Something the announcers kept mentioning: schollie money.

The announcers were talking about how Cohen uses the majority of his scholarship money on pitching. I can't remember the percentage, but they mentioned it (maybe someone else heard it). I know the pitcher from poplarville is getting 70% according to his dad, which the dad was pretty adamant that it was a really good offer. Let me preface this by saying that I am pretty certain that is the number he told me, but it has been awhile and I could be mistaken, but I am pretty confident that is the correct number.

It is now obvious that our program will revolve around pitching and defense in the future. I personally have no problem with this and wonder what you guys think. The fly in the ointment though still comes back to the disadvantage we have compared to lsu when it comes to scholarships. They are signing pitchers and position players while we are hoping position players will pay their way. Does USC have a hope style program? Vandy has the vandy education to sell to recruits.

What is our angle to sell to these kids that will get us to the top?

There has got to be some creative ways for us to get players money

I think we need to maximize Power with our resources, and fill out the scrubs. Give me Remfroe and Britton over Pirtle and Henderson

We only need like 6-7 legit arms with a college schedule. To compete in June you have GOT TO score runs. I'd go 65% bats, 45% arms. Dual guys welcome.

What the hell, NCAA?

Is there not enough money in college athletics to allow a full slate of baseball scholaships? I'll call BS on that quicker than you can say ESPN.

Or is this some title IX bullshit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlabLoser

Or is this some title IX bullshit?

---

We got to be equal with the women's- so how do we do that?

We give 85 full rides in football- 22 starters plus subs
We give 13 free rides in basketball- 5 starters plus subs

Baseball gets 11.7 schollys- Baseball has 8 position starters, 4 SP's per week, and then 4-5 more relief pitchers- so basically 12 starters plus subs

Gotta have equal number of men's and women's scholarships? That's bullshit. At the very least football should be exempt from the equation simply because there is no women's sport with 85 students on the roster.

I take it the softball players get full rides. So baseball players can't because football exists?

I hate the NCAA and statistic-based "equality".

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know exactly how we divide up our scholarship money.

But from what I have heard- because of our disadvantages with regards to lottery scholarships, what we do is we try to find guys that can get academic scholarships from MSU and use that to make up the difference. That's part of the reason why our team is setting GPA records.

If it is his plan to spend most of it on pitching- that's not a bad idea. You win with pitching and defense and I have yet to see a team win a NC with a bad pitching staff. I have seen some win with an average or worse offense. Of the top SEC players per MLB.com regarding the draft- the vast majority are pitchers- Ryne Staneck, Ryan Eades, Jonathan Crawford, Bobby Wahl, Kevin Ziomek, and Colby Suggs. The only position players from the SEC are Jacoby Jones and Hunter Renfroe. That doesn't include Sophomore pitcher Tyler Beede, who I consider to be the best prospect in the SEC regardless of class.

The only way to combat good pitchers like that is to have an equally as good pitcher yourself and then have an offense at least as good as your opponent.

Part of it might have to do with the draft- elite power hitters are extremely rare, and if one is in the high school ranks, they are usually going to get drafted pretty high by MLB. They're also going to have a ton of scholarship offers as well typically. Everyone wants guys like that.

Based on our upcoming recruiting classes, I do think that pitching and defense are going to be a priority, but I also think we are going to actually see more power because we are getting bigger players and fewer smaller type players. But you're still going to see an emphasis on speed, being aggressive and pressure, yes there will be some bunting. One thing Cohen has always liked are guys that were football players in high school as well. He wants players that have that tough aggressive mentality, and that's one of the things our staff evaluates and looks at.

What is our angle to sell to these kids that will get us to the top?

Great question. We have some advantages over people like Vanderbilt. We have actual fans that care and show up. Is it everything? No- it's not, but I do know players would much rather play in front of 10K rather than 1K or whatever shows up at Vanderbilt. We have tradition and history- which shows that you can come to MSU and go to MLB and be an All-Star, we have a history of winning, so it's not like you come to MSU and you are hoping to make a regional once. I think that kind of stuff is going to be even more important in the current state of college baseball because we're going to be televised more and more- if we host a regional, now the ENTIRE nation is going to see the atmosphere at Dudy-Noble because now every regional game is going to be televised.

You look at our current coaching staff- Butch is one of the best pitching coaches in the country and he was called the premier pitching coach in the country by Perfect Game recently on twitter. We made a guy that wasn't drafted in high school in Chris Stratton into a first round draft pick. We have one of the best closers in the country currently. Our pitchers make tangible progress in general, and we do not abuse them.

