quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
Bottom line advice that I have to offer...if you think your son is somewhere close to being in the ballgame (i.e. possibly admittable), then let the coaches drive the process. Don't eliminate yourself based on a speech you heard or a story someone told you or an 'expert' posting online. The coaches know if they have a shot or not...if they're proceeding and you want to attend that school, run with it!

quote:

Originally posted by CADad: I really don't think Coach Stotz was telling the kids not to attempt getting into Stanford. I think he was saying that it was probably going to be a lot more work for a kid with the "lower" scores to keep up if they did get in and they better factor that into their decision making process.

44
.

O44 ...

quote:

Because that meant that students had "academic upside".

This might be the first time we have ever heard of student/athletes being recruited based on their 'academic projectability' and not just their athletic projectability.

I would be very dismayed if I heard a college coach not mention anything first in his camp speech about meeting academic criteria. That's what they need to stress, it's college and you have to be able to perform in the classroom to stay eligible to play.

Some schools prefer higher SAT/ACT scores because that represents how the classroom material is presented to their students. Others don't even consider those test results anymore. Other schools take into consideration your class academic rank based upon geographical location.

JBB is correct, coaches take into consideration all of the athlete's attributes when determining who gets a scholarship and who doesn't.

My son didn't make academic criteria to many of the schools that were recruiting him (though he was a very good student) including the one he attended (low SAT score for their regular admissions). Never a "you don't meet our academic criteria" discussion came up. That's why coaches ask for your transcript in advance.

As always on thing to keep in mind, good performance on the field (you do not have to be a top prospect) and good performance in the classroom (you don't have to be 4.0 student) opens more doors than if you only had one of the above.

It's nice to hear about a camp that actually is good for position players. Our son was a LHP on the tournament, camp, and showcase circuit, and always got a chance to be seen. Position players, other than catchers seemed like they were a dime a dozen, and unless they did something totally outstanding or came in with a great reputation were like the 7 dwarves surrounding the pitchers. I always thought it was nice for our son to hang out with good players striving for a similar goal, play a high-caliber of baseball, and be seen by coaches and scouts - even if he only pitched a few innings at a showcase or camp.

Scouts and college coaches come in not with an open mind, but with preconceived ideas based on prior information about who or what they want, so it is much harder for the position players to stand out. The Stanford Camp is a little different because it emphasizes test scores, and has many more Ivy League coaches who don't often visit the West Coast - but this should have been well known to parents before they got there, not a surprise when some coach talked about SAT scores. I think parents sit around trying to read the tea leaves a little too much (what number did he get? Who is watching him? Where was he assigned to play? What was his listed height and weight?), instead of just sitting back and letting your son enjoy the experience. There are so many camps now that you have to do your research to pick the exposure carefully. Just remember, like justbaseball said, you don't have to pitch at the premier location (Sunken Diamond) to get signed if they like what they see, and fanofthegame stated - it only takes one coach that likes you...

It might be underestimated how much value this program has as part of the lifeblood of some college baseball teams. There are coaches there who work from 7am to midnight each day to get as much information on as many players as they possibly can because the Camp is known to have quality, and depth of quality. By working, maybe outworking others, these coaches know they can find players and pitchers who slip through, which happens.
The breadth of coaches attending the Stanford Camp extends far, far beyond Stanford, Ivy's and the like.
There are DIII coaches from around the nation.
There are NAIA coaches attending.
Many, many DI programs which have someone there even if not registered and some JC programs have a presence.
I talked with a coach recently who told me his program has had about 10-12 players matriculate into professional baseball(including independent leagues) in the last few years and all but 2 came from the Stanford camp, and none were the guys everyone in the Camp talked about.

.
While we are on Stanford Camp....

Question: Is Stanford camp still offering/suggesting/requiring a written test measuring and stratifying levels of emotional and mental tools for competition?

44

Infield Dad;

For 17 years, when I operated the Area Code games and tryouts, the Stanford Camp was the only event that I schedule the AC tryouts not to conflict.

At the beginning of each year, I called Dean for the summer dates of the camp.

My respect for the Stanford camp is unlimited.

This year, Dean Stotz allowed me to speak on International Baseball and "body" language
of players and parents.

My speech was 10 minutes, it could have been 10 hours. Thank you Dean.

Twenty-five years of International Baseball and 7,000 players provides great research on this subject.


Bob Williams

Bob,

Your post kind of says it all.

Our son leaves the Stanford program with the utmost respect for the coaches, its tradition and its culture. The camp was the beginning...the CWS the ending.

What a fantastic ride!

