not certain that you and Bee> are not in fact arguing the same point but in just a different manner.

Thanks, CD......I don't even think we were arguing, either......just like the rest of you.....enjoying the baseball discussion!

The coaches of my son's top three (and final) choices have all said the same thing basically: "I feel you have the ability, and an opportunity here to step in and be a significant contributor as a freshman." No promises. The buzz word here is "opportunity". The inference is that you'd better show up in shape, be coachable, and be ready to work your tail off. My son likes to say that he wants to show up with skills far better than the last time the recruiter saw him play.

Thank you all for your opinions and input as parents and coach! It's appreciated.

My son was told by the coach of the school he had already committed to that the program had no returning player at my son's position 3rd base -lie #1.

He was told the job at 3rd was his to lose - lie #2.

He never took any balls at third, was never given any opportunity at that position and they immediately attempted to convert him into an outfielder and pitcher.

Fortunately my son never took the "promises too seriously". He had been told the same things going into high school about playing 3rd and was immediately converted to shortstop.

Need to take the "promises" with a grain, no a lump of salt.

I agree with Grateful that playing time is never discussed as a promise but in that one case it was made to try and get my son not to sign with his school
He said that if he went D1 he would probably sit a lot and promised him a starting role. He also said the BB package was the largest ever awarded in the history of their program. It was by far the largest package he was offered. He was also the only coach that saw him pitch in person.His recruiter had watched himfor over 3 years here in Canada.
The only NAIA school that we had an offer from was the University of Britsh Columbia and no promises were made about playing time. They also have several players drafted including Jeff Francis of the Rockies.