As far as offense and the other positions- Adam Frazier went from undrafted to playing shortstop for Team USA and now Hunter Renfroe went from being extremely raw into at least a top three round pick in the draft. If you are a baseball player with an aggressive personality- you WANT to play for a guy like Cohen. And those are the kinds of players we get. They don't want to play Ron Polk station to station baseball- they want to make things happen- steal, hit and run, squeeze, taking extra bases- they LOVE stuff like that. At the same time, unlike some of the other small ball guys, Cohen doesn't mind a few guys jacking a few out every now and then.

Our players again, have a good GPA which is important to parents and our staff has brought in some really good people to the team- guys like Pollorena, Frazier, Will Cox- those are things that are important in selling parents.

And let's not sell MSU short- it's a good school, and the thing I really like about it is you can go to MSU and be whatever you want to be. MSU may not have every major, but they have something related that will help you get to be what you want to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlabLoser

Gotta have equal number of men's and women's scholarships? That's bullshit. At the very least football should be exempt from the equation simply because there is no women's sport with 85 students on the roster.

I take it the softball players get full rides. So baseball players can't because football exists?

I hate the NCAA and statistic-based "equality".

---

It's ridiculous. Our baseball team probably generates as much money as all our women's teams combined. Baseball players should get full ride.

Keenum has done a good job selling MSU as Todd describes. Even for aspiring doctors and lawyers.

Is it equal number of Schollies on campus like per campus or is the limit set for each sport regardless of if that sport is at a school or not?

If its equal on campus what's stopping us from stocking up the girls volkeyball team with 40 players and having 20 extra for baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlabLoser

Gotta have equal number of men's and women's scholarships? That's bullshit. At the very least football should be exempt from the equation simply because there is no women's sport with 85 students on the roster.

I take it the softball players get full rides. So baseball players can't because football exists?

I hate the NCAA and statistic-based "equality".

---

Or create women's lingere football for college.

But yeah- college baseball should have 20 full scholarships in my opinion.

That will get you seven pitchers, two catchers, four infielders, three outfielders, and four misc. bench players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Is it equal number of Schollies on campus like per campus or is the limit set for each sport regardless of if that sport is at a school or not?

If its equal on campus what's stopping us from stocking up the girls volkeyball team with 40 players and having 20 extra for baseball.

---

Because Bear f-ing Bryant and Johnny Vaught created things like swim teams to get extra scholarships for "walk-on" football players and the NCAA stopped it.

It's a NCAA rule that all college baseball teams can only have 11.7 scholarships. The only way around it is to have something like LSU has or academic scholarships. What LSU basically does is for the most part is spend lottery scholarships on players from Louisiana and then they spend their 11.7 on guys like Jacoby Jones and Alex Bregman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlabLoser

Gotta have equal number of men's and women's scholarships? That's bullshit. At the very least football should be exempt from the equation simply because there is no women's sport with 85 students on the roster.

I take it the softball players get full rides. So baseball players can't because football exists?

I hate the NCAA and statistic-based "equality".

---

I've never understood why football has so many scholarships? Most schools are literally awarding leftover scholarships to walk-ons because they can. I think football could survive with 75 scholarships and give the other 10 to baseball. 21.7 is still a squirrely number though.

But here is the double standard with football- the guys that walk-on the team HAVE to pay their way. You could have a 4.0, a 36 on the ACT and be a Schillig Scholar or whatever they call it now, and if you want to walk-on the football team you can't get an academic scholarship. Isn't the NCAA supposed to be about education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

You win with pitching and defense and I have yet to see a team win a NC with a bad pitching staff. I have seen some win with an average or worse offense

---

Top notch pitching and D gets you to the dance. But, when you are in the dance where everyone has top pitching, the variable becomes the BATS. Your pitching can carry you against teams with shitty pitching, but when everyone has good pitching like in the tournament its the teams that can score runs that will prevail.

