New NCAA rules to stay..

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=320

 

I can't believe I am saying this, but the NCAA is actually making some sense to me on the issue of the 25% minimum schollie and the transfer rule. This could be the first time ever the things the NCAA does makes a lick of sense to me.
One question I have is when this takes effect and how does it affect the players that are currently on scholarship at something less than 25%?

 

BaseballMan - Not sure I agree

I'm not sure I agree, but I'd be interested as to why you feel the way you do.

 

OK, here goes. The top programs bring in fifteen or twenty kids a year with the promise of a chance to play at the highest level. Of course, we all know only a few of those are actually going to ever see significant playing time, but its an easy sell to a high school star who thinks he is the greatest. Each one may only be getting book money.
Now, fast forward eighteen months and one of those HS studs is stuck behind two or three players at his position and the coach is bringing in another HS stud. Under the current rules, the kid shops around and finds a smaller school in desperate need of his skills and transfers.
To me, a system designed to spread out the talent from the beginning would be better for everyone (except the coaches at the top programs who are hoarding talent). Force the top guys to be selective with the mandate of a quarter schollie thus pushing some of the talent down to the second tier schools and so on. In return for the increased scholle money, the kid gives up his right to program shop. It just seems like a good trade off to me.

 

I don't get it

Once again I will ask....Why do kids go to places were they will not play and be a no nothing sub?

 

Responding to several of the previous comments...

The rule is in effect and current players will have to move up to 25%+ or down to 0 next year. I don't understand why there was not a transition period for current players.

I think when you look at the impact of the whole package - roster limitation (I think 35), number of scholarships (27), 25% minimum, transfer rule - it is having quite an effect at the quality of recruits that the mid major schools are attracting in the current recruiting class. SoCon schools are getting kids that might have otherwise wound up in the ACC. I agree that spreading the talent around is a good thing.

Why do kids go where they will be a "do nothing sub"? Maybe they want to be an electrical engineer and the only place they could get that degree was NCSU or Clemson or Georgia Tech, but they still love baseball so much they'll ride the bench. Maybe it's been their dream to experience top tier NCAA athletics even if it means not playing. Maybe their talent peaked in high school and unfortunately they didn't advance like they thought it would.

 

I think for some, who are smart enough to know they will be going pro in something other than baseball, academic reputation is actually a consideration.

 

transfers

I'm still not sure if I agree with the " sit a year" transfer rule. It makes obvious sense in football and basketball, with the majority of players on full rides. But, in a sport where partial scholys are the norm ( and the vast majority of those being less than 50%) it is a penalty to the player who could move to a program that offers a better financial deal that will allow him to get his degree without ending school with as huge a debt load hanging over his head as he enters the "real world".
My son turned down his first choice (out of state ACC school) when I explained to him that he had a college savings accout, that we had put money into over the years, plus what ever athletic scholarship he received. Any costs that those didn't cover would have to be made up with student loans that he would have to pay back. When he did the math for the out of state school he figured that after four years he would be 40-50 thousand dollars in debt! That's a pretty deep hole to start your life in! At the in state school he attends, he will still have some debt coming out of school but if the scholarship percentages stay the same he should have a quarter of the debt he would have had.
As far as the NCAA's concerns with graduation rates, maybe they should track the academics on a semester basis verses graduation. A school, as well as a coach, with a sport that loses a percentage of it's players to the draft after the players junior year are starting out behind the eight ball. Additionally, let's be honest in recognizing that there is also a percentage of "student athletes" that are in school primarily because of the athletics. When they realize that their talents are not going to be good enough to play beyond college they lose interest in the school and leave. There are plenty of baseball players that begin their college careers thinking that they are on the "three year program". This all penalizes the school, and the coach, and it's really not something he can control.

 

Why?

Because they choose to! If a young man works hard in college and does what he needs to do and still doesn't play, but is happy and satisfied is anything really lost. He/she made there choice and they are happy with it.

 

Actual Guidelines

Does anyone have access to the actual rules change?
I believe there is a transition period. These rules changes are much more complex than first thought. ie: If a kid transfers into a school and is offered money, he is not gaurenteed 25%, or if a walk-on earns some scholly money, he is not gaurenteed a minimum of 25% either.
Sorry if I am vague, but I would like to read the actual changes to confirm my thoughts.