Dan Tillo now considered a D-1 prospect?
- Thread starter youflog1hawk
- Start date
How does Drake not offer a kid like this? I think he could be a solid player in the Valley. At worst, he is a tall shooter who can also grab a few boards. How does he compare to recent Iowa high school guards such as Josh Ogelsby, Matt Bohannon, and others?
I have yet to see any video of him, but a 6-5 kid who shoots 45 % from three for his entire hs career and puts up big numbers all around at the 4A level doesn't get any mid-major interest?
I have yet to see any video of him, but a 6-5 kid who shoots 45 % from three for his entire hs career and puts up big numbers all around at the 4A level doesn't get any mid-major interest?
As usual, quick to babble on another topic on which you clerly know nothing.
NCAA rules stipulate that for Division 1 programs the 85 football, 15 women's basketball, & 13 men's hoops schollies MUST BE full scholarships; but for all other sports such as baseball, softball or wrestling the full monetary value of the schollie--which varies according to whether recipients are residents or non-residents in the case of public universities---may be divided among a number of student-athletes at the discretion of coaches & athletic directors.
In the Big Ten, as is true of MOST non-Sun Belt schools, it is rare for a baseball coach to offer a full ride---and even more rare for such an offer to be accepted (most such offers go to in-state HS kids who also are very highly ranked by professional baseball---and in almost all cases the kids take the six-figure bonus slotted for their draft positions by MLB. (The last Iowa kid, until this year, who got a full ride offer from Iowa, a kid named Alec Rash from Indianola, actually turned down $800,000 dollars from the Phillies, buy took the full ride offered by Mizzou instead. What is more frequent in BT baseball programs (Indiana, Illinois, Michigann from now on Maryland probably as well) is that a really outstanding player will get a full ride his junior year in hopes of keeping him from going pro as soon as he turns 21----it almost never works.
Full baseball schollies, however, are much more common in the major Sun Belt schools where 90% of the top prospects commit who don't turn pro out of HS. San Diego State is one of the schools that frrrequently do offer full schollies to 1 or 2 or even 3 top prospects in any one year (but since the NCAA authorizes only a maximum 17 baseball schollies at any time, and programs generally figure they need a minimum of 35 players on the roster---including 3 weekend starting pitchers, another half dozen or so in relief or underclassmen being developed as eventual starters, plus at least two catchers, six or seven infielders, five to seven outfielders, and ten to 12 or so freshmen (usuall redshirted). So obviously the number of full rides is very limited even in Sun Belt programs (ironically the Sun Belt now extends to Oregon on the Est Coast, to VA, MD & NJ in the East).
Whether SD coach Tony Gwynn offered Tillo is unlikely, but outside of the program & the family no one knows unless the kid (or more likely his HS or summer coach) makes a public claim about it. Iowa HS kids in the past have gotten full rides at Notre Dame, Stanford, South Alabama and there may have been others where it never became public. It is a serious infraction for anyone within a NCAA program to talk about a recruit before he signs an LOI, so unless or until Tillo goes public we won't know even whether he chooses hoops or gloves.
You couldn't be any more wrong. Per NCAA D1 rules, baseball is allowed 11.7 scholarships. While 11.7 is the maximum, many schools are unable to fully fund the maximum number.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Thank you for the correction. A careless trivial mistake of a kind that I make too often. I was remembering that it was 17 most of the years I was in the US Dept of Education And depending upon old files too much. You are right: the number in baseball hasn't been 17 for a long time...it was reducted to 14, then a 15% across the board NCAA reduction in ALL men's sports cut all the minor sports in a manner that has created nightmares for math-crippled ADs & coaches, trying to calculate how much in-state vs non-resident student-athletes can rach be offered and stay within the aggregated dollars allowed for the specific partial schollies relative to fractional numbers of the applicable limit that they want to offer in a given year.
