So I can only imagine that there was more turnover than usual this year to meet the rules about counters and roster size. Am I right that a college coach can tell a player after a subpar season that he is not getting his scholarship renewed for the next year?

So, in essense, coaches can still over-recruit and sign a bunch early - like those schools that signed 10-20 players early last year - and would meet the limits by simply running returning guys out of the program and taking their scholarship back?

If that is allowed, then how often does this happen? (Most programs? Only the most competitive? Every year?) Any info would be appreciated.

If a player is given a release from the head coach and athletic director of any institution that player should have the right to transfer to any institution of there choice and be permitted to tryout and play for the school they choose no matter what the classification. Also they should be permitted to obtain and recieve grant in aid from there new school as long as they meet the ACADEMIC qualifications as the rest of the student body of that institution. To formulate a penalty to a student athlete that was released from another institution for what ever the reason is rediculous. That student is not being afforded his constitutional right to move freely from the releasing school and there new school. The power given coaches without really any accountability is alarming and needs to be adressed.

If the recruiting director who by the way is promising everything under the sun in many instances, needs to be held accountable for their selections. If they over estimated a players ability or their forcast of that players growth didn't workout so be it. But to cut or release a player and then penalize that player with a year of ineligability is terrible.

I am tired of hearing how the NCAA is looking out for the well fare of the student athlete BULL***X.

quote:

Originally posted by clchamp06:
Am I right that a college coach can tell a player after a subpar season that he is not getting his scholarship renewed for the next year?

Yes, and that isn't new. Scholarships that are based in any degree on athletic ability must have a period of exactly one academic year (with some exceptions). Part of the stated reason for the 25% minimum scholarship and 35 person rosters is to try to cut down on the incidence of "running off" players.

Obviously we don't know yet how this will play out. My own opinion is that over-recruiting will be reduced, but it may be a couple of years before the situation stabilizes. I expect that eventually players will typically attend the level of school that will give them the 25% or more, and use the scholarship as an objective gauge of the program's intentions and belief in the player. I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster and:

a) had planned to stay at a particular school and give up baseball if he doesn't make the roster.

or (less likely)
b) had planned to transfer to a non-D1 school if he doesn't make the roster.

or (very unlikely with the new transfer rule)
c) had planned to transfer to a different D1 school if he doesn't make the roster.

quote:

I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster...

I don't think you can really know what they'll be made up from.

* Could be players on academic aid
* Could be players on need-based aid
* Could be talented players with no financial need
* Could be from the category you mention above
* Could be something else entirely

Schools mix and match all of this stuff to add up to the right numbers.

quote:

I suppose that the remaining squad members (8 for programs that give 27 scholarships) will mostly be made up of talented players who know they have low odds to make the roster

Under the new NCAA rules, each and every one of those 8 remaining squad members can make the roster, as the max limit is 35. Now, if you're referring to the travel roster (usually set at 25), that's another story.

Also, ditto to what justbaseball wrote.

Infield08,
I should have stated more clearly that there are typically 8 non-scholarship slots, and I suppose that these slots will be partially filled from a larger pool of incoming players who will or should recognize that their odds of making the 35 man squad are inferior to those who have gotten scholarships. Actually, infinitely inferior because counters are placed on the 35 man squad by rule. I also expect that incoming players may need to compete for spots with e.g. seniors who are no longer receiving athletic aid. Making the 35 man roster is important, even for those who don't make the traveling squad, because otherwise the player can't practice with the team.

I think, but I'm not sure, that one of justbaseball's points is that some of the non-scholarship hopeful players may be among the most desireable and talented at the college, and they're cognizant of that, but don't need the countable money. So their odds of making the roster are very good, in spite of not being in the 27. That doesn't square up with what I know. I am acquainted with a very small set of players who have the resume to have been sure of making the roster, but didn't "need" athletic money. All of them are receiving it.

