Didn't see this discussed- Titan Targac decommits...

3,192 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by 94chem
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 10/17/24
...and is now committed to Texas State.

Class of 2025 LHP and IIRC, is cousin to Ryan. I know they're related somehow.

Anyway, I presume this was due to our current roster and what we've got coming next fall, right?
Reply Quote
trouble
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:03p, 10/17/24
AG
We mentioned it a while back. Yes, they are cousins. I assume the same about why.
Reply Quote
9
BurnetAggie99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39a, 10/21/24
Titan is a really good baseball player. Played with our Bandito Scout Team and was in the Bandito program a long time. Can be a 2 way player at the college level. He is good enough to play at A&M but ran into a numbers crunch. Texas St benefited from A&M's number crunch & they are getting a great player.

Hopefully he's able to transfer back to A&M down the road.
Reply Quote
8
W
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:32a, 10/21/24
AG
yes, recruitment is never over nowadays

the smaller D1 programs are the new jucos (sort of)
Reply Quote
2
StinkyPinky
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BurnetAggie99 • 1:01p, 10/21/24
AG
BurnetAggie99 said:
Titan is a really good baseball player. Played with our Bandito Scout Team and was in the Bandito program a long time. Can be a 2 way player at the college level. He is good enough to play at A&M but ran into a numbers crunch. Texas St benefited from A&M's number crunch & they are getting a great player.

Hopefully he's able to transfer back to A&M down the road.
Hope he has a successful college career, and even better if it means eventually transferring to us to finish it off. Sounds like a smart decision. All the best.
Reply Quote
2
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BurnetAggie99 • 1:11p, 10/21/24
BurnetAggie99 said:
Titan is a really good baseball player. Played with our Bandito Scout Team and was in the Bandito program a long time. Can be a 2 way player at the college level. He is good enough to play at A&M but ran into a numbers crunch. Texas St benefited from A&M's number crunch & they are getting a great player.

Hopefully he's able to transfer back to A&M down the road.

That's what I figured.

While it sucks on an individual level in many cases I think the transfer portal, NIL, and the new scholarship rules are ultimately good for college baseball. There's more top-level talent forgoing the draft for college and the portal and scholarship rules are pushing more talent to lower-tier P4 programs and mid-majors too which will create a better product on the field and more parity.
Reply Quote
3
adbono
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 2:40p, 10/21/24
TarponChaser said:
BurnetAggie99 said:
Titan is a really good baseball player. Played with our Bandito Scout Team and was in the Bandito program a long time. Can be a 2 way player at the college level. He is good enough to play at A&M but ran into a numbers crunch. Texas St benefited from A&M's number crunch & they are getting a great player.

Hopefully he's able to transfer back to A&M down the road.

That's what I figured.

While it sucks on an individual level in many cases I think the transfer portal, NIL, and the new scholarship rules are ultimately good for college baseball. There's more top-level talent forgoing the draft for college and the portal and scholarship rules are pushing more talent to lower-tier P4 programs and mid-majors too which will create a better product on the field and more parity.

I see this differently. What is happening in D1 college baseball (roster cap at 34, ability for schools to offer more than 11.7 scholarships) is not going to create more parity. It will further the divide between the haves and have nots. It's only a good thing for the very best players (the kind that play in the SEC) and the schools that have the most money AND care about baseball (SEC again). It's not good for the majority of college baseball. Let's start with the additional scholarships. Most schools won't fund them so it's only an improvement at the few schools that will. But the roster cap of 34 applies across the board. Which means that over 200 D1 players will be told to find a new home during the next 9 months. As these players relocate (to mid-majors, D2s, D3s, JuCos, & NAIA schools) they will displace another player at their new home. Ultimately a lot of players will be forced out of college baseball. And this is all by design. It may well create a better on the field product as the highest level of NCAA baseball officially becomes the professional training & development arm of MLB. But it absolutely is not a good thing for the overall state of college baseball and it greatly diminishes the chances for many HS players to move on to college baseball. On the positive side, once the changes have been in place long enough for people to understand the impact, it may lead to players and parents adopting a more realistic assessment of where they are actually good enough to play in college. The transfer portal and NIL (things that only benefit the premier programs) are here to stay and are killing the ability for many schools to compete. We are headed towards 2 divisions of D1 college baseball - The Haves & The Have Nots. We won't see a Coastal Carolina in Omaha again moving forward. The quality of play in the SEC & ACC will be really good and nothing else will matter very much at all. Some schools will likely drop baseball altogether. So looking at the big picture, and comparing how many people that will be negatively affected to the number of people that will benefit, I don't see any of this as being a win for the game.
Reply Quote
5
adbono
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to adbono • 2:42p, 10/21/24
2,000 - not 200
Reply Quote
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to adbono • 12:29p, 10/23/24
Agree. And the further, the sport won't have any more room for late bloomers. It will be populated by automatons who have been bred for baseball, held out a year in middle school for sports, and arriving at campus as 20 YO freshmen.

