I really don't think that there are many (if any) posters on this site that are fans of the NCAA's new rules. Many are still trying to wade through the wreckage left in the wake by the rule changes.

Anyone who indicates that they understand how some of the wreckage was delt or is being delt with is not defending the rule changes, just observing how they are being applied.

The coaches and the players are the ones feeling the brunt of these changes. Yes, it is the players with the most at stake, the coaches are not very happy either, and neither are most of the parents that post here.

There is nothing to be gained by questioning each others motives (those that post here) we are really pretty much together on this issue.

Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule. If you want to get nasty, get nasty on the NCAA.
I understand how you feel that coaches should honor commitments. I agree. I also agree that players should honor theirs as well.
However, you haven't answered the question. If you were a new coach coming into a program with 45 on roster and it had to be 35 max within a year, what would you have done? Maybe you would have done nothing and allowed those players to practice, then tell them in the fall to go find another program?
I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't have a player in school or one that will attending, but if I did, instead of complaining here, I would be sending my concerns to the NCAA.

I still also haven't gotten an answer about anyone being released for no good cause as of yet. Why don't you just calm down to see if the new rule imposed prevents coaches from over recruiting and releasing before the imposed spring 35 roster limit. If you hear of it, then it's a really good signal to stay away from that particular coach or program.

JMO.

.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
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.

...And we here highly resolve that these institution benefitting decisions of 2008 shall not have been instituted in vain...

...that this college baseball nation, under the all-knowing-all-seeing-old-testament NCAA God...

...shall have a new birth of non transferrin', short seasonin', 5 games a weekin', arm bustin', senior slashin', freshmen run offin', partial scholarshipin', sit a year even if you are a fall cutin', still overrecrutin' servitude...

...and that the heavy hand of the NCAA, by the NCAA, for the benefit of the NCAA, shall not perish from the landscape of college baseball.

44
,

OB44,
Good attempt to add some humor.

I went back and took a look at the player mentioned by Ryno. In 2007 the player was redshirted by the former coach. What statistics did he have to prove that he was a proven college player to the new coach? Was it not better to have found him a roster spot somewhere erlse (yes the current coach helped find them roster spots) than making him go through the fall to practice to find out maybe he had to sit again? 45 on roster what would you have done? Is this a case of former coaches over recruiting to begin with, or a player not really being where he should in the first place? Put this all together, and maybe the new rule isn't as bad as we think it is.
One of the reasons why the NCAA put this rule in place was to prevent over recruiting (then redshirts to follow) and players to not make hasty decisions (during recruiting) then transfer.

Don't ever try to dis anyone without knowing or understanding circumstances before you mention anyone's name (players and coaches alike).

quote:

I went back and took a look at the player mentioned by Ryno. In 2007 the player was redshirted by the former coach. What statistics did he have to prove that he was a proven college player to the new coach? Was it not better to have found him a roster spot somewhere erlse (yes the current coach helped find them roster spots) than making him go through the fall to practice to find out maybe he had to sit again? 45 on roster what would you have done? Is this a case of former coaches over recruiting to begin with, or a player not really being where he should in the first place? Put this all together, and maybe the new rule isn't as bad as we think it is.
One of the reasons why the NCAA put this rule in place was to prevent over recruiting (then redshirts to follow) and players to not make hasty decisions (during recruiting) then transfer.

Don't ever try to dis anyone without knowing or understanding circumstances before you mention anyone's name (players and coaches alike).

No dis on Florida -- obviously, the new coach had to make some cuts. However, I think the point RYNO is trying to make is that under the new rule, Ryan Lockwood would have had to sit out for a year or transfer to a lower-level program when he was cut. Obviously, he has D1 talent or he would not have made All-American. I don't believe it is fair to force athletes to sit out a year when transferring to another D1 program IF it wasn't their choice to leave the program in the first place.

Even the argument about the new transfer rule preventing players from making hasty decisions is dubious. When being recruited, players and their parents make the best decision they can with the limited information they are given. It is hard to predict how things will turn out when they arrive on campus. Sometimes a coach misleads with false promises and sometimes the campus environment just isn't to their liking. It's hard to determine whether a school will be a good fit after just a couple of days on campus and I hate to penalize players who end up being miserable at a place they originally thought was going to be a good fit.

