quote:

And there is a big difference between being a walk on for a program that has 35 showing up vs. 50. Know who you are dealing with and how they run their business.

Absolutely. There are recruited walk-ons at programs that have 35 or less in the fall that don't have the worries/uncertainty that others do.

Ok here's what I was trying to say before.

Your son attends a program, has been waiting for the starting catching position for a few years, put in his time on his knees warming up or catching bullpens, has done everything right, now has an opportunity to be the starter, the coach hears about a player who wants to transfer, better catcher, wants more exposure for draft purposes, he transfers, the poor guy waiting to be the starter gets screwed. He now wants to transfer for a better opportunity to play before his time is up, the school will suffer if he leaves the program under the new grad rules because he started as a freshman.
I agree the sit out rule is in place to protect the schools grad rate, and the way I see it helps protect the player who started at the program awaiting his chance to be the starting catcher. You better know as a parent under the new rules, I have no issue with that new experienced player sitting out a year, waiting his turn just like mine did. I have no issue with new freshman competing for the position, because most likely they have to put in their time, to learn.

What is fair? Does the new sit out one year to D1 only protect the school and coaches?

quote:

What is fair? Does the new sit out one year to D1 only protect the school and coaches?

That is a good point made.But still the scholly guy who is cut is still screwed.They could cut that catcher as well.Where does he go? TPM sent you a pm. These extra letters wont delete. sorry.urer

Just imagine if the 'Nation chemistry of america association" required chemistry majors to sit out of labs for one year if they transfer from another member school. I am sure that would improve graduation rates.......just like the baseball rule. it makes about as much sense.

A little history about the "sit 1 year" rule.

It came about mainly because players were being poached in summer leagues. It was way too easy for a mid major player who turns out to be a stud, to transfer to a big time program by being recruited by other players he's playing with at the big time summer league.

Applying the equal and opposite reaction theory, the result was that some kid who might have been a starter last year, gets the bench and forgotten about after Mr. Mid Major Star transfers in...so Mr. Yesterdays News transfers out...and guess where he goes? Some mid major where the guy who was behind Mr. Mid Major Star, or Mr. Graduated Starter, and was expecting the starting role as the next in line, has his rug yanked by Mr. Yesterdays News transferring in.

So, all this decrying about, "hard work should earn you something" always was a bunch of bunk. The system has always been mercenary, probably even more so before the rules.

Are the transfer rules as they stand now fair...nope. But the system wasn't fair before either, it was just different. Should it change for the better? I would hope so.

There never was, and never will be, any incumbency rights in baseball. If there was, it wouldn't be fair to the incoming player who is better. How come I don't hear anyone standing up for him?

A lot of what I hear here, seems like, "I was here first, you guys owe me." The entitlement stance has always been untenable.

Not so sure why the NCAA made such a fuss over grad rates, but the baseball working group claimed that upon entering they held high GPA's then GPA's slipped gradually, and many players took only minimum requirments, didn't attend summer school like other atheletes in other sports (played baseball in summer), and when their 4 years were up they were no where near graduation in their requirements and left because they couldn't afford to stay without schollie money. This meant also that they were losing income, get that, players who ran out of eligibility were not going to stay and get their degrees where they began. They want student athletes who will remain with programs for 4 years and their money, not future minor leaguers, that's my understanding how this all came about.

In other words, the schools were not paying attention, it was and is their responsibility to make sure that an athelete stays on task. I don't think that many D1 programs did this. Some lost scholarships, dipping below acceptable APR and complained that was not fair. Baseball is a unique college sport and might be better served by treating it that way.

We all look at how the new rules affect us and our players, coaches look at how it affects them, and do what they can do to keep their jobs, win games etc.

I am glad I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did, I know that I would do my homework, to help son make a good choice, even if things happened you can still look in the mirror and say you tried, and that would include what cabb had in mind when first posting, pay attention to fall rosters.

I totally agree with your post CPLZ. I am not in favor of any entitlement never have been , period. To me its soley about the player that is cut from a program. He should not be punished twice.

There is a big difference imo in a player who wants a transfer and a player that is forced to transfer because he has been cut.

This has been a great thread with excellent comments from all... some very random thoughts...

I believe FO said it best, this is a game of musical chairs. There will always be someone left standing without a chair. There are approximately 300 D1 programs out there. With 9 offensive positions available per team including DH, there are approximately 2700 chairs across the nation for position players. On most teams, about 10 pitchers get to pitch so that means there are another 3000 chairs for pitchers. Each year, there are over 100,000 available freshman for those 5700 chairs with many of the seats already occupied by sophmore, junior, and senior players. If a player expands his horizons to D2, D3, JUCO, and NAIA, the number of chairs goes up dramatically but in any case, the number of chairs are limited at the college level.

