College Baseball Issues

Fish the guard at Duke you are refering to was a granted a hardship transfer do to an immediate family members illness. However like you I would like someone to explain the transfer rule in simple details.

 

There is no logic about the transfer rule and the strange thing is most college baseball coaches had no problem with the original rule--one time only without penalty.

They understood that a kid on "book money" is offered a great deal at another school; they weren't going to stand in his way. They always had the right to match it.

They way the rule stands now, a player can have his scholly taken back by a coach and the player has nowhere to go--outside of transferring to a D2-3 school--without penalty. In essence, a new coaching staff can come in, gather the team and say, "adios"...and the players are left high and dry. Does that happen? Of course....and becoming more prevalent.

I'm not aware of the BB guy's situation, so I couldn't comment. I recall another player from Duke, Billy McCaffery, whom transferred to Vandy and he had to sit out a year.

 

No truer words have been written on this board. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

One cannot possibly exaggerate the magnitude of the step between high school and college baseball. In addition, specifically to Braves' point, every single player on the roster was a stud in high school; and every single player arrives expecting to play.

As might be expected, some players and parents handle the reality of intrasquad competition better than others. It seems to me that the more realistic your expectation of the competitive environment once you arrive, the better chance you'll have of coping with it.

 

I've always said that when one looks out on a major league field one would see two types of players... "freaks" and "grinders". The Hamiltons, the A-Rods, the Mauers and Lincecums are just freaks of nature with unbelievable talent. The majority of MLB players are "grinders". They can be beaten but they get right back up and keep battling. The more they are told they "can't", the harder they work to prove they can.

The vast majority of our kids here fall into the "grinder" category and they, and their parents, better understand that. Like Prepster said about a kid being the stud at his high school... big "F-ing" deal! They better put those glory days behind them and get their asses to work if they want a chance at the next level... and at each and every level they achieve.

 

Truth is once they get you to commit, they are looking for your replacement, someone bigger, stronger, faster, and throws harder. Just because you may start some this year, you have to work your butt off to get any playing time the next year. I agree, you have to be a "grinder" battling day in & day out.

 

The guy from Duke was Elliot Williams. The NCAA makes their own rules and decisions as they see fit. Williams was granted a transfer and not have to sit out because of the clause that say you can transfer on Family Emergencies and not have to sit out and he was given the OK. A TarHeels Player (Stephenson) ask for the same thing but was not given the ok. He wanted to transfer back home to attend Southern Cal to be close to his sick father. He had to sit out a year (last year).

 

Agree 100%.

Both the work ethic and the resilience of successful professional players are extraordinary.

The crazy thing is that "grinders" are almost by definition above-average athletes, themselves. However, the "freaks" set the standard, and the "grinders" have to outwork them to play on the same field.

 

Title IV, IMO, should only apply in sports that have a female equivalent. That would eliminate sports such as baseball and wrestling, etc, losing scholarships and kids that deserve a chance to play, and a little break for all their hard work.

 

Not sure we should be attacking the scholarship level so much by simply comparing to other sports and Title IX. Consider ALL the costs for baseball - 50 or more games with travel and other expenses and facility costs. So in looking at scholarships, should consider the total net cost to the school's athletic budget. I do know that baseball is a losing program at almost all schools with regard to funding; however, I have been trying to locate how it compares to all the other minor sports without much success. I imagine sports like tennis, golf, volleyball, etc have significantly less costs for facilities and travel compared to baseball as well as less events so maybe the athletic department can afford more scholarship money for their sport.

As before, college athletics is a business so decisions are based on things including financials. Maybe we should be happy that all the students support the program through student fees (and it seems that most universities / colleges have more women enrolled than men who are paying these fees) and pull for those football and basketball programs to be successfull.

If we want baseball to be more successfull financially at the college level, then we need to be trying to get communities back into baseball so businesses and individuals will support it more financially. Then maybe the scholarship levels may rise - at least maybe more schools will completely fund the allowable scholarship level.