Since the BBCOR bats came about... Runs per game of CWS teams, and us

2011
Cal	333	61	5.46
UF	455	72	6.32
UNC	452	67	6.75
USC	419	69	6.07
TX	349	68	5.13
A&M	405	69	5.87
Vandy	459	66	6.95
Virginia	471	68	6.93
Mississippi St.	380	63	6.03
2012
Arizona	478	65	7.35
Arkansas	351	68	5.16
UF	393	67	5.87
FSU	459	67	6.85
Kent St	445	67	6.64
USC	351	69	5.09
Stony Brook	471	67	7.03
UCLA	394	64	6.16
Mississippi St.	287	64	4.48

We were right there in producing runs in 2011 and nearly made it to the CWS. Last year we were over half a run per game lower than the lowest CWS teams Arkansas and South Carolina. Both of those teams also had team ERA's below 3.00 but they could score. Look at the teams who "don't belong" Stony Brook and Kent State. How did they make it? 7.03 and 6.64 runs per game. Look at Samford who took us out in 2 games. In this format you have to score runs to advance. That is the variable. The last 2 champions have scored over 6 a game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Top notch pitching and D gets you to the dance. But, when you are in the dance where everyone has top pitching, the variable becomes the BATS. Your pitching can carry you against teams with shitty pitching, but when everyone has good pitching like in the tournament its the teams that can score runs that will prevail.
Yes, and we HAVE to have it too to match-up. If we don't have it we can't match-up and we're screwed.
Since the BBCOR bats came about... Runs per game of CWS teams, and us

2011
Cal	333	61	5.46
UF	455	72	6.32
UNC	452	67	6.75
USC	419	69	6.07
TX	349	68	5.13
A&M	405	69	5.87
Vandy	459	66	6.95
Virginia	471	68	6.93
Mississippi St.	380	63	6.03
2012
Arizona	478	65	7.35
Arkansas	351	68	5.16
UF	393	67	5.87
FSU	459	67	6.85
Kent St	445	67	6.64
USC	351	69	5.09
Stony Brook	471	67	7.03
UCLA	394	64	6.16
Mississippi St.	287	64	4.48

We were right there in producing runs in 2011 and nearly made it to the CWS. Last year we were over half a run per game lower than the lowest CWS teams Arkansas and South Carolina. Both of those teams also had team ERA's below 3.00 but they could score. Look at the teams who "don't belong" Stony Brook and Kent State. How did they make it? Let's be honest- Oregon and LSU choked as well. 7.03 and 6.64 runs per game. Look at Samford who took us out in 2 games. In this format you have to score runs to advance. That's why I said "then have an offense at least as good as the other team". Because then if you can match up on the mound, in theory, you being better than the other team on offense should make the difference and be what puts you over the top. A lot of teams in college especially win games simply because they have an advantage on the mound, but as you go deep in the playoffs, that advantage goes away because the OTHER teams have equally as good pitchers as you said. But if you happen to luck up- for a MSU related example- and throw Chad Crosswhite in Omaha, you're probably screwed- even though we had a pretty good hitting team.That is the variable. The last 2 champions have scored over 6 a game While I did say that I have seen teams win championships with bad offenses, I wouldn't say it's the norm. Just that it is more likely to win a NC in Omaha with good pitching and a bad offense vs. having bad pitching and a good offense.

---

I think we are agree on what we have to have to win. I just think to get the elite arms we need, we have to spend more on them vs. what we have to spend to get elite hitters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I've never understood why football has so many scholarships? Most schools are literally awarding leftover scholarships to walk-ons because they can. I think football could survive with 75 scholarships and give the other 10 to baseball. 21.7 is still a squirrely number though.

---

Football pays the bills- and why it gets what it wants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Football pays the bills- and why it gets what it wants

---

I agree that it pays the bills- but let's not forget at one time football had I think 100 scholarships, so if 85 is what football "wants" I would be surprised. Because I would think that they would want the 100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Football pays the bills- and why it gets what it wants

---

Football definitely pays the bills. That's why all this conference realignment is taking place. I wonder how much each cws team gets compared to a minor bowl (liberty or compass).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I agree that it pays the bills- but let's not forget at one time football had I think 100 scholarships, so if 85 is what football "wants" I would be surprised. Because I would think that they would want the 100.

---

How about 80? Twenty per class

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Top notch pitching and D gets you to the dance. But, when you are in the dance where everyone has top pitching, the variable becomes the BATS. Your pitching can carry you against teams with shitty pitching, but when everyone has good pitching like in the tournament its the teams that can score runs that will prevail.

