MLB Agreement Big News For College Baseball

When the NCAA legislative process is wound into high gear, it’s natural for compliance offices to take notice. Obviously if something changes in the book we use everyday, we need to know that and be ready for it.

Major league collective bargaining negotiations would seem to have a lot less impact on college sports. But the changes made in them can have a big impact. Normally those changes are small in the grand scheme of things. A two-year age limit in the NBA is considered a footnote to a negotiation that centers on revenue splits and free agency mechanics, despite the impact is has on the NBA’s talent pipeline.

By contrast, Major League Baseball’s quick and quiet negotiations made spending on new players who are or might be in college a major issue. After recommended signing bonuses for players failed to curb spending on incoming talent, the union and the owners have agreed to significant penalties for teams who do not follow MLB’s slotting system.

A luxury tax threshold will be set based on a team’s recommended bonuses for the first 10 rounds of the draft. Exceeding the recommended bonuses by even 5% requires payment of a 75% tax. Penalties escalate quickly; teams exceeding the tax threshold by 15% pay a 100% fine and lose two first round draft picks.

In addition, the signing deadline was moved up a full month. Instead of being in mid-August, right before school started, it will be in mid-July, moving around based on the All Star Game.

All of this is a gigantic win for compliance professionals and the NCAA Eligibility Center. With less wiggle room allowed (and small commissions available), agents acting as advisors to players have less incentive to take a hands-on approach to negotiations, meaning fewer violations of Bylaws 12.3.2 and 12.3.2.1. The shorter negotiating window also means amateur status can be settled sooner, reducing the number of Eligibility Center investigations which stretch into the school year.

In the medium-to-long term, it should improve other aspects of the recruiting and initial eligibility process. Baseball should settle into a pattern, like the NBA did, where draft position largely dictates whether a prospect will attend college. This means prospects who are not projected high enough will need to take academics more seriously. A worldwide draft, rumored to be a possibility as soon as 2014 would push even more prospects toward college.

Whether it turns out to be a win for college baseball as a whole remains to be seen. Baseball has struggled to attract athletes, and now large amounts of money available early in an athlete’s career will no longer be available. How much? In 2011, just three teams (Pirates, Royals, and Nationals) spent more than $25 million over slot on draft picks covered by the new regulations. The top three picks received bonuses that were roughly double MLB’s recommendation. Those bonuses alone would have trigged the steepest penalties in the new draft luxury tax system.

The fear is that while more of the best baseball players will likely end up in college, fewer of the best athletes(subscription req’d) will still be playing baseball when it comes time to make the choice.

This is the part where MLB tells talented young amateur athletes – who, by the way, aren’t union members and had zero voice in these negotiations – that baseball is a lousy avenue for them to take, at least financially, and they should probably check out other sports.

Getting more of the best players does not help the game if the talent level of the entire player pool is significantly lower.

The uncertainty also comes from the NCAA’s side of the equation, since no sport is as greatly impacted by the Presidential Retreat reforms as much as baseball. The $2,000 miscellaneous expense allowance may change how coaches distribute their 11.7 scholarships. Length of scholarships will be a key concern, especially for parents of top pitchers. And the new academic requirements will have a noticeable effect in baseball, which has many junior college transfers and has struggled with below average APR scores.

College baseball is just starting to hit its stride as a potential revenue sport. As a spring sport with lots of games, it fills a huge programming need for conference or institutional TV networks. The Division I Baseball Tournament is reported to turn a profit for the NCAA. Attendance is up as well. Despite the struggles, most notably the geographic divide of Southern and Western haves vs. Northern have-nots, the sport is as healthy as any in college athletics. Whether these new changes, the second round to hit baseball in four years fuel more growth or hit the brakes remains to be seen.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

DII commissioners take a crack at wood bats

An important Division II baseball constituency recently took another swing in the wood-bat arena. Time will tell whether it was an extra-base hit or something less.

At its October meeting in Phoenix, the Division II Conference Commissioners Association agreed on the following language:

“The D-II Conference Commissioners Association endorses and supports the idea of wood bats, with the intention of NCAA Division II moving toward a wood bat-only division by 2012-13.”

So, what does that mean?

In short, the commissioners are trying to move their conferences toward wood for regular-season competition in 2012-13. If they are successful, they hope the Division II Baseball Committee would mandate wood for Division II postseason competition beginning in 2013.

baseball batsDivision II Baseball Committee chair Jeff Schaly of Lynn said he has not heard from the commissioners since the committee met at the Division II College World Series last May. At that time, the committee expressed a reluctance to mandate wood bats for any region and said that such change would have to come from the bottom up rather than being nationally required.

With that in mind, Peach Belt Conference Commissioner Dave Brunk and Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference Commissioner Dan Mara made the pitch for wood at the October meeting of the DII CCA, citing myriad benefits, including a return to the roots of the game; lower-scoring, shorter contests (with more time available for student-athletes to pursue social and academic experiences); better marketability to fans; and better training for hitters who aspire to play professional baseball, where only wood bats are permitted.

Nineteen of 22 commissioners were present and voting at the CCA meeting, and the vote reportedly was 13-4 for wood, with two abstentions, although at least some of the “no” votes might have indicated skepticism more than opposition.

Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference Commissioner Butch Raymond said the CCA commitment, while significant, is merely another step in the process.

“We didn’t necessarily say that we’re definitely putting wood bats in for 2012-13,” said Raymond, who chairs the commissioners’ group. “We’re going to start working toward that process. We feel like we’re going to have to work from the bottom up. In other words, we’ll probably have to go region by region, conference by conference.

“We support the concept. We have all agreed to do what we can working toward that, but it’s certainly not a mandatory thing for 2012-13.”

After the CCA vote in October, the commissioners reported back to their conferences. One commissioner reported that a straw vote in his conference was 8-7 in favor of wood, with the principal concern being that wood bats, because they break, will prove to be more expensive than metal over the long term. Some coaches also believe that quality wood is in short supply and that the “good wood” will be taken by professional baseball.

Additionally, some coaches have deals with metal-bat manufacturers, although the proponents of the change believe that most Division II arrangements are not that substantial and that alternative deals with wood-bat manufacturers would be available in an all-wood environment.

“That was really one reason why we were discussing 2012-13, to give conferences time to perhaps get their own deal, or DII-wide deal or institutional deal,” Brunk said.

The change, if it is implemented, would not require a division-specific playing rules exemption since the rules permit both wood and metal. In inter-division play, the type of equipment can be determined by mutual consent of the competing teams. Under the commissioners’ approach, wood composite bats would be permitted in practice to reduce breakage, but they seek to use actual wood – defined as “a single piece of wood, from a tree” – for competition.

If Division II chose to go use wood-only, it would have no effect on how the other two divisions approach the game. ESPN reported earlier this year that sentiment at the top levels of Division I are decidedly pro-metal. For the upcoming season, all bats will be required to meet more wood-like standards.

NCAA Insider is an occasional take on college sports issues, as viewed by NCAA communications staff member David Pickle. Opinions are his alone.

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·