Fire Todd Butler

[Play Angry]

Gene definitely oversigned in the twilight of his career. There were angry posts on here from a parent of an out-of-state pitcher (from Louisiana IIRC) whose roster spot fell victim.

Seems like the revised signing bonus system helped a little bit to alleviate the problems coaches faced back then, but I'm not sure it will ever go away unless the season and draft calendar are changed significantly. Alternatively, we suck so bad right now that losing players to early entry isn't really much of a concern so why bother anticipating empty roster spots.

[1972Shocker]

I think there's some truth to this. It does kindof point to another issue though. Gene was loyal, maybe to a fault. But he figured out how to win a heck of a lot more than Butler did, and without holding open tryouts every fall. Even in his last years. Would certainly seem to point to a greater ability to identify and develop talent.

I didn't say I don't prefer Gene's approach although in this day and age loyalty only goes so far if you make a recruiting mistake and a kid just doesn't have the goods. But winning seems to provide cover for a lot of things people otherwise would not tolerate. Just look at Baylor football for a prime example and over-recruiting is nothing compared to what they let slide.

Baseball is also somewhat unique in that you just never know what the MLB draft will do to to your recruiting classes. Gene found that out numerous times but especially in 2007 when commits Derek Norris and Pete Kozma (and perhaps others) went pro out of high school. At other times a commit you don't expect to show up (i.e. Mike Pelfrey) actually does. Throw the chintzy scholarship allotment for college baseball into the mix and the growth in emphasis on college baseball among the P-5 schools and it is a really tough environment to operate in these days.

I don't know if I am ready to say that Coach Butler doesn't recognize talent but there is ample evidence that he may not be able to coach it up, develop it, manage it or motivate it. He certainly seems to over emphasize and over value size in his recruiting efforts.

[1972Shocker]

Not sure that we are really all that much over-recruited at this point.

39 players on this year's roster. 9 of those are Seniors leaving 30. I do not expect Willie Schwanke or Sam Tewes to return although I suppose that is possible. Less so for Schwanke than Tewes. The problem is that Sam publicly stated he thought it would take him more than 12 months to recuperate so even if he did come back not sure how much value he could bring. Assuming neither comes back we are down 28.

The Shocker announced 19 of those 28 players have been assigned to summer teams. There is a good chance that a 4 or 5 of the remaining 9 players will not return next year, either of there own accord or otherwise. 4 of these 9 played very sparingly and 3 did not play at all. Let's say 4 do not return. That puts us at 24 players.

I believe we have announced a recruiting class of 14 players bringing our total roster to 38 players. If 3 of the 12 incoming freshman take a red-shirt we are at the roster limit of 35 (and this assumes none of recruits are drafted and decide to sign pro contract). Keep in mind only 27 of these kids will receive any baseball scholarship aid.

Are the 4 players (and it could be more or less) who do not return being mistreated? I suppose it depends on what they were told when they were recruited and what, if any, baseball scholarship aid they are receiving. If they aren't playing much on a 21-37 team (and perhaps receiving no baseball scholarship aid) perhaps they would be happier and better off in a different situation.

In any case, I am not sure I am seeing enough of an over-recruiting pump and dump to get too worked up about.

[shockfan89_]

In any case, I am not sure I am seeing enough of an over-recruiting pump and dump to get too worked up about.

We signed 27 players in 2014, 17 for this season, and have 15 signed for next year. That is 59 in three years and you can only have 35 on a roster. If an average year should be around 9 or 10 (since 10 x 4 is 40), we will bring in 69 players over the first four seasons under HCTB. And that is if we only have 10 next year. My bet is we will be over 70 players in HCTB first 4 years. That is exactly two complete rosters to field one team of 35 right? So we are only keeping half of the players we bring in? Obviously the high number of JC guys impact this number quite a bit.

Maybe I think this is a bigger deal than it is, but in your example we are still running off 8 players to get down to 35. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I am just stating 8 per season seems like a lot. FYI, players that red shirt count against the 35.

[shocker3]

Not sure that we are really all that much over-recruited at this point.

39 players on this year's roster. 9 of those are Seniors leaving 30. I do not expect Willie Schwanke or Sam Tewes to return although I suppose that is possible. Less so for Schwanke than Tewes. The problem is that Sam publicly stated he thought it would take him more than 12 months to recuperate so even if he did come back not sure how much value he could bring. Assuming neither comes back we are down 28.

The Shocker announced 19 of those 28 players have been assigned to summer teams. There is a good chance that a 4 or 5 of the remaining 9 players will not return next year, either of there own accord or otherwise. 4 of these 9 played very sparingly and 3 did not play at all. Let's say 4 do not return. That puts us at 24 players.

I believe we have announced a recruiting class of 14 players bringing our total roster to 38 players. If 3 of the 12 incoming freshman take a red-shirt we are at the roster limit of 35 (and this assumes none of recruits are drafted and decide to sign pro contract). Keep in mind only 27 of these kids will receive any baseball scholarship aid.

