College Baseball Issues

To just emphasize, I agree with most of the article that Braves asked us to comment on and baseball does get the short end of the stick as indicated by the many accurate posts in this thread.

I just don't know if the "argument" presented in the article comparing the percentage of athletes on full scholarship on a given roster in a given sport is really a good argument to make for baseball.

For instance, I looked at the stats from last year from two D1 programs, one with a lot of wins (UNC CH) and one with less wins (UNCA). Again, the division and choices are very arbitrary, but each team played about 51 games.

UNCA had 12 players with more than 50 AB (all the rest had pretty low numbers) and 10 pitchers with > 10 innings pitched.

UNC CH had 15 players with > 30 AB and 11 pitchers with > 10 IP.

One (if they chose to) could thus argue that the way for baseball to reach equal footing in terms of THE PERCENTAGE of athletes on full scholarships (as stated in the article) with other sports would be to decrease their roster from 35 and with the numbers like those presented above, they may have some footing.

In reality, baseball does need more scholarships - I just think the request in the article of giving baseball more scholarships period based on the comparisons with other sports could be a little flawed and actually be used to imply otherwise. One really needs to look at both the numerator and denomonitor when makiing any recommendations based on percentages (at least I tell my kids that). Again, this argument could be totally flawed based upon roster numbers versus playing time in other sports, but I have no idea there, and all of this is just for fun anyways.

Just something to think about if someone ever tries to advance the cause (it won't be me, my kids don't even listen to what I say!!).

 

Understand your point, but if you just look at the number of players that get "playing time" in any given year, all sports would have lower scholarship numbers. For example, most basketball teams have a 7-8 man rotation each year. Using the "playing time=scholarship" argument basketball should only have 7-8 scholarships. Football scholarships would be even more drastically reduced by this logic. The reality is that each year teams have a number of players being groomed for the future.

 

Football

In football only about 45% of all 85-100 roster players see any reasonable amount of playing time
45% of players get 95% of the playing time
16 offense inc subs
16 defense inc subs
8 special teams

Baseball
Estimate 75% of the 35 man roster play 95% of the time
Avg 12 position players per week
avg 13 pitchers per week

Due to the gruelling schedule, there are a lot of chronic/ seasonal injuries during the baseball season. It is absolutely amazing a player can compete as hard, and as fast as they do for the length of a college season.

 

Interesting things to think about here...

The minimum 25% rule, overall, is beneficial for players, It eliminates the "book money" schollys big programs used to use to stockpile players. This stockpiling led to good players riding the pine instead of playing and it hedged the bets college coaches, at top programs, made during recruiting. And, it kept smaller programs from getting those kids and letting them play instead of collecting splinters. Some have made comments negative about the 25% rule. I may be wrong, but I interpret their reasoning as being that 25% is too low. We'd all like to see bigger schollys available for our sons, but as things stand now 25% beats the hell out of the $500 a semester some kids used to get!

The Transfer rule is terrible. A sport that doesn't offer full rides never should limit a kids opportunities. Example... there are two freshmen catchers at XYZU. Both have 25% rides starting out. The position is open and catcher 1 beats out catcher 2 to become the starter. When their freshman year ends catcher 1 is bumped up to a 40% ride and catcher 2 realistically is looking at very little playing time over the next 2-3 years and can just hope to keep his 25%. Now here comes ABCU and they need a catcher bad due to an injury for next year and catcher 2 would be a perfect fit. They're willing to give him 50% but they can't do it because, if 2 transfers, he has to sit a year. Who really loses out here? Answer is the kid and that's not right.

Baseball does seem to get short-changed when it comes to scholarship numbers. Between football and Title IV, baseball has two huge adversaries. At a school with football, baseball will never have anymore schollys because the pigskin boys eat them all up with the Title IV limits. Now at schools without football, often there isn't enough revenue to fund more scholarships... unless the program has a deep pocketed booster like Braves in their corner!

A long time ago, I suggested here that it would be interesting if the schools/conferences in the "sunbelt" from say Virginia through the South to the West Coast broke away from the NCAA and formed their own organization. I'm sure the fan base would support it and ESPN or Fox would televise it. Also, "warm weather" schools could start play earlier and not have to cram so many games into each week of the season. That would benefit the players health and education.

 

In my opinion, the most recent rule changes will have the long-term effect of "dumbing down" college baseball. When coaches had the latitude to vary scholarship amounts to a greater degree, they could budget enough funds to attract "marquis" players to their programs. Now that everyone receives virtually the same amount, professional contracts will look better to a higher percentage of players drafted after their senior year in high school.

I recognize that many see this as a desirable "leveling of the playing field" among college programs; but, it also implies that even fewer high quality players will play college ball. If true, the effect over time will be that the overall quality of play throughout Division I will decline somewhat from past levels.

How can that be a good thing for a sport that even before the changes was often criticized for not having the best players in its age group? Ever heard Jim Rome and other similar commentators express their views about the college game? Well, that sort of criticism is likely to become even more prevalent over time.