At least in baseball, they won't have to compete against pros from Europe or Africa.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
1
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 12:57p, 10/23/24
AG
94chem said:
Agree. And the further, the sport won't have any more room for late bloomers. It will be populated by automatons who have been bred for baseball, held out a year in middle school for sports, and arriving at campus as 20 YO freshmen.

At least in baseball, they won't have to compete against pros from Europe or Africa.
The international player development system for soccer avoids college with good reason…
Reply Quote
2
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 1:22p, 10/23/24
94chem said:
Agree. And the further, the sport won't have any more room for late bloomers. It will be populated by automatons who have been bred for baseball, held out a year in middle school for sports, and arriving at campus as 20 YO freshmen.

At least in baseball, they won't have to compete against pros from Europe or Africa.
Again, I disagree.

Those "late bloomers" will go to juco or lower-level programs to mature and they either raise the level of play at those programs and stay there or go to the big-time programs.

The level of play at top jucos is on par with all but the best P5 programs. I know San Jac routinely plays fall ball games against the likes of Rice, UH, Lamar, and so on and beats them.

My position is that a lot of players who are "over-recruited" and go to top tier programs to end up sitting will go to lower level programs, play early, and develop which will cause a ripple effect. A kid like Targac goes to Texas State instead of A&M and makes their program better. But he takes a spot from a kid who ends up at Lamar and that kid makes Lamar better. But he's taken a spot from another kid who ends up at Angelo State (D2), and so on and so forth.

And those D2 & D3 programs (NAIA too) all have the ability to package scholarships and grants that generally cover pretty close to the full freight of college costs. Plus, the new roster size limits only apply to D1 programs. My nephew plays football at D2 Southern Arkansas University which has a very baseball program (26 conference titles, 3 NAIA CWS, one NCAA D2 CWS, and 15 NCAA tournament appearances since joining the NCAA D2 in 1996). D2 programs are limited to 9 scholarships but not for grants or academic scholarships so most of the 56 kids on their roster pay almost nothing to go to school there.

It's about like a kid who is a really good HS athlete but gets caught up in the numbers at a HS like Allen that has over 7000 students so he moves to Prosper and elevates that program a little bit. Before long even more kids who aren't the total studs to outshine the sheer numbers move to Prosper and then Prosper becomes a highly successful program (I have no idea if Prosper is actually good at anything, just using a big HS vs. a smaller one).
Reply Quote
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 2:50p, 10/23/24
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 3:06p, 10/23/24
94chem said:
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.
That is very much a statement which is not rooted in fact. While there are certainly a number of athletes who's dream school is A&M and pass up other opportunities to walk-on at A&M they're very much in a minority. A whole lot more will go somewhere they get a scholarship and the opportunity to play vs. sit the bench.

However, I do think that limiting the roster size is nonsensical. Just do what football does which is a "head count" where you have 34 full scholarships to give away and you are not allowed to give partial scholarships at the FBS level but are allowed as many walk-ons as you want. The only rationale that makes sense for the NCAA move is the occasional kid who is a stud athlete but also a good enough student to get a full academic scholarship being counted as a walk-on for the 34 scholarship limit while still getting school paid for. Or perhaps just using NIL funds in lieu of scholarship money.
Reply Quote
adbono
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 3:13p, 10/23/24
94chem said:
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.