Are the 4 players (and it could be more or less) who do not return being mistreated? I suppose it depends on what they were told when they were recruited and what, if any, baseball scholarship aid they are receiving. If they aren't playing much on a 21-37 team (and perhaps receiving no baseball scholarship aid) perhaps they would be happier and better off in a different situation.

In any case, I am not sure I am seeing enough of an over-recruiting pump and dump to get too worked up about.

. Maybe I am just too tired to think straight tonight, but I thought that the 35 man limit included red shirts. For example, if we have 3 red shirts that means we can only have 32 active players.

[shockfan89_]

. Maybe I am just too tired to think straight tonight, but I thought that the 35 man limit included red shirts. For example, if we have 3 red shirts that means we can only have 32 active players.

It does.

[1972Shocker]

Interesting article I ran across on the impact of the current scholarship rules and limits:

http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/11760431-123/its-a-numbers-game-roster

[1972Shocker]

Maybe I think this is a bigger deal than it is, but in your example we are still running off 8 players to get down to 35. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I am just stating 8 per season seems like a lot. FYI, players that red shirt count against the 35.

If we do, in fact, "run off" 8 players that means we will have 16 of the 43 total that are walk-ons. I would assume the 8 that are being "run off" will come from this group. I would have no way of knowing how many of those 8 players will be forced out of the program and how many will voluntarily decide to either focus on their education or move on to another program that may be a better fit for their skills. I would guess there will be a mix of both.

As long as the NCAA scholarship rules remain as is I'm not sure this is going to change much. I do recall a fall ball roster a few year's back when Gene was coach that listed 42 players. I don't recall anyone raising any concerns about that then but perhaps we weren't paying as much attention to those details. I think that was under the same scholarship rules that are currently in place but maybe it was before that. I don't really remember when that was. I do know the roster limit was 35 because that was what prompted me to count the names on the fall ball roster and ponder which 7 guys would be left off come the spring. It could be to that the reason I noticed that is because that seemed a bit unusual. Perhaps by that time Gene realized he may have to play the game a bit differently to keep us with the Joneses.

[1972Shocker]

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wichita-state/article80799027.html

Future of Wichita State Baseball Rests With Strong Class of Freshman Hitters

I was thinking about Sully's title to the above article.

Granted you can read too much into an article title that is intended mostly to draw eyeballs and not necessarily convey a specific message. However, IMHO the future of Shocker baseball rests with developing a competent pitching staff and be able to play decent defense. A strong hitting team gives you a bit of a cushion for your pitching and defense but in the current post-gorilla ball era it would take an unbelievably strong hitting team to carry a poor or even average pitching staff. Right now the Shocks are pitching poor and fair-to-middlin' at best defensively.

[shockfan89_]

As long as the NCAA scholarship rules remain as is I'm not sure this is going to change much. I do recall a fall ball roster a few year's back when Gene was coach that listed 42 players. I don't recall anyone raising any concerns about that then but perhaps we weren't paying as much attention to those details. I think that was under the same scholarship rules that are currently in place but maybe it was before that. I don't really remember when that was. I do know the roster limit was 35 because that was what prompted me to count the names on the fall ball roster and ponder which 7 guys would be left off come the spring. It could be to that the reason I noticed that is because that seemed a bit unusual. Perhaps by that time Gene realized he may have to play the game a bit differently to keep us with the Joneses.

You're probably right, I may be comparing apples to oranges as the main culprit here could be the 27 scholarship limit. It just appears our roster is turning over a lot from year to year, and I knew it wasn't because we were losing players/recruits to the draft, so I assumed it was the change in coaching philosophies.

[mr_baseball]

Future of Brent is on Todd's hands...very interesting...and the plot thickens.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wichita-state/article81947942.html

[ShockTalk]

Power to decide on assistant coaches rests with baseball coach Todd Butler, even in case of Brent Kemnitz

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/sports/college...#storylink=cpy

Nothing to get one's hopes up here.

There are some interesting tidbits regarding "strength of schedule" comparing Gene and Butler at the end of the article.

[ShockerFever]

My fear of Boatright getting handed the keys to the kingdom is very real.

[Cdizzle]

Does this headline seem like it couldn't be any more backwards to anyone else?

"Kemnitz’s role diminished in recent seasons as the pitching performance declined"

[ShockdaWorld]

"Better Call Saul."

Never mind. Better call 1-800-JimSchaus for advice, if for no other reason.

Mr. Schaus may direct to Danny Ainge.

I noticed that the above post was the first by WeeShock. If he knows what he is talking about, then he sure has my attention.

I know a little something about drinking and John Barleycorn. If Mr. Boatright has a drinking problem, then a lot of folks know about it. There are not many successful closet drinkers. If true, I would call it a red flag alert.

The post you quoted was written in 2012. I don't know anything about Boatright or if he drinks at all, but I believe the post was written about Sexton.