I also think Ryno's point is a good one. Some great players get RS or even cut. Some languish on thje bench until given their opportunity.
BB is a very difficult sport to judge talent. I have seen guy signed based on one outstanding game whne the player is below average most of the time. Most players jump to sign at the 1st
offer that they are given. Very few have great choices to chose between.
Even when you meet coaches they all seem like great guys. They are4 in selling mode and are usually on best behaviour. It is very hard to make choices during the dating stage of recruiting.
College BB is a dynamic situation that is constantly changing. New recruits every fall, new coaches and players who develop and become better as they work at the game. There is no safe route for the majority of college players.

quote:

Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule.

"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,
That's about as close as you can get to saying you support the rule, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is, the rule is completely unfair to the student athlete because there are going to be legit situations where it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the player transfer and making him sit out provides no positives and can actually be detrimental to him both as a student and athlete.

This is not an attack you TPM, but if you and others cannot see the injustice in this rule, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Its easy to say you agree with this rule if it has not affected your son personally. These rules give all the power to the coaches. believe me there are legitimate reasons for transfers as we are personally going through. If you never had a son in this situation its easy to say this is right move by NCAA, but firsthand it is very unfair especially to the players who did not sign letter of intent under these new rules. reality is you had to transfer before the spring semester of 2008 to not have to sit. You can practice the same as a redshirt but have to be part of the 35 man roster of team transferring to.I'm sure there are coaches that honor what they agreed to in scholarship money but there are many that will cut and change scholarships under these new rules and use the player to sitting out to help cutting scholarships.Players entering school fall 2008 get the benefit of 25% minium but not any player already in the school. 2009 players know the rules they signed under 2008 players and below had rules changed that they get no benefit but still get the shaft when it comes to sitting out. Anyone thinking this is good rule hasn't thought very long what it is like to be the player in Bad situation.If you are getting full scholarship in Football and Basketball coaches don't manipulate scholarship amount Baseball Coaches in may places do.

Very few players and parents want these new rules. They limit the opportunity for players in many ways, depriving of alot of young men the chance to learn and grow as part of college team. What the NCAA has done is hurt young players. Most agree with this. Now, how many of us have written to the NCAA to state objections? How many have followed up by writing his or her Congressman or Congresswoman to ask Congress to examine the NCAA's monopoly and the consequent abuses of power in which the NCAA engages?

If every player and parent who lost opportunity due to these new rules would write the NCAA first, and, if still not satisfied, write their Congressman or Congresswoman second, then the NCAA may have to reexamine its new rules with a view toward helping, rather than hurting, players.

And never let the NCAA argue that these rules were instituted to ensure that the student part of "student-athlete" is protected. That is simply untrue. These rules result in an larger burden on players than there was before. These rules in no way benefit the academic side of what players do.

So, please, write away--as often and as vehemently as you can stand. Maybe we can get things changed for the better. (As a cynic, I doubt it, because I think that ultimately big money (ESPN and major sponsors) is behind all of these changes. I think that the NCAA instituted these rules to take better control of the game so it can benefit from the gold mine that College Baseball is about to become.)

quote:

Originally posted by observer44:
.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
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.

...And we here highly resolve that these institution benefitting decisions of 2008 shall not have been instituted in vain...

...that this college baseball nation, under the all-knowing-all-seeing-old-testament NCAA God...

...shall have a new birth of non transferrin', short seasonin', 5 games a weekin', arm bustin', senior slashin', freshmen run offin', partial scholarshipin', sit a year even if you are a fall cutin', still overrecrutin' servitude...

...and that the heavy hand of the NCAA, by the NCAA, for the benefit of the NCAA, shall not perish from the landscape of college baseball.

44
,

That boy just ain't right...

quote:

Originally posted by theygrowupfast:

quote:

Wow this is silly, no one said they supported the rule.

"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,
That's about as close as you can get to saying you support the rule, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is, the rule is completely unfair to the student athlete because there are going to be legit situations where it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the player transfer and making him sit out provides no positives and can actually be detrimental to him both as a student and athlete.