Even with a 35 man roster limit and a program that does not recruit over this limit, a player is in big trouble if he finds himself as the 34th or 35th best player on the roster. Not only will they not see playing time in the present year, they could easily get recruited over the next year and have their spot taken by the next great freshman phenom. Even if a coach is calling and telling you what a good player you are during recruiting, I would recommend attending their fall practices before committing. Watch every player without your rose-colored glasses on. See if you can honestly see yourself competing with what you actually see.

I don't have a good answer for what the transfer rules ought to be. I only know that if a player wants to transfer now to another D1, he'll have to sit. Perhaps a player needs to contemplate this possibility ahead of time especially if they go to a national powerhouse. Another player might want to get the coach to commit to placing them in a reputable summer league before sigining on the dotted line. That way, they have a chance to show the coach what they can do against college competition even if they don't get to play as freshmen. Still yet another player might want to change his thinking when entering a program. He might tell himself that no matter what happens, he'll stick things out and bust his hump to improve until the coach knocks on his door and cuts him.

I saw the Ohio State football game the other day and their senior inside linebacker was the first time he ever got to play. He played the last three years by behind 3-time All-American James Lauranitis who is now in the pros. I am sure it must have been tough sitting all those years but that is what you get at a program like that. Sometimes you have to be willing to deal with the consequences even if the rules are unfair. I would recommend that young players going into a program prepare for the worst-case scenario mentally (e.g., redshirt, sitting behind a better player), yet strive in everything they do to positively overcome the coach's perception of them. If they do everything possible, then they are a winner in my book even if the general public never gets to see them play.

Most of these challenges are not physical imho. Much of it is in the head. Much of it is about managing disappointment. Some kids are mentally tough enough to stick around long enough until some luck goes their way. Never forget, getting recruited is the easy part. Now get busy and and claim one of those 5700 chairs.

Yes but all the logic in the world doesn't help when you get cut.
You could lend your crystal ball to the coach because they don't always get it right.

That was a good post CD and puts a lot into perspective. Especially the numbers. Your suggestion for visiting and watching teams you are considering is very important. Watching, if done with your eyes wide open, not eyes wide shut, can be revealing and very helpful in making good sound decisions. For those considering D1, without an opportunity to transfer to another D1 and play immediately, it is most important than ever to observe this. As good as you think you are, there is always someone ahead or behind you to take your place, that is the way it is, in HS, in college, in pro ball. For most, it doesn't matter who you are, who your parents are, who you played for before you came, what you did and didn't do before you got there, the slate gets wiped clean when you set foot on that field.

One thing that I have learned in baseball, life isn't always fair, it's what you as an individual make of your opportunity and where you best can accomplish the goals you set out to accomplish.

The original post was about large fall roster numbers, reading and understanding patterns of some programs and how they do business. It always sparks long discussions on how the coaches stink, rules are unfair, how the NCAA does nothing to protect players, they are only there to protect the programs. I don't always get this, the NCAA has rules to protect my D1 player, rules that tell coaches how long he can practice, when he can practice and how they must make sure that the real goal is to graduate within a reasonable time frame and provide help and assistance in doing so. That's all that I as a parent, expected from the NCAA. I expected from his coaches to follow those rules. There are no rules to say how long he can keep you after one year, if he has to keep you, where he has to play you, if he has to play you, but there are some moral rules I expect a coach to follow as well. I also expect that he has in place a developmental program for his players, so that he doesn't have to replace half the team the next year because he didn't do his job in working with his players. That means practice and instruction.

Very interesting, the NCAA has meetings with D1 student athletes on a regular basis, to help provide feedback on where the NCAA needs to improve the quality of players college experiences. Their concerns are so totally different than what we perceive them to be, you would be surprised. I think the reason being is that they are living through what we sit here and talk about, for us what is unfair is to them reasonable and workable. All players who have spent one semester either in practice or in a season, know what is expected of them to stay on the team they came to play for. The scary part I admit, is when as a recruit, whether with a commitment or without one has no idea of those expectations, that's the hard part.

As far as the discussion about the new transfer rule being unfair (as most feel it is), I don't buy into that, or some other rules some think are unfair (no full scholarships), maybe because we have been there and done it and our player survived.