My son pitched out at College of San Mateo in 2007. Hardly anyone there....but after his game, the CSM head coach, who'd been quietly surveying the events from somewhere nearby, came over and said he'd like the boy to come and pitch for him. It was the first face-to-face my son had ever had, and it gave him loads of confidence going into the HeadFirst event a couple days later where his soon-to-be coach saw him and started the recruiting process (along with a half-dozen other schools that were there). So there's always a thread of energy and synchronicity running through all of these seemingly disparate parts.

You just never know how it will ultimately unfold.

I looked at their on-line brochure for the 2008 All-Star camp and here is a link to it:

http://gostanford.cstv.com/camps/2008-baseball-camp.html

Nowhere in the materials do they suggest that the camp is for exposure. It sounds like, for $750.00, you get room and board, instruction, games, and a coach's evaluation. That said, some kids seem to have gotten more for their money (exposure-wise) than others. Perhaps expectations were for something that was never promised in the the first place?

CD ...

With all due respect, the brochure may not state anything about exposure but I can attest to our being told ... in person ... by Coach Stotz that if our son attended their camp the following summer, there would be lots of coaches from different colleges observing the camp participants. That was in summer of 1999 when we stopped by the campus during a vacation and took a chance that a coach was around. Coach Stotz graciously met with our son and us to discuss Stanford as a possibility, during which conversation our son was definitely given the impression that he would be seen by a lot of coaches if he were to come to the camp. Again, it wasn't written in the brochure AJ eventually received, but it was definitely included in our conversation that summer.

For reasons which aren't necessary to explain, our son did not participate in the camp the following year, but things worked out for him and his college experience was just about as close a fit as a player could ask to find. God is good.

Both of the above posts bring good points.

Obviously people know that you can get exposure from attending the camp.

Nothing mentioned in print about exposure protects the program from the parent complaining his player didn't get exposure. Smart move on their part.

FBM - with all due respect, it is unclear about what point you are trying to make.

Are you suggesting that Stanford is marketing their camp disingenuously? i.e., promising some kids lots of exposure and relying on legalese in their brochure for other less-worthy kids?

When you say that your son was told lots of coaches would be watching consider what CaDad said in his original post:

quote:

In my son's case, there were a dozen college coaches watching when he pitched at his last PG showcase while there were only 4 plus the coach who came specifically to watch him and Dave Nakama who I don't think was there to look at pitchers at College of San Mateo.

If I read that correctly, that is six coaches who watched his son pitch. Does that meet the requirements of "lots" of coaches watching his son pitch as was told to your son?

CaDad's original post complained of an inequity. Some kids pay the same amount of money yet get more exposure (e.g., 6 coaches watching versus 35). Is that right? or Is everything above board here? Those seem to be the issues raised and I merely pointed to the brochure to see if any misrepresentations were made.

Again I say to you all---this is a camp--camps are for instruction and education not exposure--if you get an exposure that is a plus---you go to a showcase for exposure

CD,
Whoa big fella. There's an inequity, no doubt about it. Some pitchers get more exposure than others. But there isn't much that can be done about it.

But nobody is claiming they were misled. Anyone with common sense should know that everyone isn't going to get the same exposure. Stanford isn't lying to anyone, they aren't misleading anyone and there's no reason for anyone to accuse them of doing so. One of the first things they tell everyone at the camp is that not every pitcher will pitch at Sunken Diamond. Such is life.

Let me say what I tried to say in fewer words and forget the title I used for this thread because I was just trying find something catchy.

Stanford is a good camp. If you are a position player you will get exposure before 35 to 40 college coaches while playing as well as additional exposure while doing hitting drills and fielding drills. You'll also get a couple games in front of fewer coaches that will feed into your evaluation.

If you are a pitcher there's about a 1 in 3 chance you'll pitch at Sunken Diamond. If you pitch at Sunken Diamond you'll get the same type of exposure the position players get. If you don't pitch at Sunken Diamond you'll be seen by about 4 to 6 college coaches and 2 of them will be there specifically to evaluate you as a pitcher. Everyone will get a written evaluation from their team coach and the coaches will talk among themselves if they see something good about a pitcher.

Given that, it is a great camp for a position player. If you are a pitcher and are looking for wide exposure you may or may not get it. If you pitch well and have D1 quality stuff you will absolutely be noticed wherever you happen to pitch. If you are a D3 level guy and pitch well they will probably notice and word will get around.

The purpose of the post was to let people know in advance what they are and aren't getting from the camp. I lack common sense at times so I assumed he'd get to pitch in front of a lot of coaches, on the order of 20 or 30 or more. This post is a bit of a warning for others like me who lack common sense at times. My son got less exposure than I would have liked. He got more exposure than most pitchers and he got to play in the field also. As I said earlier we got our money's worth even if it wasn't quite what we were expecting.

CADad - I have a friend whose son is a pitcher too and he also pitched at CSM during the camp. He, like you, was a little bummed about that.

I just don't think there's as much to read into it as you might have worried. But maybe I'm wrong?

