Been following the rosters of several college teams to see if there is a trend as to who leaves the fall roster. Obviously, you need to perform to keep your spot, but wondered if any of our posters who have been around awhile noticed trends in the past years? Not asking for specific schools to be named, just patterns that persist.
I don't notice many pitchers released. I guess they get a chance to develop? Maybe you just can't have too many pitchers?
Do coaches tend to release players who have small scholarships because they don't have much invested in them, or would they release players with large scholarships to free up money? Maybe there's no rhyme nor reason and it varies from school to school, year to year.
In a perfect world, no one would be released (IMO how it should be). In reality, it happens and wondered if anyone has followed this issue?

Keep in mind that fall rosters are not necessarily final rosters for the spring season.

Many kids get listed even thought they are may be walk ons --the proof is in the roster for the spring-

quote:

I don't notice many pitchers released. I guess they get a chance to develop? Maybe you just can't have too many pitchers?

KC, it is very hard to follow the changes from Fall to Spring because of the variability with sites that post Fall rosters.
But to your point I have quoted. That can be tracked and is a very good thing for every parent and player to follow.
For pitchers, many schools will show 16-18 on the roster. If you track statistics, you will often see that only 7-8 really get any significant innings. The fact that a team keeps a lot of pitchers does not mean they are all necessary or that they are being developed.
Same with position players. Might be 20 or more on the roster. The innings and at bats show up with 10 to 12 players only.
To me, these are items that can be measured and players and parents should pay very close attention to them. At the DI level, coaches are there to win. Mid week games are no longer for development of players. While I think it is unfortunate, coaches will normally play the same 8 position players and use 5-7 pitchers for the bulk of the games.

infielddad,

What then are the real chances for any bench player to be able to work his way into a position? That's probably more of a rhetorical question, but one that is probably important to consider.

I'm sure it varies from program to program. I remember following a team in your neck of the woods last year, and even though the position players were not performing all that well, there were never any changes. Some might argue that the position players on the field were still better than the others ... but I don't really buy that argument.

Montana Dad, interesting question/observation.
One of the reasons for my post was, hopefully, educational. Parents and players, when selecting a college program, should familiarize themselves with the coaches history of allocating playing time. In a situation where the coach allocates 99% of the starts and playing time to 25% of the roster and there is a history of that, even for midweek games, then be very sure you are going to be one of the 25% or be very sure you are willing to sit and, hopefully, wait your turn. From what I am observing, this is one of the major reasons transfers are becoming more and more an issue in college baseball.
To answer your question directly, the player, when given a chance, has to perform and perform at the highest level. He has to do this every time he is given the opportunity, whether in practice, scrimmages or in game situations. Not easy to do in baseball. From what I have seen, coaches will provide some opportunities early in a season while trying to solidify the lineup and the players in whom they have confidence. The player must produce when placed in that situation...or be willing to sit. Jed Lowrie from Stanford is a very recent example of a player who was not a starter, got an opportunity when the starter struggled and he performed from day one in ways never expected. I can point to far more who did not.
College baseball is a difficult game, both physically and mentally. Personally, from what little I know, I believe there may be too much emphasis on the physical preparation and not nearly enough on the mental.

Mental toughness is a common term with respect to pitchers, and I think many can relate to the mental toughness of a pitcher who is struggling through an inning on the mound. But much less applied to position players.

I don't know that mental toughness is easily taught. I think it is developed. And the only way to develop it, is to be put in a position of having to exercise it.

Montana a bench freshman is generally a lucky guy. He wasn't cut or Redshirted. He is being given a chance to prove himself at some point and the coach probably sees him as having the potential to get a starting position if not this year but later on. The bench player should have a good attittude and work his tail off. If the coach is not encouraging him he should have a talk with him to see where he may fit in.

Mental toughness is an aquired part of the tools a pitcher possesses.
I always tought my son to never show weakness regardless of how bad things are going. Do not let your opponent think you are hurting and no temper outbursts. Look confident and unflappable.I have always told him how proud I was of how he handled a bad outing. How much fun would it be if you knew you would win every day ? Put the bad games behind you and relish the good games.

KC,

In answer to your question, I believe scholarship money has to renewed by July 1, which means it is for the year, weather on the team or not. It can't be taken away, except maybe for violation and expulsion from school for disciplinary reason. (I will pass that on to the experts - which I am not)

Some schools are quick to put up the rosters and then you may notice some changes by spring, such as winter transfers, players that realize there is limited or no playing time and elect to quit. Also some Freshman eventually get frustrated and drop off too.

My observations after watching 2 years of college ball:

The trigger is pulled pretty quickly and brutally on non-performing players. A bench guy may get a shot, but he won't get it for long, so it's "seize the moment". Fielding errors are especially not favored, and seem to be a quick ticket to the pine if they happen with any frequency. A place is always found for a hot hitter, so if a kid gets a chance, and hits, he'll get more. Once a spot is lost, the chance to regain that spot isn't easy. The chance to get back in the lineup is somewhat dependent upon how the replacement does. I've seen kids start the season hitting well, and play almost all the innings, and then when the hitting tailed off, the innings tailed off as well.

It seems brutal at times, but college players learn pretty quickly that the margin for error is pretty thin.

Good analysis on pitchers above-look at the innings and you'll see a core group of pitchers gets the bulk of the work, and success is rewarded, just like hitters. Front line starting pitchers seem to naturally get more chances to prove themselves, and to perhaps work out of a slump. Lesser used pitchers may get their shot, but there won't be a lot of tolerance for poor performance. Success is rewarded, and good performance will earn more playing time.

Agree with Hokie1's comments from a strictly baseball perspective.

I'll add a little cinical logic here. There is no penalty -- nothing lost -- for letting a kid go.

When a non-scholarship kid can't hack it you let him go with nothing lost. When a scholarship kid is let go you get his money to recruit.

You're kinda like the "hot guy/girl" at school. No matter how much you may be a "Playa" it doesn't matter who you "diss" cause someone else will lineup to take their place.

All that keeps this from happening is a CONSCIENCE and thank goodnes some schools have one.

I'm wondering how much the new "progress towards graduation" rule will effect this practice. Quite often it's upper classmen that are let go by schools. Now if they are on track to graduate with the new rule maybe they'll be less likely to be discarded.

Anyone know?

Mrmom - I would say there is only no penalty if it isn't a factor in recruits decisions. Academics, roster size, transfers, graduation rates all played a part in my son's decision. I do think that negative reputations can grow if people communicate with each other in forums like this one.

Bobblehead - I understand how a bench player is lucky because he at least has a chance to play and can earn his way into the starting line-up. I also understand that the kid that gets cut is unlucky. However, I don't understand grouping the kids who were cut in with a redshirts and calling them unlucky. In many cases, the redshirts are really the lucky kids because they don't waste a whole year getting a handful of bats or pitching only a few innings. We all know that very few freshman get substantial playing time. At my son's school, which is well regarded, they have used the redsirt program very successfully. Many of their best players were redshirted - so unlucky?

SC I agree but for us a Redshirt would mean a lot of money lost if was to play 4 years. Didn't mean it was a bad thing and yes it can be a way to stay eligible for the 4 years. Some great ballplayers get Redshirted. I have seen several become starters.

My son redshirted as a frosh and it was the best thing for him and it was by his choice not the coaches--they gave him the option of sitting and wasting a year of eligibility or redshirting and keeping the 4 years of eligibility intact

The other factor with a redshirt is that the player gets a minimum of 32 credits out of the way and makes the course pload lighter over ther final 4 years

By the way my son started the 4 years after his redshirt year