I can't imagine where you get the idea that ANY Division 1 baseball program operates on less than eleven players. Please divest yourself at once from any such ludicrous notion. There are Division 1 majors like Iowa State & Wisconsin that have dropped baseball in order to allocate their available funds to basketball (Moo) or football (Wisky) in efforts to minimize the red ink of their total athletic programs. The overwelming majority prefer to continue to operate at a financial loss, largely because they realize that dropping baseball wouldn't save them that much of a difference. And then. as well, the BT and the Catholic schools Big East (without football) are the only major conferences not mostly Sun Belt in membership (ACC, SEC, Big 12, PAC-12, AAC, MtWest, WAC)
You should know that the silly aspect of your jumping on the schollie cap for baseball is that only roughly 350 of over 3000 colleges & universities are Division 1 in any sport--(almost always basketball), and only just over 100 are Division 1 in all sports. Even among Division 1 schools, since many offer NO athleltic schollies, and others for only a limited number. Many of even the largest Division 1 schools in all but football, like Northern Iowa have dropped baseball or never established a program. More significantly, the number of minor sports offered even by Division 1 schools varies from as few as six to as many as over 30. In short, it is a much more complicated and diverse matter than our trivial corrrection comprehends.
So your trivial point on whether the number of full schollies in baseball is 17 or 14 or 11.7 is hardly enough to offset your own egregious serious mistake/blunder in trying to use trivia to discredit a post in which you could find no serious error. Of course my post "could not be any more wrong." It is rreplete with many, many factual details, and it s overall conclusions are absolutely valid. You are in danger of becoming the same sort of hopeless idiot as Legend 12: I have no idea how old you are; but age should not be an obsdtacle to dealing with your insecurities and sense of losing out in life. There are already too many posters here who use being buried in the booddocks (Idaho) or alleged strokes/disabilitiesetc who lposte endlessly attacks on minor & trivial errors by sincere posters who would like to enjoy comraderie on the internet and are constantly frustrated by small minded people who should pick their scabs instead of pumping their illwill on the internet.
This post was edited on 3/17 7:23 PM by Tiggerhawk
No, you really couldn't be any more wrong in your original argument because no player receives a full ride even at reputable baseball schools and 11.7 is substantially lower that 17, making your error much larger than a "trivial" error. Furthermore, not all schools are fully funded. Schools like Western Illinois, South Dakota State, and others do not have the capital to fund the maximum scholarships and that's why they suffer.
My points aren't meant to demean you but bring facts to this argument.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
To clarify, fully funded doesn't always mean they lack the same scholarships as Iowa or others but rather specific donor scholarships are provided for Johnny Doe who qualifies because he's a senior and his major is business. That money doesn't come from the athletic department budget like a tradition athletic scholarship and requires meeting some criteria.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Hey Tiggerhawk, while you were admittedly wrong when you said 17 scholarships instead of the correct 11.7 and brushed it off as a trivial mistake, you are covering up the funny part.
You started out chastising the one guy by saying they were talking about a subject they clearly know nothing about, and then you start dribbling some bad info.
Do you really think Wisconsin doesn't start a baseball team is lack of money? My guess it's a title 9 excuse but really the reason is the chubby AD just doesn't want to for his own reasons.
I'll bet in your world of academia, your peers are impressed with your efforts to sound smart. Out here in the real world, you just sound like a bullshitter.
You started out chastising the one guy by saying they were talking about a subject they clearly know nothing about, and then you start dribbling some bad info.
Do you really think Wisconsin doesn't start a baseball team is lack of money? My guess it's a title 9 excuse but really the reason is the chubby AD just doesn't want to for his own reasons.
I'll bet in your world of academia, your peers are impressed with your efforts to sound smart. Out here in the real world, you just sound like a bullshitter.
If you really want to be blown away by Tiggers intellect,ask him how classes there are in Iowa high school boys basketball.
Iowa's 2 starters from Sioux City are average or below DI players. McCabe was about the same. Cougill was a good player.... for Kirkwood
Tillo is exactly what Fran and all of us wanted out of Oglesby.... is steely confident!