My basic thinking is the new transfer rules increases the desireability of finding the right fit, and the 25% rule allows a player the opportunity to get an objective measure of his perceived value. I think that soon players will start acting on that knowledge, and will strongly favor schools that will award them scholarships. A few will decide to try to make the 35 man roster without that assurance, either because the choice of school has higher priority than playing baseball, or because of an inverse set of priorities--he wants to play baseball at the highest level he can, no matter where it is.

quote:

That doesn't square up with what I know. I am acquainted with a very small set of players who have the resume to have been sure of making the roster, but didn't "need" athletic money. All of them are receiving it.

I think thats a result of the small pool that you know.

I can name quite a few (but won't) players who are at the top of the talent pool but...

- receive(d) only need-based aid (because they qualified for it)
- receive(d) only academic-based aid (because they qualified for it)

I know of parents of top players who paid the whole bill 'to help out the program.'

And no, this isn't only at one school.

Don't try too hard to generalize how scholarships are given out because it varies from school-to-school and state-to-state (e.g. in-state players in some states qualify more easily for academic aid).

Just try your best to understand what you're getting (or not getting) and to make the best sense out of what it means. Ask if you don't know.

Thanks. It does seem to me that the new rules will actually cause more "running guys off", rather than reduce it. How about all those teams that signed 10-20 guys early. Granted, many of the top teams will have draft picks, etc., and that will come down. But they didn't know for sure until the draft - or more accurately, won't know until the deadline for guys to sign with pro teams.

I think coaches will still "over-recruit", unfortunately, and if at the end of the day they have more than 30 (soon 27) counters, they will simply drop the most unproductive players and tell them their scholarships are not being renewed.

I have heard of some schools which, as a matter of athletic department policy (not NCAA), honor athletic scholarships for four years - i.e. they automatically renew every year - and do not permit the pulling of scholarships based on performance. Would you say this is very rare?

quote:

Originally posted by clchamp06:

Schools that over recruit may still, but generally good programs and good coaches don't over recruit. Most coaches recognize it's quality not quantity. Some coaches over recruited because they felt that every player who loved the program but not quite as talented should have a chance to wear a uniform, even if that meant wearing one on the bench. Others aren't allowed to over recruit. Others will over recruit because they are just not sure if they found the right players do your homework coach). There are many reasons this went on but the NCAA didn't like it because this caused huge transfer revolving doors which affected the APR.
Good coaches also award scholarships and tell players that it will be renewed every year unless they are ineligible. Coaches recruit knowing full well who will be a starter and who has to work harder to get a start. Some programs, freshman play right away and other times they may have to wait to make larger contributions but they don't want to wait.

Only nine can play at one time, good coaches use non starters in every way they can to make them feel a part of the team, whether it be as sub, DH at times, used for a particular matchup, etc. Sometimes you are the player to play at one position, expecting a player may be drafted, if he isn't you may lose out that position, a good coach will help you to learn another. Good coaches will find a way to get the best players into the starting lineup. Often times players don't want to make adjustments. So they transfer. And yes sometimes the charming coach during recruiting turns out to be a *** and sometimes that great recruit comes with a holier than thou attitude.
Of all the players that I know of, maybe one or two had their scholarships taken away, but many more left for more playing time or because they didn't want to make adjustments, or they bit off more than they really should have. Sometimes reasons to attend one program is so strong, nothing else will do (maybe the one you bled colors for, your parents alma mater).

I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand.

I think the amount of your scholarship doesn't always mean you will play or won't play more. Sometimes the amount is given because there is a need to lure you from another program, but that coach may not have you in his plans for two years. The player is just a piece of a larger puzzle he has to put together and we don't always understand it although we think that we do.

quote:

I think that the new rules are good ones, and the sit one year transfer year had to be put in place so it could work together hand in hand.

TPM,
I bet the sophomore who just had his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change doesn't think they are good rules when he has to sit and lose a year of eligibility when he see's his former coach at another institution coaching the next year.
Just one of a few scenarios that make these new rules "not good ones". jmho

Do you know of a sophmore who got his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change?

