NCAA Bd of Dir Approves Baseball Committe Recs

NCAA Rule change links. Looks like the roster caps stay and the min scholarship amount will be 25% not 33%.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=273


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/...g+amends+baseball+legislation+08-09-07+update

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=274

 

Thanks for the post. The third article in particular is very informative.

 

What's Included in the .25 of a Scholarship?

Guys,
Pardon my lack of understanding with this but what is included in the typical offer?

Tuition (obviously)
Books?
Room and Board?
Tutoring?
Other?

I could use some enlightenment here.

 

Opinions?

This topic has been kicked around for sometime, but very few are talking about it. Let's hear some opinions as to how this will impact coaches, recruiting, scholarship players, and non scholarship players.

A lot of players are recruited to play baseball and do not initially receive any money. Many of these players are told that there should be money for them next year, if they are producing.; Based on some graduating or drafted players leaving. With 27 players guaranteed 25%, that is 6.75 scholarships- Leaving 4.95 to be distributed amongst the 35 players.

Are coaches going to look more to the JUCO schools for players? They are more experienced and proven what they can do on the field.
Will high school players look more at the JUCO schools rather than go into a D-1 or D-2 school with no money?
Will the eight players not getting athletic money be replaced each year with a new (8) players?
Is it likely that these coaches will spread any money to those bottom eight players, or will the remaining dollars be spread among the top 10 pitchers & exceptional position players?
Is it possible for some players receiving substantial athletic money to have the dollars reduced in order to accomodate the new distribution requirements?
Are players not receiving any athletic money required to sit out one year under the new transfer rules if they choose to leave? I don' t think so ,but maybe someone can correct me.

This is going to put additional strain(s) on an already difficult task in recruiting & managing the athletic dollars. I do not envy these coaches trying to figure the best way to manage these changes. While I support the initial ideology behind improving graduation rates for players, I find it hard to read this as an improvement in the process.

Any thoughts?

 

That's my Question! If I get 4% Scholarship maybe it's better to pay your own way if it keeps the transfer rule from applying to you. Does anyone know this rule for certain? I thought it was based on number of practices with the team, etc........... basically if you played on the team whether or not you were a scholarship player or not.

 

1. JUCOS.
I don't think anyone is sure how it will impact the JUCOS. I have heard that there is a lot of concern that it will make JUCO players LESS appealling because of the rule that says players must be qualified at the beginning of the fall semester. At a minimum, grades, AND courses taken, by JUCO players will be scrutinized a lot more.

2. I don't think they can spread the 4.95 over the whole roster. That would give you more than 27 scholarship players.

3. My understanding as that ANY transfer will have to sit out, even if he receives no athletic money.

4. I don't think the 8 non-scholarship kids are going to be any worse off than they have been in the past. All 35 are still at risk of being run off at any time.

5. I doubt that you'll see this pushing kids to JUCOS. In most cases the kids in the final 8 slots were getting very little money anyway.

6. Some have suggested that the new rules will negatively impact position players. The logic is that the 25% rule will take money from some, and give it to others. The thinking is that it is more likely to come from position players. I'm not sure whether this logically follows or not. HOWEVER, the new compressed schedule may well prompt schools to sign more pitchers. If that happens, position players may well be the losers.

 

without getting too specific into the details of each player or position this is the main thing that is going to affect div 1 schools.

It will have a major effect on the expensive private schools such as an Elon. In the past they have thrived on getting a player for 3-7K. Now that same kid will either have to be a walk on or get 7,500K. This will definitely change they way they go after a player.

On the other hand the UNC's and NC state's will de dramatically affected as well. They have made a living off of getting the best players in the state for 500$-1000$ for ever. That's gonna now be in the 2,500$ range or walk on.

I think it will help the d2's in some ways. Now the Elon's and NC state's are gonna ask a kid to walk on that a sac school may give a 15K package to.

In terms of Juco's, the truth is not many of these players are going d1 from the region 10 anyways. the ones that do usually have their AA degree which makes them eligible anywhere. Most juco's from our region aren't d1 caliber players or the academics that kept them out of D1 continue to haunt them and they go to d2 or naia.

 

6. Some have suggested that the new rules will negatively impact position players. The logic is that the 25% rule will take money from some, and give it to others. The thinking is that it is more likely to come from position players. I'm not sure whether this logically follows or not. HOWEVER, the new compressed schedule may well prompt schools to sign more pitchers. If that happens, position players may well be the losers.[/quote]

I expressed this same concern to several college coaches. IMHO The imediate shortage of athletic money will become even more so during the 2008 season. For 2008, games cannot begin until late February/early March. Most of the southern colleges are accustomed to beginning early February. This will result in additional weekday games during the season. Now they will play two non conference opponents during the week, and face conference teams: Fri, Sat & Sunday. By condensing the season, these schools will be forced to use more pitchers each week. For many schools this may require them to add more pitchers. Since top level pitching is hard to come by, colleges may choose to bank their money for recruiting pitchers, thus reducing available money for position players.
Those that I have spoken to feel that this is not going to be an issue. Most feel that they will get by on 14-16 pitchers they have on the roster, or may add one. If they choose not to add, that means that almost every pitcher on the roster would get quality innings each week. (I don't think that is likely) I do see money being taken from some players and given to others (pitchers), or the top position players. I definitely believe there will be an increase in the number of recruited walk-ons.

Sad truth: A player can get a 50% scholly at private school ABC and the parents end up paying more for school than a kid at STATE University (a recruited walk-on)

It is going to be interesting to see how this allshakes out.

 

I don't care what coaches may say publicly. If they have one scholarship left and it's a close call between a position player and a pitcher, most will take the pitcher.

The MLB draft may also factor into this as well. You see a lot of pitcher's that sign NLI's who end up getting drafted and sign. If a coach has doubts about whether one of his committments will actually enroll he may lean towards signing another pitcher with that final scholarship.

Of course, kids who are good position players AND can pitch may find themselves in greater demand than they have been in the past.