This is not an attack you TPM, but if you and others cannot see the injustice in this rule, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Ok, I said that , I said RULES, what I did mean (sorry) was that it is a good rule if it it all works together. Especially if it works in improving the APR and graduation rates.
Let me make my point, if the NCAA imposed a 35 roster limit and 10 wanted to leave voluntarily, what happens? In the past if the coach wasn't happy with players, he cut them, he had plenty more sitting for their turn, now how will he replace those players, by recruiting other D1 players and having them sit out a year? Do you think that good coaches want their reputaions on the line. Do you think that they want word out that have 45 show up and then let 10 go who now can't play for a year?

I do not support the rule if coaches continue to cut for over recruiting or because he comes into the program and wants his own players and not the ones that the former coach signed. THAT IS 100% WRONG.

I think that BHD made a good point, bb is a difficult sport to judge talent and recruiting is difficult. Most coaches do their homework, they begin looking year or two ahead for recruits, watch the player, develop relationships. Both sides get a chance to develop relationships, the player has the opportunity to visit unofficially to see the campus and faclilites and get a feel for the environment. Meet the team.

However, how often does the coach see a player play ONE time and calls with an offer? How many times does that player accept. How many players turn down good scholarship offers to accept recruited walk on at a higher profile school? How many players really know absolutely nothing about the coach or program before they say "yes". Another reason why I don't like very early commitments. Is a coach going to stay forever at the program, maybe, maybe not, make sure you love where you are going if the coach leaves. Do you have to now put up with the new coach (who you may not like), absolutely yes. Do some players get the shaft, absolutely. I know of only ONE HSBBW parent (in all my years here) who I think their son got royally shafted. Everything else has more or less been... son wanted more playing time, coach recruited someone else for that position..son had to have surgery (hurt when they came that's not coaches fault), didn't like new coach, coach turned out to be an idiot..didn't like the school (nothing to do with baseball), didn't do well in school, etc.
My son had a coach from a major SEC program call and offer a scholarship, he never saw him play, he "heard" he was good. If he had jumped on the offer and not happy, who was at fault? How many players do you know that have been in that circumstance? Many. How many players wait until the last minute to get themselves seen then take the first offer that comes along, many. How many players took the first offer because they were afraid they wern't going to get to play anywhere? Many. How many players refused to go to JUCO (when they should have) and went to a large program and didn't play. Many. How many players came to school hurt and never gave full details, many, many, many.


Many coaches make promises they can't keep. If someone makes a promise to your son, run the other way. Don't let your player jump at his first opportunity, even if it's his dream school.

As another suggests, if it affects or could affect your son, let the higher powers know how you feel. Let tehem know they set spring roster limits but they forgot the fall.
Don't blame coaches for trying to work with the little they have, it's not their fault that they are only allowed so few scholarhips. Most have good intentions, remember it's like a marriage and marriages don't always work out then there are consequences to pay. Does the coach get consequences, you bet, he loses those that contribute to his APR (not transfer).Don't allow your son to attend D1 school if you have any doubts that your player may get screwed, watch fall rosters, watch spring rosters, know what you are looking for.

If you've seen a program with few seniors, did you ask the coach why they have so few seniors, where did they go? How many of you have ever asked the question during recruiting how many on teh fall roster vs. spring roster.

I don't take this as personal, I do take it as a lot of people not really understanding from the beginning how things work, and that usually is because they feel their player is so good they can get the job done anywhere, when essentially that's a very difficult thing to do for most players, even very talented ones.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

That boy just ain't right...

Not right?...Me? You talkin' 'bout me? 44
.

In a perfect world you study and pay attention to every detail and when you get to campus everything is as it should be. With that said every player doesn't go to school and things work out as they planned.There are many, many kids that transfer for one or many reasons this doesn't make the player at fault or the coach.The new rules leave it open for coaches to hold all the cards. Our sons situation has nothing to do with coach abusing the new rules he just wasn't happy with situation and left. Although it is a tough situation ,sitting out is better than being unhappy for 4 years. The NCAA has not given the players much thought with the transfer rule and Coaches and Players feel it is very unfair. The new rules make it very hard to even go to JUCO as they changed eligibility requirements upon re-entry to DI. We got much advice from coaches and athletic advisors who looked at the best route back to DI and decided best route for son was to get enrolled in new school , focus on academics and improving as a player and biting the BULLET and sitting a year. The amount of scholarship isn't as important as developement as student,person and player and sometimes this doesn't happen in Wrong environment.Again this Rule was not made with the best interests of the Student it was made for APR which means you are trying to force players to stay and be unhappy or leave and be forced to sit. No player wants to sit but many times situation not as it seems until you actually get on campus.

