www.cutigers.com


Clemson president James Barker is chairman of the NCAA board of Directors?!?!

Direct link to the article

He didn't pull any punches...

good perspective - this is getting uglier and uglier... Had not thought about the returning Seniors side of things...

What seems grossly unfair to me is the very real possibility of a player at or under 33% having their scholarship eliminated completely,and then that kid has to sit out a year (on his own dime)in order to go play somewhere else.

Whatever degenerative brain condition these NCAA committee members are suffering from, one thing is clear, they have no regard for the kids.

If you are going to impose the same requirements on baseball as the "head-count" sports, then fine; do away with the equivalency aspect and go to 24-27 full scholarships. Then it would be fair to treat baseball the same as the other sports. Not gonna happen, though!

One other thing ...

It seems to me that if a college player is not receiving any athletic scholarship money, that there should be NO restriction on transferring.

If a young man and his family desire to transfer because of playing time and/or scholarship availability, and is not receiving any athletic money, I don't see that the NCAA should have any influence.

I wonder if anyone has ever brought an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA?

quote:

All the memorable players mentioned above came to Clemson with less than a 33 percent scholarship. And many of them would never have played for the Tigers under the new rules.

“They weren’t 33 percent players at that particular time,” Clemson coach Jack Leggett said.

Hard to say whether or not they would not still go to Clemson. To me, playing in college isn't about how much money you get rather it is about the opportunity. Many players are not physically mature when they go to college so it would be difficult for a coach to put a lot of money into them. Many players develop later than others and this happens at every school. Certain positions like pitching are going to command more dollars because without pitching you simply cannot win no matter how good your position players are.

Here is another take on the ramifications of the new rules and I have no idea if this will affect things.

Kids are still going to want to play at schools like Clemson.

Some kids will no longer be able to say they received an athletic scholarship to play even though their status with the team may be entirely the same as it was before.

Some players (and I am guessing mostly pitchers) may have to accept less if there is a minimum requirement for 33% spread out over more players.

The players who see their scholarships boosted to 33% may actually view the new system more favorably.

Players leaving to play out of state may decrease over time and this point has been made before. Many northern kids will still be attracted and find ways to play in the south.

I am not really sure what the ramifications are but they all may not be negative depending on one's perspective. These are just gut feelings I have and not much thought has been put into them.

.
Montana Dad,

Oh you can transfer allright you just can't play in my league.

A compromise might be to let the eight who are NOT on baseball $ transfer without the year sit-out.

44
.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Some players (and I am guessing mostly pitchers) may have to accept less if there is a minimum requirement for 33% spread out over more players.

There is no requirement for the 'ship funds to be spread out over more players. There is only a maximum limit of 27 players receiving 'ships. And a minimum 'ship of 33%. So the coach could give out eleven 100% 'ships and one 70% 'ship if he desired.

Texan - thanks for the clarification.

What if a top 25 coach says to a new recruit - under the old system I would have been able to give you X dollars. Now I am offering you recruited walk-on status but we consider you the same as we would have in the old system. Another coach at a top 100 school (but much less prominent) says to the same player, I will offer you 33%. I wonder if that will be enough to cause players like Khalil Greene to bypass a school like Clemson.

If one believes in the "money talks" theory, then we would predict more parity in college baseball.
I wonder if that will indeed be the case or will the traditional powers still remain the traditional powers?

How do you put a dollar amount on a full ride? Some colleges are $40,000 and others are $20,000. I have never understood how this is worked out.

CD - Good example but in some (actually many) cases the COA may come into play. For example, using your numbers....

COA at school #1 = $30K. Since player is not getting money, out of pocket is still $30K.

COA at School #2 = $25K. Player gets 33% scholly ($8,250). Out of pocket is $16,750.

BIG difference! But there are a ton of variables to consider but I do think more kids than not would opt to go to school #2 and get money (bragging rights, less debt) than go for the glory of being on team #1.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
How do you put a dollar amount on a full ride?