Oh by the way Kirk Speraw is also a Sioux City guy. Played on a State Tournament team for Sioux City North. Had a Tillo teammate so should know the Tillo history....
Oh by the way Kirk Speraw is also a Sioux City guy. Played on a State Tournament team for Sioux City North. Had a Tillo teammate so should know the Tillo history....
Which is the worst of any team from the state of Iowa that's in the tournament.
If you think that's what the Iowa program should be shooting for, you're a MORON.
You can add Kirk Hinrich to that Sioux City list- I have seen Tillo play 2x since I have a nephew playing in that area. Very nice athlete, not so sure football isn't his best sport. Also baseball. Good all-around athlete who, I think, would struggle at a major D1 level. Family is really pretty strong ISU so there must not be any interest in a walk-on.
I don't really care if a player is 1A 2A (Tuttle, Nick Collison, Raef Lafrentz), 3A (Korver) or the big schools. With AAU ball anymore you can tell the talent.- or miss on it- like Tuttle.
I don't really care if a player is 1A 2A (Tuttle, Nick Collison, Raef Lafrentz), 3A (Korver) or the big schools. With AAU ball anymore you can tell the talent.- or miss on it- like Tuttle.
Buck- that is the best seed they have gotten in the last decade! I never said that's what iowa should be shooting for, but they're doing something right.
he must be what, at least 75 years old? would love to give the ol' guy a pass but he is so angry and so often so very wrong its kinda hard to.
Tigger, old friend, there is much wrong with your post. I imagine others will tackle some of it. As for ISU and baseball, despite the protestations of the administration at the time, it was dropped because of Title IX. ISU didn't have the money to create a new program in a ridiculous sport that nobody cares about, like field hockey or rowing, just to satisfy the government requirements.
And getting back to the original topic, it was Tillo's uncle, I think, not his father, who played at ISU. John Tillo lettered four years, never started, under Lynn Nance. He graduated the year before Johnny Orr was hired.
I rarely post outside of the lounge, but I noticed this thread move back up toward the top of the board so here you go.....
I have spoken to several midwest coaches for both basketball and baseball since the Iowa Boys State Basketball Tournament ended.
While I don't know the timeline for each of them specifically, at least a couple baseball coaches have spoken to Dan and his family. Those that I spoke with say he was/is expecting better offers, both in the size of the school and amount of the scholarship. The problem is with only 11.7 scholarships to spread over nearly a 40 man roster, anything more than 50 percent just not likely to happen. Having watched him pitch, I would suggest to him baseball might be his best option in college.
As far as basketball, I have spoken to a couple DII coaches who tell me he would be an immediate impact player on their roster. Again, Dan is thinking DI. Nothing wrong with that, but at this time he remains in a holding pattern. From what I'v seen of him in person and from talking to a handful of MVC/Big Ten/Big 12 coaches. They all say roughly the same thing.
At 6'4-6'5 he is going to likely have to guard much quicker athletes at the #3 position and taller athletes at the #4. UNI is in a good spot recruiting-wise and while he fits the mold of the overlooked, in-state kid with a chip on his shoulder, he doesn't quite fit their system. He is the type of kid that might make a statement at Drake, but I don't know what his grades are like as they have a slightly higher academic requirement.
The last time I spoke with one his assistant basketball coaches, it sounded like Dan is going to go the JUCO route and attempt to better his stock.
First, to establish a point: Title IX on balance has been a wonderful thing. Women in sports at all levels have been shamefully treated forever. Something had to be done to change that, and Title IX has done a great deal.
Now, to your post. Where to begin? How about this: You are totally, utterly, completely wrong about Title IX. It sounds like you have been listening to people like Christine Grant and actually believed what you were hearing. You simply do not understand the issue, or the way it works in real life. Really.
I strongly recommend a book called "Tilting the Playing Field" by Jessica Gavora. I think you will not only learn a lot, but will enjoy it. I also suggest you look at some of the court cases that established the rule, particularly the landmark Brown University case that was the first major test of the law.
