Last week the NCAA defeated a proposal that would have allowed Non-Scholarship baseball players to transfer one time without having to sit out.

See https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBi.LSDBi_LP_Sea...tWillNotBeDuplicated

.


44
.

ri·dic·u·lous

causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.

My sentiments are the same as Observer 44 and TGUF.

This is completely idiotic. I believe this is the email for complaints Email: gsankey@sec.org

I most likely will get blasted for this.

A recruited walk on may have been offered an opportunity to be a scholarship player at another program. Not having to sit as a walk on transfer means, "I'll take my chances to make the squad as a recruited walk on and if not I can go play somewhere else immediately".
That doesn't seem real fair, if you HAD an opportunity but gave it up for that reasoning.

JMO.

What is also ridiculous is 5 games a week. This is not a schedule that supports academics.

Nor does it support a 35 man roster. The number of games compressed into a tight schedule demands more players, not fewer.

It all begs the question--What is the real reason behind the NCAA's rules changes wrt baseball?

The answer--the NCAA sees money in the future of College Baseball and is trying to establish parameters that will allow it to benefit from that money, mostly TV money, to the maximum extent possible. These rules are all about NCAA control of the product.

My analysis--the NCAA is willing to hurt alot of kids to establish its control of the game so that in the near future it can profit more than it currently does.

Mr. VanWart,

One can never argue with the selfish and skulduggerous actions of the NCAA. Having seen mine and other "villages" trampled consistently over the years I can't remember when they didn't carry off the young and beat them into submission (euphamism for take advantage of the players).

That said, I like your theory about the college baseball revenue. No doubt there is monetary reward somehow related to their recent laundry list of changes to our once "below the $$$ radar sport" that was college baseball. But, I'm really having trouble relating the transfer rule in question to $$$ cha-ching?

The closest I can come is that the chairman of that particular rule group is from the SEC. The same SEC that had an "inter conference" rule against tranfers even when they were legal.

Do enlighten me on their angle this time...!!!!

They're the first place I'd want checked if looking for aliens, Deamons, or Idiots.

TPM, I agree with your wonderful thoughts 99% of the time, but this is that rare 1%; if a kid turns down a partial scholarship to be a walk-on, to keep his options open, it seems no different to me than a school offering only a "walk on spot" to a player, as opposed to $$$, to see how he does. If the team can cut the player at will, at no cost,then it seems only fair the player can leave at will as well.

Ever since the NCAA changed scholarships from 4 year guaranteed to one year renewables, any pretense that they're looking out for the players disappeared. If education was truly Job 1, scholarships would still be four year deals.

My two guys are at a D III so no schollys to worry over, but even there, silly NCAA rules pop up: their team made the NCAA regionals and they're allowed only 24 players in uniform. 11 kids that practiced and played all year long, for absolutely no money, have to be left behind. Would they likely play? No. But do they deserve to be with their teammates? Absolutely. Just another stupid NCAA rule without a rational reason.

But I still agree with you 99% of the time.

Nothing the NCAA does surprises me any more - in any sport. Some rules are just ridiculous, like this one. And it does all come down to money to the NCAA is some way or fashion. They make rules and some schools can break them and, its OK. Others break them and they attack them. But one thing is always certain, no decision is ever made by the NCAA for the good of the athletes.