I was standing/chatting with 3 coaches (from 3 different schools) at Sunken Diamond one of the nights last week (after a nice dinner with infielddad in downtown Palo Alto ) and they all had full rosters in front of them. None seemed interested in the pitchers at the time (and this was at Sunken)...they were all locked in on one of the SS's who they didn't know at all...but he was making some nice plays and definitely getting their attention.

I do think the title of your thread was catchy...but it might have caught my eye in a way un-intended by you? I appreciate your follow-up comments. I hope to send my next (pitcher) son to the camp in a year or two. I think its a great experience and venue.

CD ...


You wrote:

quote:

Nowhere in the materials do they suggest that the camp is for exposure. ... Perhaps expectations were for something that was never promised in the the first place?

I responded by saying that when our son visited with one of the coaches, he was told that there were lots of coaches (don't know what quantity was meant by 'lots') who would be there watching the camp participants. Whether that was in the brochure AJ ultimately received or not, I can't remember. But it was my impression that there would be exposure to other college coaches by participating in the camp.

Then you ask

quote:

Are you suggesting that Stanford is marketing their camp disingenuously? i.e., promising some kids lots of exposure and relying on legalese in their brochure for other less-worthy kids?

No where am I intimating or suggesting that Stanford personnel are promising exposure to 'some' kids while protecting themselves from complaints from 'less worthy kids'. That would sound almost like collusion to showcase the players/pitchers that the Stanford coaches thought were 'better' while tucking the other players away at a distant field. Besides, if they wanted to showcase players, wouldn't they showcase the ones they did not deem 'worthy' and 'hide' the ones they wanted to recruit?

All I am saying is that based on our experience, AJ was told that there would be lots of coaches there. I cannot pretend to understand what Coach Stotz's intention was when he made the statement, but it apparently was something that he felt would motivate AJ to come to the camp.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

The camp was the beginning...the CWS the ending.

What a fantastic ride!

Sorry to be off topic however that statement stopped me in my tracks.

What an incredible ride it must have been!

There is no doubt there are a ton of coaches there. They introduced them to the boys. Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, Penn state,Stanford Univ. Hawaii, Kansas, on and on they were there.most of them coached teams so they got a good look at the boys on their own teams,so they were gone with their teams. I have nothing to say negative about the camp, like I said before take the evals and use them to work on your boys game.But remember it is of course a fund raiser for Stanford and it does allow them to invite a ton of kids who are all hoping to be looked at.Are all the boys invited Stanford material NO.But there are other coaches there.
Regardless of what any of us parents think or want to believe College baseball is a business. it is the coaches jobs to win and get the best players they can on the field.Lots of boys are recruited to very good schools from the Stanford camp. Lots are not. How many other showcases have we sent our kids to that they were not recruited from?Its being in the right place at the right time, my sons D1 looks and offer came from a HS game,free of charge. Coach saw him hit a couple 400 feet bombs came back a couple more times and talked to his hs coach , letter in the mail and so forth.my son at that time of the Stanford camp was not a TOP D1 prospect . If anything if I were to do it all over, I would have our son at a couple PG showcases to get rated, get him on a scout team (most are free) tons of scouts watch those games and get him invited to area code (AGAIN FREE).Maybe a couple college camps for the exp. And we would of saved enough money for a years tuition at a university, because in the end hes at a JC.BUT he knows its a good fit, he knows he has things to work on, and before he might of thought he could play at one of those prestigious schools. SO some of this stuff are eye openers for the boys, just experiences. Like one parent said earlier on this post or another, dont try and over analyze it all. If your going to the stanford camp or any ohter, go get the most out of it, learn from it and do something with it. Your player could get recruited from the camp and he could get recruied from a local tourney that someones at that knows someone .Lots of word of mouth with baseball. believe that or not. off to Reno for a 4th of July tourney. Legion ball, hey maybe there will be some scouts there. tourney free for us, hotel costs, get to eat out and gamble a little,watch my son play some ball and have fun.have a great 4th of JULY.

My son went to the camp this year as a position player. I agree that the camp was a great experience, but you repeatedly say that this camp was great for position players. I disagree.

My son was not an outfielder, but I felt for the kids that were. The outfielders maybe got 2-3 flyballs per game at the most, and likely caught them. However, there was no way for them to make a difference defensively. At Headfirst, 20 or 30 coaches sit and watch the kids catch flyballs, and throw to first base.

The same is said for infielders. They maybe get 5-6 groundballs per game, and could possibly field them all. However, it's still hard to tell the difference between two third basemen on 3 groundballs or so. Again at Headfirst, each player took about 5 groundballs (backhand, forehand, slow rollers) in front of a number of coaches.

I understand that it is a camp, and therefore not based on exposure. However, I disagree with those that say this camp was great exposure for position players.