Many will laud the changes' effect for creating "greater parity;" while, at the same time, many others will view the same changes as having created "greater mediocrity." Neither group is necessarily mistaken; but, if too many decisionmakers come away with the latter opinion, it'll become increasingly tougher for Division I baseball to make the case that it deserves a spot on some portion of football's and basketball's elevated stage.

 

Prepster...

what you say is true and the "Jim Romes" out there may belittle college ball even more then they do now... but, those type people aren't going to ever give the college kids any respect.

I don't necessarily look at the rule changes in the light of "creating greater parity" or "leveling of the playing field". I see it as, hopefully, giving more boys the chance to actually play (and improve) instead of sitting on the bench. There are kids out there that, when they come out of high school, are a notch or two away from being a college stud/pro prospect. This is often due to physical maturity or limited experience, and to get a chance at the pro level, they'll need both. If they are one of the "stockpiled" kids at a big program, they may get the growin' part but they will most likely lose out for two to three years on the experience part. My son learned a helluva lot more getting his ass handed to him by Florida State when he was a freshman pitcher than he ever would have if he was sitting on the bench at a big school.

The solution is simple, give baseball more scholarships, maybe 18 or 20. This would make college ball more financially appealing to those kids who get drafted after the 5th or 6th round out of high school. The drawback though, and this is true now with the 11.7, is how many programs would be fully funded? Funding could be made mandatory but at some small schools, especially those without a football "cash cow", baseball would be dropped therefore decreasing opportunities for kids. Who knows what the "right answer" is!

I would just like to see more kids get the chance to "toe the rubber" or "dig into the box" where ever that may be. The big time programs will always have the best players in college ball and, for the most part, the minor leagues will always have the best players in that age group.

Getting back to the Jim Romes of the sports world... someone once said "there ain't no such thing as bad press". College baseball gets talked about year round on message boards, baseball publications etc. and builds up to the national media level through the last game played in Omaha. The minor leagues may have the best players but, you only see stories about them on "Sportscenter" after some idiot player drop kicks the catcher and charges the mound or when a minor league manager tosses imaginary grenades at the ump from behind the pitchers mound!

 

Wouldnt only getting book money and being on a roster of 45 be the responsibility of the player and their parents deciding to accept an offer to that school? If there are 45 players at the big time schools doesnt that actually create more opportunities at other schools not less? So I disagree with your premise. The rule changes have singled ourt one sport to be held to a higher standard than every other sport and it takes what already was a business to the next level because it truly becomes a yr to yr life scholarship wise versus what it was before.

 

35 is the limit at any DI school now, with only 27 getting athletic money.

I'm not talking about just more roster spots to fill, but more opportunities for the best players to actually play. Again, if players are "stockpiled" then some of the better players will be sitting at the big time schools. Sure this would open spots for lower level players at smaller programs... where many of them would sit the bench there instead of playing at a DII, DII or juco.

As has been said before, there is a spot somewhere for about any kid with some talent. What should be desirable is that the best players play at each level where ever their talent places them. That is truly the only way they will reach their potential.

I do agree that it is the responsibility of the player and his parents to figure out where his talent and abilities best fit. College coaches would love to have the absolute top talent throughout their rosters. They would then be able to play the best nine each day and also benefit by not having to coach against teams made up of talent very close to their teams... because those guys are sitting on their benches. This is like what "Bear" Bryant did at Bama back in the day. If he wanted a player NOT to go to one of his rivals, he recruited them.

We all have to admit that there were many kids that signed "book money" scholarships in the past because they, or their parents, wanted that ego boost from saying the signed with "Bigtime U". How many of those kids ended up fading away after just a season or two with their potential talent undeveloped and wasted?

I do agree Dawg that the rules that govern baseball shouldn't be unique. What would college basketball be like if those players had to stick around until after thier junior year?

 

One of the biggest myths in college is the thinking of a D1 player who sat all season believing that transferring to a D2 school guarantees him playing time. Guess what...it doesn't work that way. First of all, the talent level is a miniscule difference (except for major programs), which quality pitching depth is the separator.

But in reality, what happens in many cases is the D1 player wasted a year on the bench and did not get better, while his counterpart at D2 played all year and did get better. D1 player transferred and found himself still riding the bench; sulked and got frustrated..then quits. Happens more and more each year.

I wish families that are getting involved in the recruiting process understand this. When your son attends XYZ University to play baseball, he is going to a one year tryout (and some schools will cut after fall workouts.) He will be given an opportunity to produce, but it's all on him. Those rosy speeches that are given during the recruiting process are soon forgotten once fall practice begins. That's when you are competing for a job in the spring.

As more parents are becoming more sophisticated about recruiting and the rewards or perils of playing college baseball...there really shouldn't be many surprises.

 

....ok, I'm confused,... imagine that! Pardon me, but please, in laymens terms, explain the transfer rule and the logic behind it.

PS: A Duke basketball guard, I can't recall his name this minute, transfered to Memphis, and was allowed to play this year. How might that gig apply to the transfer rule question?

Thanks, and BTW, excellent thread.

Fish