The most important thing is to KNOW there are rules, and as CD suggests, consider these rules when making decisions.

Not sure how all this helps a student maintain some stability in his college experience.
The majority are there to get an education whether it is by design or not.
Students who get cut should be able to transfer without sitting after the year is over. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
I have never met a college freshman yet who didn't think he could compete.

I watched a D1 double header yesterday I saw players who had been cut from teams who showed well in the game.
My friend who graduated from Penn State said his son had been cut by an elite team last year. He hit a HR straight out CF off a D1 pitcher and was the outstanding player in the game.

When you find a way of judging talent at college level other than a crystal ball , then I might buy some of your argument. Who knows what will happen in college ball ? Coaches are out there beating the bush for players to replace your son. Everyone know and accepts that but not being able to take your act on the road after being cut, is crazy
As I have said many times, the turnover on rosters is unbelievable. Maybe you didn't notice because your sons didn't have to deal with it.

At 18, it's very, very, hard to look upon older, more experienced, more physically filled out players, and objectively think about where your skill set fits in. For the truly dominant player that has mounds of national travel ball experience, that may come easier.

Juniors goal was to make the travel squad his freshman year, one of the 25 top players that would travel. It turned out, he was selected to be their opening day starter vs. the #19 ranked team in the country. He never saw that coming until he was actually on the field and working with and competing against the other players.

Every situation is different, but tempering exuberance, and stifling personal doubts, in order to see where you realistically fit into the world, is a very, very tall order for a young man already filled with emotion.

The objective guidance of good baseball people is invaluable, if available.

quote:

Every situation is different, but tempering exuberance, and stifling personal doubts, in order to see where you realistically fit into the world, is a very, very tall order for a young man already filled with emotion.

I can buy that.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Not sure how all this helps a student maintain some stability in his college experience.
The majority are there to get an education whether it is by design or not.
Students who get cut should be able to transfer without sitting after the year is over. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
I have never met a college freshman yet who didn't think he could compete.

I watched a D1 double header yesterday I saw players who had been cut from teams who showed well in the game.
My friend who graduated from Penn State said his son had been cut by an elite team last year. He hit a HR straight out CF off a D1 pitcher and was the outstanding player in the game.

When you find a way of judging talent at college level other than a crystal ball , then I might buy some of your argument. Who knows what will happen in college ball ? Coaches are out there beating the bush for players to replace your son. Everyone know and accepts that but not being able to take your act on the road after being cut, is crazy
As I have said many times, the turnover on rosters is unbelievable. Maybe you didn't notice because your sons didn't have to deal with it.

BHD,
You are right, my son didn't have to deal with it, that was a big factor in his decision. We felt the HC had integrity and son was fortunate to have the opportunity. He was told that as long as he remained eligible he would remain on the roster. My belief is that most coaches don't cut kids, they cut themselves, we just don't always know the true story. I know in son's case, he played for a coach who was old school, hard nosed tough and demanded that you act in a certain way, I think son was more afraid he'd get cut if he was late to practice than if he didn't get the job done. We can't always assume it's because a player didn't get the job done.

Watching is not all about thinking you can or can't compete, there is a lot of things you can learn by observing everyone if the program might be right for you.

FWIW, again, players do not have to sit out if they transfer, only at D1.

The only reason the sit rule was introduced was because of the ridiculous amount of transfers. Before all you had to do was get a release and I was against that. Being cut can happen to some very good ball players and they should be allowed to transfer.

quote:

or some other rules some think are unfair (no full scholarships)

TPM,
Not to shift gears, but this is not a rule! I think evryone has a tendency to look at what happened in their situation and think that's the way things are. While full schoarships are not common I can assure you that they do happen. I would bet that there are parents who post here who have sons that have been offered full rides, real full rides. Problem isn't the people who say they got a full ride, the problem is that those that really get them don't advertise it. Some of those full ride offers never happen once the draft takes place.

Back to rules... I do agree that we all have to live by the rules. Even if those rules can create problems for our kids. Personally I think a scholarship player should stay where he's at and there should be rules that pertain to that. But once a scholarship is taken away, lowered or a player is cut, it seems that no one gets hurt except for that player. To further disallow him to transfer to another DI accomplishes absolutely nothing. He didn't cut himself!

Along another line, I think scholarships should be for four years. If the player does everything to handle his end. That way if a college recruiter makes a mistake, the college pays for that mistake, noy the player. Colleges "sell" kids on their program in order to get them to commit. If things don't work out, who is to blame? The way things are the college just continues on as though they didn't make a mistake. The kid can't go elsewhere and play at the highest level, even if another DI wants him, without sitting out a full year. How can this possibly be right? Just because it's the rule? Rules have changed before, I think this one needs to change.

