New NCAA rules to stay..

"bench warmers"

Very few of those kids think that they will be on the bench, it will be the other guy gathering splinters!

 

So, if a kid is a non-counter (0 schollie), can he transfer without sitting a year under the new rule ?

 

Hard to see how it won't "dumb down" the sport, overall; making it less attractive to the average sports fan. That's important to college baseball at every level becuse it's growing TV revenues that make it possible to raise the overall scholarship pool over time.

Under the expiring arrangement, the major programs had a shot at attracting a reasonable percentage of the nation's top high school players each year; causing them to attend 4-year programs for a minimum of 3 years. The coaches had the flexibility to recruit them because they weren't mandated to give every player a minimum level of support.

Now that every Division I player is guaranteed a minimum scholarship level, fewer dollars will be available to coaches to incent the best players into spending their next 3 years getting an education while playing college baseball. That should have the effect of causing a higher percentage of top high schoolers to turn pro immediately.

Like it or not, it is the quality of play at the major programs that grows the overall fan base; a development that is in ALL of college baseball's best interest. Taking the best players away from the college game and driving programs more consistently to a mediocre middle level may be what conferences like the Big 10 wanted; but, it won't be good for the sport over time.

 

Part of the reason this proposal makes sense is because Ron Wellman worked on it (WF AD).

 

Prepsters, those are some good points you raise. While it's the same rules for everyone, I can see where a few more may turn pro.

 

I think one of the interesting facets of the new rule will be a school's ability to attract and keep quality players who are non-counters. Think about it.
If a school only has 20 guys on scholarship and the rest are non-counters,then you can offer some 50% rides to the blue-chip prospects.
Under this scenario, club baseball could become an important component of a program.

 

I tend to agree also

I kept wondering about only being able to give 27 of 35 kids money. Made me think that the success of a schools program may very well be determined by who can recruit the best 8 non-scholarship players. The question became, Does a kid like a school good enough to go there for free, when he can go somewhere else and get money?
I did a little research with some interesting results. I wanted to find out the average number of players on each schools roster, that got "significant" playing time. My criteria for position players was minimum 15 AB's and for pitchers minimum 10 innings. Not to diminish anyone roles on a team but what I really wanted to know was there any players out there that were not on scholarship but playing significant roles on a team. Only one team used more than 27. The list is below but a few notes to remember:
1. Based on 2007 rosters before they were trimmed to 35.
2. Does not take into consideration 2-way players i.e. DooLittle (UVA) FedEx (UNC), which would reduce these #'s even more.

Team position pitchers total
Ga. Tech 15 13 28
FSU 16 11 27
WFU 16 10 26
USC 14 12 26
ECU 14 12 26
NCSU 14 12 26
UNC 13 13 26
Clemson 15 10 25
UNCW 15 10 25
UNCG 14 11 25
Coastal Car. 13 10 23
UNCC 11 9 20

Of course there could be lots of variables (injuries, etc.) and this does not imply all these were scholly players. Just some numbers I thought was interesting. Does kind of support the reduced roster theory IMO.

 

Good post. Thanks for researching those #'s.
A roster size of 35 is ridiculous, especially when teams are forced to pare down their rosters for the post-season.
I advocate one roster size for regular and post season.

 

You'd be surprized at the number of players who either show up injured as freshmen (especially pitchers) or are injured after they arrive, and most programs continue to honor their scholarship commitments once a player is injured. When medical redshirts (They remain on the roster.) and injured players are taken into account, it doesn't take long to approach a need of 35 to field 26 on a regular basis.

The reason travel rosters routinely allow 25 is that their composition presumes that injured or red-shirted players remain behind.

 

Injuries are a part of baseball. Teams are going to adapt to the cap limit.
I think 35 is too much and often leads to over-recruiting players.