Rob Oliver,
I see that you are a new HSBBW but your writing sounds familiar, either way welcome.
Again, your situation was as your son was not happy, not due to being cut or his scholarship (if he had one) taken away. Where are all the stories of players being cut by bad coaches. I don't really hear too many of those. I do not beleive that the new rules allow coaches to hold all of the cards. How about the coach from a smaller D1 program who has worked with a player who becomes his ace or one of his best and leaves for a bigger program? Did that coach hold the cards, or did the player? If the player was not granted a release, all he had to do was appeal it and it was granted. Now that player, who the coach is relying on to make significant contributions CAN'T leave.
Do coaches run players off, absolutely, but many times I think what players feel being run off is not enough playing time given.

Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.

quote:

Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.

To save the member school's money!


Smaller rosters,ability to force players to accept whatever amount of money the coach wants to offer in subsequent years. i.e. not fully funded program can use dollars on freshman/JC transfers by pulling it from players with no choice.

It certainly had nothing to do with improving APRs as the most impacted players, walk-ons, are not even counted in the calculation!

Just guessing.........

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

Why do you think that the NCAA made reentry or entry to D1 programs more difficult? Just wanting to hear some opinions on that one.

Because of the widespread player poaching that went on in summer leagues.

Great point CPLZ

I am not sure, just my guess but I think that coaches were over recruiting, then sending players off to JUCO's with a promise they could come back in a year to play. This prevents that. Also, before you had to be eligible only in spring, now a JUCO player has to be eligible for the fall, giving less chance for the coach to see how he does and cut him using eligiblity as an excuse.

I understand parents concerns. I think that for those whose sons have not yet gone off to college to play, there is a certain fear of the unknown, that a "what if things don't go right, now my son can't transfer without sitting out a year" way of thinking. There is always the unknown, and yes things don't always work out as we want them to. I know some people whose sons transfered and had legit reasons other than they "just weren't happy". Distance, finances, etc. Many reasons why many transfer. Just as there are many reasons why players get cut.

I don't mean to speak for anyone. FrankF, Rz1, Former Observer, Academydad, Clevelanddad, Infielddad, FBM, justbaseball, TRhit, Bobbleheaddoll, Dad04, Bordeaux, Bullwinkle, luvbb, Fungo,Bear, Orlando, Bee>, just a few regular posters here whose kids went off to school, and have played at all types of programs, some of their players graduated, some transfered from JUCO, some getting drafted, some not, some hurt, some went through coaching changes, some redshirted. Some had to wait their turn, some played right away, some had to be backups to other players, some lost their starts, gained it back. Was it always easy street for all of them, were their players happy 100% of the time? Or maybe felt they may have made bad choices?

Our kids survived, they weren't cut, they made careful choices, followed team rules, stayed away from the temptations and went to class when they were supposed to and understood (though may not have liked it) that college baseball experience is what it is. Oh and eventuallyyou learn yor degree is important too. And I am sure when the times got tough, mom and dad told them to stick with it, work harder and not sulk on the bench, be a good team player, listen to the coach and show respect. Because in the end, that's what gets you to keep your scholarship.

quote:

Reply

TPM actually I write under LexBaseballeagle but when first signed up didn't realize name was on web. Never changed it and at work this name came up and I didn't even see it. No big deal as I really don't care if anyone knows who I am. I don't have negatives to say about our sons situation , just thought could shed light on the subject from someone going through this situation.

So explain what was wrong with thje old transfer rule? You had to be released or you sat 1year. If a player wanted a release he had to beg for it. He had to explain and if the coach said no he didn't get it. If a coach said yes with restrictions, Ie not in our conferencs he could transfer to a team in another conference.
In the case of a cut player he should be released and allo0wed to play at another D1. Don't argue about lack of ability because that had been shown to be far from the truth. There are many cut players who went on to be great players. Coaches are human and make judgemental mistakes just as often as not. Ther is not bonafide reason for the rule change.