It varies from school to school but a "full ride" is when they cover the total cost of attendence (COA). These costs are room, board, tuition, books and fees. (seems like I missed something??)

bbd, it is based on the cost of attendance at that school and not on a set dollar amount. A 100% 'ship may be $30,000 at a private school and only $15,0000 at a state school. The school can award a dollar amount equal to 11.7 times their cost.

CD, so many schools still aren't fully funded (even with an 11.7 limit), I'm not sure this will bring about any big increases in parity. But perhaps if it truly ends up pushing some major D1 kids to smaller programs, it might.

Thanks for clarifying. I imagine their must me a way to determine cost of housing etc because it also can vary according to where you live while at college.

The offers we had were all dollar amounts and the one we accepted was not nearly as high as the higest offer but the spread was similar between COA. This could creat
a lack of parity.

quote:

To me, playing in college isn't about how much money you get rather it is about the opportunity.

I agree with that. However it seems to me that "opportunities" will be fewer than before...especially out of state or privates.

I just really don't understand how this could be good for college baseball.

quote:

However it seems to me that "opportunities" will be fewer than before...especially out of state or privates.

justbb - first long time no see

Lets reason this out. If Coach Leggett at Clemson is saying that they will be missing out on the likes of Greene and other "developed" stars, wouldn't these same players still be developed but at different schools? In other words, wouldn't the opportunites be in the same amount but just shift somewhere else? Wouldn't these new policies put a dent in the "over recruiting problems" we have all discussed for years on these boards?

I just ask these questions for sake of discussion. I have no idea what the correct answer might be. We may be just talking a paradigm shift and not whether the new policy is actually good or bad for the athlete. Also, under utilitarian principles, maybe more resources are potentially being distributed to more athletes. As Texan has pointed out however, schools are not forced to change their respective distributions - they are just capped at a maximum number and if they do make a monetary offer it is for a minimum amount. Books scholarships appear to be dead. Is that a bad thing?

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

I just really don't understand how this could be good for college baseball.

I agree.

Would a Khalil Greene still have developed to the player he was if he had not gone to Clemson? Knowing his other choices maybe, maybe not. Greene was very unusual, he most likely would have made it regardless. I think the writer was making a point.

CD,
Some schools, many schools don't "develop" players. If a player wishes to attend a school that has a history of developing players, he may not get that opportunity anymnore due to new rules.

It appears that some less developed freshmen may not be able to go to some of the top schools like Clemsen. That may be good for NCAA overall. It also could end up with these players not getting signed as there will be less money to distribute due to the lower limit being 33%. The book money guys may be a thing of the past and a coach really has to think about players that need development. Marginal players who develop into great college players may not get the ooportunities.
Also how does academic money fit in to the equation ? Most scholarships I know about have larger academic amounts than BB amounts.

BTW,
Found out today President Barker just recently became chairman, he was not in on the original committe that made the rules.

Want to follow up on some of the COA posts. IN reading the CURRENT D1 manual, it states that COA is determined/published by each school. It encompasses the items mentioned earlier. For "equivalency" purposes, books are counted as $400, regardless of the "real" amount.

However, under current rules, one of the key factors in calculating the 11.7 scholarships is the denominator figure. The D1 manual states that the denominator is the AVERAGE COA for the school. For a private school, this is pretty straightforward. However, there can be significant variances in the $$$ limit for schollys at state schools. Why? The composition of in state vs. out of state comes into play. So if I am a coach at a state school with a high percentage of out of staters in the OVERALL student population, I conceiveably have more scholly $$$'s available than a similar state school with more in state student. This assumes, of course, that both schools are fully funding their scholly's.

Now, I won't even BEGIN to pretend how the new calculations will work. However, if the basic formulas remain unchanged, I am guessing many state schools will have to change their recruiting approach, ESPECIALLY if the are used to giving book money to in staters and currently use their lion's share of athletic $$$'s on out of state studs.