The first mistake you make is paying attention to what Title IX says. The people who enforce it never have, and you shouldn't either. That's why the law in practice worked so much differently than was intended by the people who wrote it and voted for it. The Congress was adamant in saying it would NOT be a quota system; in fact, that is EXACTLY what it is. Defenders of the way the law is enforced will protest that there is a three-legged test, and the quota is only one of the three. Technically true, but the other two are essentially dependent upon quota, too. I haven't checked in the past couple of years, but the last time I did, not a single college athletics department that failed the quota test had been found in compliance with Title IX. Not one.
The second mistake you make is confusing money with opportunity. The law doesn't require a school to spend as much money on women's sports as on men's sports. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any football programs anymore. What it requires is that schools offer the same opportunities, adjusted by the male/female ratio in the general student population, to both men and women.
Here's the way it works. Silo Tech has 10,000 female students and 10,000 male students. If offers 250 scholarships for men's sports and 250 for women's sports. Five hundred male students want to represent the Fighting Haystackers in athletics, but just 245 female students do. So half the males who want scholarships don't get them, while all the females who want scholarships get them, with 5 left over.
Is Silo Tech in compliance with Title IX? No. And not because it is turning down men while accommodating all women. It is not in compliance because it has 250 men and only 245 women on scholarship, even though it offers 250. The "logic" behind this is the belief that since there is no difference between men and women, the only reason fewer women want scholarships is that they have been the victim of discrimination in the past and have been brought up to believe they aren't interested in competitive athletics. Did Silo Tech have anything to do with this alleged discrimination? No, but it doesn't matter; the government says Silo Tech has to make up for it, anyway.
Iowa State doesn't have to have a 50-50 balance because the overall student body has more men than women. SUI, conversely, has to have better than a 50-50 balance because more students are female than male (or at least that was the case last time I checked).
As I said, the ISU pooh-bahs vehemently denied that Title IX had anything to do with the decision to drop baseball (and men's swimming, and before that, men's gymnastics). It would have been politically impossible for them to say anything else. My, just look at the way you unloaded on poor Dan Gable. But the fact remains that if those men's sports had not been eliminated, Iowa State would have had to create an equal number of scholarship opportunities for women, which would involve not only the scholarship money, but money for coaches, facilities, equipment, travel, and all the costs associated with running a program at that level. Iowa added crew, which has a squad of around 60 the last time I checked. Most aren't on full scholarship; I think the school is limited to giving 20, and it's an "equivalency" sport so those can be divided.
Ms. Grant and others of her ilk dismiss this financial fact of life with a wave of the hand. All you have to do, they say, is cut the salary of the men's football and basketball coaches in half and use that money. From a purely mathematical standpoint, this is correct. In the real world, things just don't work that way.
Inform yourself, Tigger. You'll be glad you did.
I just wish people could post 2 chapter responses instead of these 1 chapter responses. And please, copy the 5 previous quotes so I can spend half of an hour to scroll down to find that one bit of wisdom.
Tiggerhawk......Tony Gwynn died last June. There's no way he offered Tillo a scholarship offer as he was away from the SD State program for quite some time before that.
Correct about "minor" sports. And it's nothing new. Dan Gable was the first wrestler to have a full scholarship at ISU...and that's at a time when the program was one of the top two or three in the country and had several NC wrestlers.
Still amazed someone was dumb enough to think and type that.
If he's looking at baseball, it may be beneficial to look JUCO, as opposed to D1...purely for draft reasons.
Dude, that was half a year ago. Obsess much? Jesus.
Oh my freaking God. You are a moron tigger. Obviously a college professor of some sort.
You know zero about baseball and title IX
You know zero about baseball and title IX
This little gem never gets old.
Dude, it's now been close to a year longer........
You are so fun to laugh at Legend!!!! Thanks!
Similar threads