Since the BBCOR bats came about... Runs per game of CWS teams, and us

2011
Cal	333	61	5.46
UF	455	72	6.32
UNC	452	67	6.75
USC	419	69	6.07
TX	349	68	5.13
A&M	405	69	5.87
Vandy	459	66	6.95
Virginia	471	68	6.93
Mississippi St.	380	63	6.03
2012
Arizona	478	65	7.35
Arkansas	351	68	5.16
UF	393	67	5.87
FSU	459	67	6.85
Kent St	445	67	6.64
USC	351	69	5.09
Stony Brook	471	67	7.03
UCLA	394	64	6.16
Mississippi St.	287	64	4.48

We were right there in producing runs in 2011 and nearly made it to the CWS. Last year we were over half a run per game lower than the lowest CWS teams Arkansas and South Carolina. Both of those teams also had team ERA's below 3.00 but they could score. Look at the teams who "don't belong" Stony Brook and Kent State. How did they make it? 7.03 and 6.64 runs per game. Look at Samford who took us out in 2 games. In this format you have to score runs to advance. That is the variable. The last 2 champions have scored over 6 a game

---

For comparisons sake, we are averaging 6.31 runs per game at this juncture through 49 games if anyone is interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Msstate7

How about 80? Twenty per class

---

I'd be OK with that as long as the other five went to baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

For comparisons sake, we are averaging 6.31 runs per game at this juncture through 49 games if anyone is interested.

---

In the end I think not having a dominant #1 will be our demise. Woodruff not having the year we all hoped is the reason we aren't locked in as a national seed now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I'd be OK with that as long as the other five went to baseball.

---

I want baseball to get more too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Msstate7

In the end I think not having a dominant #1 will be our demise. Woodruff not having the year we all hoped is the reason we aren't locked in as a national seed now

---

Lindgren will be there when we need him come Regional time. He's gotten the shit end of the weather lately and has had AWFUL luck this year. I'll take Lindgren and Graveman against most 1-2's that we will have to face. Hosting and having Pollo go against a 4 is very important for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Lindgren will be there when we need him come Regional time. He's gotten the shit end of the weather lately and has had AWFUL luck this year. I'll take Lindgren and Graveman against most 1-2's that we will have to face. Hosting and having Pollo go against a 4 is very important for us.

---

I agree that we can get through the regionals and maybe even the SR's with the guys we've got, plus IF we have homefield advantage that will be huge as well. I honestly think we have the greatest homefield advantage in a regional situation if we get one. But winning a National Title and getting through Omaha- I don't think we can get through that with what we've got. I hope I'm wrong though. I think we have the bullpen to do it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Lindgren will be there when we need him come Regional time. He's gotten the shit end of the weather lately and has had AWFUL luck this year. I'll take Lindgren and Graveman against most 1-2's that we will have to face. Hosting and having Pollo go against a 4 is very important for us.

---

I'm a huge lindgren fan. I'm also worried about him. This team will go as far as graveman and lindgren can carry them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Msstate7

In the end I think not having a dominant #1 will be our demise. Woodruff not having the year we all hoped is the reason we aren't locked in as a national seed now

---

I agree with you on this. If this team has a Stratton type, and Woodruff has that kind of potential, who knows how many more SEC games we would have won this year? Not to mention we probably don't lose the Central Arkansas series. We're lucky it didn't hurt us midweek- thanks Ross. Not having Woodruff has probably cost us three or four wins this year up to this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Lindgren will be there when we need him come Regional time. He's gotten the shit end of the weather lately and has had AWFUL luck this year. I'll take Lindgren and Graveman against most 1-2's that we will have to face. Hosting and having Pollo go against a 4 is very important for us.

---

This^^.

It seems like all of our "error" games are with Lindy on the mound. He seems to have more infield singles against him than any other pitcher in the country too. Little dribblers that are in perfect spots.

I think it is crucial for us to host and be a #1 vs a #4. Our rotation is set up perfect for winning game 1 of a Regional and then having the upper hand the rest of the games with Graveman and Lindgren.

Not only that, but Ross and Holder are damn near automatic right now out of the pen, and Bracewell has looked outstanding in his last two appearances. We definitely need Graveman and Lindgren to step up, but I see no reason to believe they won't in a Regional.

If we're going LHP out of the pen I want to call on Girodo over Ross. Mitchell can and should be our long relief guy if called upon but Girodo is the better option in a crucial spot.

Really? Looked like on Saturday we wanted to take him out, then didn't because nobody else was a better option. He delivered anyway. This time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I've never understood why football has so many scholarships? Most schools are literally awarding leftover scholarships to walk-ons because they can. I think football could survive with 75 scholarships and give the other 10 to baseball. 21.7 is still a squirrely number though.

---

I FULLY agree with this sentiment and have thought that way for years. 75 might be a little steep but a football program I know could run just fine with 80 scholarships and just jumping baseball up to 16.7 scholarships would make a big difference.