Giving seniors an additional year not gonna be easy

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Aug 19, 2012
39
8
This is truly a dreadful decision. Everyone felt for the senior college player losing her last year of play but this is going to ensure that all of the girls in college now and those coming up from high school the next four years are disadvantaged by this decision.

It was almost as if the NCAA looked at this realized it was a terrible situation and came up with the plan that spread that hurt to the maximum amount of kids possible.

There are all kinds of '21,'22 and '23 players who just lost their opportunity to play college ball. The '20 player still hoping to grab a last minute spot saw that chance vanish. Those '20 kids already signed just inherited a whole year of upperclassmen ahead of them their entire college career.

Individual players will continue to work hard and excel but looked at as a whole the entire group of kids in high school today just got dealt a huge disappointment.
 

radness

Possibilities & Opportunities!
Dec 13, 2019
7,270
113
With the transfer rules
+ coaches decisions
+ scholarship $$$$ pros/cons
No $, less $, same $
Could =
college to college recruiting
becomes a new thing.
( eventhough transfer became easier previous, $$$ will play a greater factor !)


Screenshot_2020-03-30-18-57-30-1.png
 

marriard

Not lost - just no idea where I am
Oct 2, 2011
4,312
113
Florida
Well back on my soapbox:

This is what happens when you have the world's stupidest sports system run in the dumbest possible way.
Literally, nowhere else in the world is this discussion happening because you play until you want to stop in the club system. Age, higher education - none of that matters. In most cases, even skill level doesn't matter - if you want to play there is a place for you. Overseas this is just an interruption in play - and nothing more.

That a sport can be taken from you forever at 22-24 years of age even if you want to keep playing - that is a disgrace that people don't talk about anywhere near enough.

Off my soapbox:

There is no fair solution that was going to make everyone happy. Like most NCAA eligibility decisions, this one is stupid - but it is not as stupid as most. I am glad they fell on the side of giving players a chance to play longer rather than less.

Frankly, this was a unique opportunity and chance for the NCAA to totally revamp eligibility and a bunch of other stuff they could have reset all at once. Everything has already been totally interrupted - this is a great time to move on things; For example, I have seen a proposal that would have set eligibility to 6 years: 4 years undergrad and you could get 2 additional years if you graduated on time and entered into a grad program - good idea? Who knows but they are missing the opportunity to do a huge reset here.

There is good news though for the incoming players if the NCAA does nothing more:

As I have written before, in general, upperclass players make up a smaller % of rosters. It is not spread out 25% per class. Attrition, injuries, quitting, etc - most senior nights are rarely 4 players or more and more often only are 1 or 2 players (exceptions apply of course). Then some won't want to play or do an extra year, so the numbers of players we are talking about will go down further.

And then if they need/want to do grad school, that may well be a highly education-based decision so some are going to end up at schools where they can't play due to level of play or lack of time or other factors. And if the schools make it financially difficult for the fifth year that is going to add to that.

In the end - your kid is going to have to compete just a little bit harder if a player stays an extra year or if a grad transfer turns up with their extra year of eligibility. That isn't the worse thing in the world. An extra player or two might drop out a little earlier than they might of (freshman attrition before they even step on the field is high - and also high after one season). Some coaches will love the one-year rental transfer model - some won't.
 
Dec 2, 2013
3,410
113
Texas
As I have written before, in general, upperclass players make up a smaller % of rosters. It is not spread out 25% per class. Attrition, injuries, quitting, etc - most senior nights are rarely 4 players or more and more often only are 1 or 2 players (exceptions apply of course). Then some won't want to play or do an extra year, so the numbers of players we are talking about will go down further.

I agree with Marriard. People are freaking out over a tiny fraction that will take advantage of the situation. I read another thread that said "95% of the Seniors are coming back." like the sky is falling. Give me break. What if on average 1 Senior decides to stay? Big Deal. We have been seeing huge in coming freshman classes along with transfers. How many of those players quit by the time they are a Senior? I really believe this is a non factor. Let's say your DD was getting a 50% scholly. Do you think mom and want to pay for another two semesters of school related expenses? As for the incoming freshman class of 10, I would not be concerned with the one Senior that stayed. I would be looking to my right and left (freshman class) and in the mirror.

How many Seniors want another year of the 5:30am Strength and Conditioning? As someone said earlier, Most Seniors will say: It was real, it was fun but not real fun. DD has a teammate that was chasing the career HR record for the school and will attend Grad school next year, she's said no thanks! I think as a softball community we pride ourselves that are kids are pretty smart and have a high on time graduation rate. With AP credits, Dual Credits, College classes in HS-many of the girls stretch it 4 years already so they can play in the spring rather than graduate in the fall of the Senior year. Let's revisit this thread in February 2021 and check out the rosters.

Baseball has the bigger issue. Have you seen the size of those rosters. Holy Moly!
 
Mar 22, 2010
128
28
I agree with Marriard and Orange Socks. My daughter is a D3 senior. No way we're paying for another year of school and has a job lined up. I can't see this as being a big deal certainly at the D3 level.
 
May 20, 2016
433
63
Regardless of who stays and goes, it's putting the colleges in a tough financial position. Not that i feel too bad for them but i'm sure this is going to make for a lot of awkward discussion on college campuses next fall.
 

radness

Possibilities & Opportunities!
Dec 13, 2019
7,270
113
Regardless of who stays and goes, it's putting the colleges in a tough financial position. Not that i feel too bad for them but i'm sure this is going to make for a lot of awkward discussion on college campuses next fall.
EXACTLY THIS
Putting programs in a tough financial situation. (and players/families too!)
This IS going to have an affect on scholarship amounts.
This is for all classes not just seniors.
The budget amounts were orinally intended for 4 years per each. That budget hasnt been increased. In otjerwords it couls effect each of the next 4 years per program.
That amount of time to continue paying those athletes has increased.

Interesting point it is program by program.

Here's a financial example.
For instance Cal State schools in calif. Budget for recruitment is so low schools do NOT have extra money to recruit and fund out of state prospects. Because it costs more.
Now For each year they will be paying an additional scholarship to an already existing athlete for 4 years!
( which they couldnt afford anyway to recruit out of state)

Remember why Coach White left Oregon....hmmm?!!
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,477
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top