Years ago, transfers were very common in college baseball. Maybe that is why this rule was put in. All a player needed was a release. Of course, no coach would deny a release to a player he cut. Somewhere in all of this there has to be a better solution. People do make mistakes, even those who run the NCAA.

Regarding NCAA rules, the biggest complainers that I've seen are college coaches. I think they have legitimate complaints about certain things. Just because things are the way they are, doesn't make them right. We need Ron Polk to enter this discussion.

Totally agree PG. We had it great as far as my son was concerned, but I saw wonderful young men strung out to dry even with the old rules. My son is still friends with some of the guys who were cut or left out of frustration . One was drafted out of his new college another became a Marine. The ones who were cut deserve to be allowed to move on. Many of them the coaches would even help them find another college. This rule affects the coach as well in that he knows he is creating a hardship for the players he cuts.

PG,
Good post.

Regarding the full scholarhip, you are right maybe not a rule, but have heard many parents say that baseball should offer full rides to every player. I am not sure I agree with that. I do not agree that scholarships should be written in stone for 4 years either. Are they for other sports?

Perhaps you bring up some good points,a scholarship player transfers because he didn't like the coach, didn't get playing time, or didn't get opportunity or homesick. He's unhappy with his decision, therefore he should be able to transfer to another D1. Another player gets cut or loses his scholarship because he messed up, doesn't follow rules, and should be able to transfer to another D1 and play right away as well? One who easily got his release because another coach didn't want a pothead on his team. He should be allowed to play asap as well?

How about this one, player is drafted, has a nice schollie to a D1, goes to play pro ball, is unhappy, has contract voided but never allowed to play in D1 ball, he made a mistake as many 17 and 18 year olds do. Can never play D1 ball.

What is fair and what is not? I like the sit one year transfer rule, because it eliminates all reasons for playing asap. I know many coaches cut players on whims, and there are those who keep them on the team because of integrity. It also, IMO creates parity and the end to the nonsense that went on in summer leagues. I don't know the answer, only to make sure you are making the choice for what you feel is the right reasons and have a back up.

As far as I know, pretty sure, for all D1 athletics, you cannot transfer and play the first year. Baseball was the only sport where it was allowed, right? And baseball, claimed the NCAA, had more transfers than any other sport. Baseball brings a whole set of circumstances not found in other sports. The NCAA wants to treat baseball same as other D1 sports, the NCAA hates that kids leave to go pro, hated they transfered for better opportunties to get drafted.

I know that the coaches hate the new rules as well, stood with a bunch of D1 guys in Jupiter last year, listening to them about how hard the NCAA and MLB (signing deadline) has made their job. For many of them, they feel they got the shaft, same as many players feel they got it too. I don't see it as one group getting their way.

I think the only winner has been MLB, more D1 kids are signing out of HS, or giving up 4 year schools for JUCO for another shot in a year.

I am just stating my case, do I think all the rules are fair, no way, but where do you decide what is fair and what is not.

Where would be a good place to find the Fall roster of a school we are interested in? Most web sites still have the Spring '09 roster listed.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Where would be a good place to find the Fall roster of a school we are interested in? Most web sites still have the Spring '09 roster listed.

Good question. Many programs do not publish a fall roster so it takes some investigation work on your part. For example, start with last spring's roster, and go back and read all their previous news releases on 2010 signees. You might have to go back into 2008 or 2009 archives to retrieve some of this information. Most schools have an archive folder where you can get roster information from previous years. Almost all schools announce signees or committments and this often occurs over time. Another thing to do is perform a google search such as having terms such as school's name, baseball, committ, sign, etc. Sometimes there will be an announcement from the player's hometown paper or website. Even with dilligent detective work, it still might be difficult to determine everything as some kids may be invited walk-ons and may never have had a major announcement associated with their name. Another source of roster information is from fall world series participants. Many schools will publish blurbs on their fall world series results. If it were me, I would scan just about every article their website has published over the last several years to glean information about comings and goings of players. Many articles such as actual game summaries you can quickly scan over. Others like fall updates or coaches interviews you might want to read the entire article to see who he is talking about and what his thoughts are.

I would also search the hsbbweb archives for the school's name. Many schools have been discussed heavily on this site including their recruiting practices e.g., UGA, ASU, etc.