If so, that player may have the right (if for that reason) to go to the NCAA with a grievance.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Do you know of a sophmore who got his scholarship yanked because of a coaching change?

If so, that player may have the right (if for that reason) to go to the NCAA with a grievance.

I would say your missing the point TPM, but I think you know the point I'm trying to make.

As for the grievance, incoming coach has no obligation to any of the players he inherits.
Doesn't fit his program or is his style of player.
Then the young man has no leg to stand on (grievance) and has to sit out a year even if his former coach wants him at his new school.

I am not missing the point. Yes, in the past it may have been done, but the player had an opportunity to go elsewhere and not sit. So it was overlooked. Doesn't look too good if the player makes a grievance he was cut because the coach didn't like him when his commitment is with the school.

Does anyone know of a player just released because a new coach came in?

Besides who is the coach bringing in, a player that has to sit out a year?

quote:

Does anyone know of a player just released because a new coach came in?

I don't know of any released players, but I do know of several players at an unnamed Big 12 school who were effectively benched and pushed out when a new head coach took over. Like theygrowupfast stated, sometimes players don't fit a new coach's program or style. One player at the Big 12 school transferred to a large D1 program in California and is making a big contribution there. Had the transfer rule been in effect a couple of years ago, he would have had to stay at his original school and not play or transfer to a lower-level program to avoid the sit-out penalty.

On the other hand, I know of a mid-major D1 head coach who took a job with a larger program and tried to take his two best pitchers with him. The pitchers declined, but at that time they could have transferred with no penalty. The same mid-major program had a shortstop who was unsuccessfully courted by a Big 12 program in the same year. If those players had decided to transfer, it certainly would have decimated the program they were leaving.

The new transfer rule has its positives and negatives. There will be people and programs that benefit from it and there will be others who unfairly suffer because of it.

The old transfer rules had the same positives. You had to be released by the athletic administrator. No release no play for 1 year. That is why the new rule only benefits the school. Before a coach could withhold a release but if he cut a guy he could release him for the benefit of the player.
My son's team had a guy who pitched about 9 innings a couple years ago. He left and went to a D11 and was 13-0 last year. For some reason the coach didn't give him a shot. It is only fair that guy should be able to get an opportunity to play. The coach did release him because he didn't want him and the guy didn't want to be there.

quote:

Besides who is the coach bringing in, a player that has to sit out a year? noidea

No, not if this new rule didn't exist.
Then again, the rule is to protect the school and it's APR, it has nothing to do with the student athlete and only penalizes them.

I know, we have been over this time and time again and it's not gonna change. It is what it is and you adjust and move on. (Right TRhit)

Hey TPM it's funny but didn't Florida release several players last season when new coach came in? You argued then that the coach was doing them a favor. One young man Ryan Lockwood transfered to USF without sitting out and just made all American. With the new transfer rule he would have to sit out a season. How many coaches today are going to wait for a plyer to sitout a season and within the rule the new school can not offer the transfer student Grant in aid which with the costs of colleges today may also influence a young person's decission. The rule sucks and there isn't a valid agrument that can be made that tells me how it isn't one side and screws the kid.

Hey Ryno, it's not funny, but new UF coach arrived with a roster of 45-46. Was new coach to wait until this year when they couldn't transfer and play or give them an option beforehand?

Tell me what would you have done?

You asked the question. And I showed how the right to transfer and play immediately can be a win win situation. I feel that a school should be required to honor there word to a young student athlete when they are recriuted to that university. The NCAA has had the benefit of having their cake and eating it too. The point is now they the student athletes will be punished with having to sit out a year if they are released because of the same situations. Again anyone who supports these new rules is an idiot and is missing the big picture... MY OPINION OF COURSE.

While I doubt that Coach O'Sullivan had any real choices here and felt he was acting in the students' best interest...the fact is (IMO) the new transfer rule stinks!

Like many governing bodies, the NCAA invents rules that are not in the best interest of the student-athlete. I don't think they're evil or anything of the sort...just a little arrogant and full of themselves.

JMO.