Jump to content

2013 NCAA Regional Projections


Recommended Posts

As I have said in a previous thread, these big power house schools are down simply because of the way scholarships are divided up. A lot of top notch athletes that these colleges used to pull in are unable to go there now because the parents are not able to afford to pay the rest. Unless your kid is one of the ones who get one of those very rare full rides it is still a lot of expense. A lot of kids or going the JUCO route because it is cheaper and most or closer to home and if you are one of those talents that has a possibility of being drafted, you don't have to stay three years before you are able to be considered for the draft. I believe that is why some of these smaller schools are being able to compete with the used to be big power house schools because the kids are staying closer to home because of the way scholarships are now days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO cost is not a factor unless you compare Private to Public universities
( http://www.collegefortexans.com/apps/collegecosts.cfm ). It does not cost that much more to play at Sam Houston than it does to play at say Texas A & M. Based on the site I linked, it is cheaper at A & M.

I think a lot of players are opting for the JUCO route because it gives them more options down the road as it relates to transferring or being drafted. The NCAA has addressed their transfer rules and changes will take place next year. (Student-athletes with a GPA of 3.0 or higher will be allowed to transfer without losing eligibility.)

The draft, more than anyting, has killed schools like UT. Last year alone I believe they lost at least 4 BIG TIME recruits to the draft. Those are spots they had filled until the end of the MLB signing period. By then, most top recuits have signed with other schools. It's hard to compare a 60 to 70 % scholarship to a possible million dollar signing bonus. We all know who wins that battle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/recruiting/2012/2612510.html


[b]Texas recruiting coordinator Tommy Harmon couldn't sleep the night of Aug. 15. Just minutes before the midnight ET signing deadline, Harmon found out that the crown jewel of his sterling recruiting class—slugging outfielder Josh Bell—had signed for $5 million. The general sentiment in the industry was that Bell had been darn near unsignable.
But he couldn't walk away from $5 million, and Texas found itself having to make due with the nation's premier group of incoming pitchers, but no marquee bat.

"My dad always told me, 'Don't think about what could have been,' " Harmon said a month and a half later. "All of a sudden I find out about eight minutes until midnight that Bell's going to sign. I didn't think he was going to sign. My wife saw me up late and said, 'What's wrong with you? I've never seen you act like this before.' That was the weirdest day ever."[/b]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="Coach85" post="1405066" timestamp="1368703501"]
As I have said in a previous thread, these big power house schools are down simply because of the way scholarships are divided up. A lot of top notch athletes that these colleges used to pull in are unable to go there now because the parents are not able to afford to pay the rest. Unless your kid is one of the ones who get one of those very rare full rides it is still a lot of expense. A lot of kids or going the JUCO route because it is cheaper and most or closer to home and if you are one of those talents that has a possibility of being drafted, you don't have to stay three years before you are able to be considered for the draft. I believe that is why some of these smaller schools are being able to compete with the used to be big power house schools because the kids are staying closer to home because of the way scholarships are now days.
[/quote]

Every school has to deal with the same scholarship limits.  That hasn't seemed to affect perennial powers such as LSU, North Carolina, CS Fullerton, Oregon St etc. 

All of the usual suspects are in the Top 25 minus the Texas schools. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...