Anything over 35 is too many. Inflated rosters have (sadly) become the norm b/c colleges & universities use the "possibility" of participating in a sport (as a walk on) to entice additional full tuition paying students into their fold. Inflated rosters are hard to manage. Usually about 12 pitchers get most of the innings and 12 position players get most of the ABs. The rest of the roster are insurance policies - more or less. The more of those guys you have the bigger the chance that you end up with an unhappy player(s). And sometimes it only takes one to ruin team chemistry. Part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision has to do with curtailing the blatant over-recruiting that has been going on in D1 baseball for decades. Essentially that's what the "walk on" designation has been used for the most - a tool to over recruit. An attempt is being made to level the playing field to make it more fair for the players. What is standing in the way are 2 things : the NCAA (who only cares about the top shelf of their member institutions) and The Court (who appears to be trying to formulate new rules w/o getting enough input from baseball people).
Reply Quote
1
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to adbono • 3:40p, 10/23/24
My daughter is a D1 track athlete. She has a full ride academic scholarship, so she is free to the track and cross country programs. She works out with the XC team in the fall, but her talent is in track. Because of these roster limits, she won't be allowed to run XC next year, even though that's her team and those are her teammates for the past 2 seasons. At some point she could get cut from track. Probably not, but maybe. Anyway, it's just more NCAA meddling. Why do they possibly care if a National Merit Scholar is on some university's track team or not?
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 3:46p, 10/23/24
TarponChaser said:
94chem said:
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.
That is very much a statement which is not rooted in fact. While there are certainly a number of athletes who's dream school is A&M and pass up other opportunities to walk-on at A&M they're very much in a minority.
I see your second sentence as a contradiction of your first, which implies that you didn't understand what I said. I didn't mean all athletes; I meant some athletes. In other words, why should the NCAA care? If Johnny wants to there, wants to pay for it, and can get into the school, and the coach wants to put up with him, why does it matter?
Pat Henry has reams of athletes who'll never see the light of day. Nobody is holding them hostage.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 4:07p, 10/23/24
AG
94chem said:
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.
Not all roster positions under the changes aligning with the House settlement are mandatory funding and any specific position might be funded with a partial scholarship.

The roster numbers are being abused to open up more scholarship roster positions. If walk ons are being pushed out it is because they can use scholarships to compete for talent.

The notion walk ins are being eliminated is not a direct result of the roster limit changes. Those changes are a direct result of an he House settlement realignment instead.

Keep in mind that just like the Corps, RV, and TFAB. Lost Title IX cases that expanded integration, the changes dooming the shamateurism system were due to either state laws or lost lawsuits (Alston and the three House settlement cases) and the NCAA is fully controlled by member institutions and smaller institutions are already on the brink of failure financially in the academic side. So those smaller institutions have fought growth in costs by restricting the number of scholarships.

Until the NCAA stops losing lawsuits they are severe risk if they don't make changes. Plus the House settlement is not being administered by the judge by Title IX at all and heavily favors football and men's basketball players at least for the look back part of the settlement. One wonders if that is durable in the future as well…
Reply Quote
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 94chem • 4:47p, 10/23/24
94chem said:
TarponChaser said:
94chem said:
Prosper is good at football this year.

As for the roster limits, I have no clue why walk-ons are being eliminated from D1 rosters. Seems so arbitrary. Texas A&M is a much better school than West Texas A&M. Athletes choose to play at A&M (whatever the sport) because they want to go to A&M, regardless of aid. Makes no sense why they can't be rostered if the program wants them.
That is very much a statement which is not rooted in fact. While there are certainly a number of athletes who's dream school is A&M and pass up other opportunities to walk-on at A&M they're very much in a minority.
I see your second sentence as a contradiction of your first, which implies that you didn't understand what I said. I didn't mean all athletes; I meant some athletes. In other words, why should the NCAA care? If Johnny wants to there, wants to pay for it, and can get into the school, and the coach wants to put up with him, why does it matter?
Pat Henry has reams of athletes who'll never see the light of day. Nobody is holding them hostage.

Not really a contradiction at all. The vast majority of elite athletes won't walk-on at their dream school if they get offered a scholarship, especially a full ride, to another one. Those kids will be very, very few and far between.

Take for example, Targac who I brought up in the OP. Do you think that if A&M said, "hey, we'll take you as a walk-on because we're in a numbers crunch on our roster" vs. Texas State or a number of other D1 programs saying, "we would love to have you, here's a full scholarship and you're competing for a spot in the starting rotation when you get here" he's going to go to A&M? And that's a die-hard Aggie family. Athletes want to where they can compete and be developed.
Reply Quote
1
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 10/23/24
Hmmm. I just don't understand all of these court decisions. I figured once NIL started, it would be the effective end of Title IX in the power conferences. Eventually they would realize that they could privatize the $6 - $10 million they're spending every year on revenue sports scholarships, put those 120 male athletes on corporate funding, and save a lot more money by dropping a half dozen or so women's sports. The big schools would join the NIL division, and the smaller schools would be in the scholarship division. Only the top women's sports with pro leagues would be offered at the big schools.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.