Here's a good D1 article which doesn't appear to be locked.
https://d1baseball.com/columns/college-baseball-braces-for-the-great-roster-crunch/
BLUF: Granting across the board eligibility depends on whether your focus is only on the current college players and game or on maximizing the efficiency of player development for the MLB.
First, the NCAA granted across the board eligibility years for all Spring sports, one of which was baseball. They did recognize that seniors would be exempt from the roster and scholarship limits that are in place for baseball but not other Spring sports. But they needed to since baseball is the only Spring sport with these roster limits in place (I think). They left the hard choices for roster and playing time up to individual conferences and colleges.
This next year is going to be really tough for all college sports since March Madness didn't happen and I think only $225M of expected $600M from March Madness was distributed. Many college Spring sports are going to be eliminated. A local college has gotten rid of wrestling already. Many colleges couldn't afford the 11.7 scholarships before this cut. I expect a lot of colleges with marginal programs will cut their baseball teams. For the teams in financial distress already, the NCAA ruling doesn't really matter.
From an individual point of view, granting across the board eligibility will help those already in college. I think this was the driving factor behind the NCAA ruling. There is no free lunch.
For P5 schools, the ruling will improve the college level of talent next year as players who don't get drafted will probably opt to stay in as long as they have two years of eligibility. But my opinion is diferent than D1 baseball writer who says "
Many players will surely take those $20K bonus offers to get their pro careers started, knowing that their value will be significantly reduced if they return to school as 22-year-old juniors, considering how age-obsessed MLB clubs have become." I guess we'll see.
@eokerholm and others say the same thing about the MLB not wanting older players for a variety of reasons.
This ruling will hurt incoming players for the next four years who will have to compete with more experienced players. The better upperclassmen who are not MLB ready and would have left will generally take playing time away from the freshmen coming in this year and until today's freshmen are gone, which used to be within 5 years but is now 6 years. Those players will not get as much playing time and development.
Couple this with the
travel roster limit of 27 and I still think that the opportunity for playing time is what is going to influence most teams decisions on roster size and content. As D1 said "
Servais pointed out that he can only put 27 players on his travel roster anyway, so if he had a 40- or 45-man roster, he would struggle to keep a dozen more players engaged, and team morale would suffer. Even some power five coaches, like Arizona State’s Tracy Smith, prefer smaller rosters."
I think in the end, those players who come to college with the proven talent already to make it to the MLB will not be as hurt from a playing time point of view since they will generally get the playing time. Players, like maybe Austin Wilhite pitching, will suffer as they will never get the playing time to be able to develop.
My solution would probably have been to give this years seniors (Sr & rSrs) and juniors (Jrs & rJrs) the extra year of eligibility so they wouldn't be screwed by MLB low balling players who are in their last year. But then the NCAA would have to recognize the money aspect of the sport; in a sport where the NCAA gets very little if anything. Basketball and football would have been treated differently.
P.S. I really miss college baseball.
