Starting in August 2008, D1 baseball rosters will be capped at 35 players with no more than 30 on financial aid. Each player on aid must receive at least 25 percent of a scholarship. The cap on scholarship players decreases to 27 in 2010. The rule will force players to JUCO's and D2 that would have red-shirted at D-1.
Posts: 4837 | Location: Florida | Registered: December 26, 2002
Dad, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that the 27 scholarship's go into effect 2009, not 2010....??
Just trying to clarify is all.
Vamom, because of various changes in the NCAA this past year you will see recruiting so much differently than most others. You asked about looking at the JUCO route to eventually end up at a D1 is probably not a bad idea at all.
"Dedicate yourself to a mighty purpose. Win with humility, lose with grace."
Posts: 439 | Location: Georgia | Registered: July 15, 2005
I just stated that I think it will be less. with roster caps and scholarship limits , it will be difficult to have freshmen scholarship players redshirting.They will need to use their money for guys that can contribute right away. JMO.
Posts: 841 | Location: california | Registered: December 17, 2007
1. Dad04 commented: "Starting in August 2008, D1 baseball rosters will be capped at 35 players with no more than 30 on financial aid. Each player on aid must receive at least 25 percent of a scholarship."
The cap at 30 is correct. Just clarifying that the "financial aid" mentioned refers to athletic scholarships only. The other 5 players filling out the roster to the 35 limit can receive any other type of scholarship besides athletic (academic, leadership), plus financial aid if the family income warrants it.
2. The 27 max athletic scholarship cap will go into effect in the fall of 2009.
Posts: 2221 | Location: San Antonio, TX | Registered: April 11, 2006
with roster caps and scholarship limits , it will be difficult to have freshmen scholarship players redshirting.They will need to use their money for guys that can contribute right away.
And therein lies the bottomline beauty of these changes. We can all complain about the NCAA... but isn't it better for every player on a team to be expected to contribute? Don't we all want our sons to have the opportunity to play, rather than sit? Coaches have been pulling the stockpiling shenanigan for years and now they will have to actually try to field an entire team that can play rather than stashing away freshman. I know they will still over recruit and bring in too many in the fall... and that should be stopped as well. Frankly, the roster limit should apply from day one of the school year, not just day one of the spring season. But these changes put the pressure on coaches to make good choices in recruiting and then make do with the players they have rather. That's not a bad thing.
Posts: 601 | Location: Dallas,Texas | Registered: December 26, 2002
I dont think its a bad idea either. lthough some kids with good grades could end up at JUCOS becuse they are not ready to step in as a freshmen and contribute although academically the 4 year school would of been a better fit. But it is what it is and everyone has to try and find the right fit and not much any of us can do about the changes. I see good and bad.
Posts: 841 | Location: california | Registered: December 17, 2007
Originally posted by fanofgame: I think redshirting will become a thing of the past.
Yes red shirt.....no more.
WHOA! Is part of the whole "reform" the elimination of redshirts (other than medical)? Or that just speculation that coaches will redshirt LESS often?
A team can only have 35 players, 30 on scholarship dropping to 27. There are no more "books only" guys waiting for next year. Everybody on the team will need to contribute now. Teams can't play 60 games, resembling baseball, in 3 months with 25 or 30 players. If you get hurt you will redshirt. If you stay healthy you will get 4 years and out.
Kids won't sign to sit around and hope to walk on or get a scholly "next year". Won't happen. They'll go to JUCO and play now, develop and hopefully transfer to a 4 year, or just go D2.
quote:
"Sure, you no longer have the benefit of scouts helping players they have under control make their way to your school. But even when you did, you had to do your own work to sell your program and make the player see how playing there was going to help," Walters State (Tenn.) JC coach Dave Shelton said. "You still work with scouts to find players that fit your program, you just have to make sure you develop a relationship with the player so they know the benefit of playing at the junior college level.
"If anything, the roster limits have made the biggest difference. Those players who might have been going to the (Atlantic Coast Conference) or the (Southeastern Conference) might be looking at their only scholarship offers coming from the mid-majors now. We’ve taken the approach of saying, ‘Hey, your dream has always been to play major college baseball, don’t give up on that dream. The mid-major school will still be there in two years (in junior college), but the ACC or SEC offer might be there, too, if you develop the way we think you can."
For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
What do you mean by "do the same"? If you mean play as well - they may or may not. Probably not because they will have to split those up among players they really want and then invite others to walk on. My son's head coach has done this - splitting their scholarships so everyone gets 25% no more, no less. They will have to do more with less - but this has always been the case
Posts: 601 | Location: Dallas,Texas | Registered: December 26, 2002
Originally posted by TRhit: I find it amazing that forum posters understand the situation while the college coaches are still trying to figure it all out
For instance--a school that has only 3 scholarships--how do they do the same as a school with 11.7?
It ain't exactly quantum physics, rocket propulsion application or neuro-surgery. Not all coaches are clueless. 3 Scholly's? Just put a more water in the soup. Umm, they won't be as talented as the fully funded team, all else being equal (that never is).
Posts: 4837 | Location: Florida | Registered: December 26, 2002
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN----4 times 25% equals I scholarship and for three scholarshops you have 12 players meeting the 25% requirment---what do they do with the other 15 or 18 players required to be on a scholarship
The math does not work !!!! And the NCAA cannot force school to change their policies regarding scholarships
TRhit
Posts: 19293 | Location: Manchester, CT USA | Registered: December 26, 2002
D1 teams that give an NLI MUST give a minimum 25%.
It's not too hard to figure out, teams that never fully funded just won't give out too many scholarships, just like they did in the past. This lessons the talent pool. The whole object of the minimum was to force those that only fund a few scholarships in Divison 1 to get better committments from their athletic departments for more funding for baseball. I wonder if this just forces more walk ons in some programs. I think that Dad04 was refering to D1.
Posts: 11027 | Location: South Florida | Registered: July 28, 2003
