It’s uncanny how news hits your inbox, and almost immediately thereafter you get a message from a friend reaching out to talk about the same news.
This past week the news hitting my inbox described a new proposal from MLB owners added to the latest round of discussions with the Player’s union (MLBPA) as part of negotiations tied to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after this season.
I’m most interested in tracking this proposal forward in terms of how it impacts opportunities for baseball student-athletes at all levels, not just those fortunate enough to make it to the “Bigs”.
What is the news?
MLB owners proposed a fundamental change to how their amateur draft works. Most notable would be the requirement that players need to be 20 years old, and have been out of high school for at least two years, to be eligible for the MLB draft.
This means no more high school players being drafted by MLB teams and no more U.S.-based 18 and 19 year olds playing minor league baseball. This proposal doesn’t appear to introduce an intentional draft so players outside the U.S. can still sign at age 16 (except in markets like Japan and Korea where local players are governed by requirements tied to professional leagues in those countries).
Why would this change matter?
This new draft structure matters on a few levels. For MLB it’s another step in the ongoing effort to shift player development costs away from the minor league system and to other platforms that don’t require direct investment from MLB teams i.e.college baseball, post-grad teams, and independent pro leagues. Yes, there is a fixed signing bonus peg for each slot in the proposed 12-round draft, but this total sum may be offset by the cost savings of carrying a smaller base of minor league operations and the increased financial cash flow that stems from starting the arbitration eligibility clock two years later for those HS draftees who make it that far in MLB.
How could this play out?
So how might this change to the MLB draft impact student-athletes if these changes are included in the next CBA?
This proposal marginally impacts the flow of high school (HS) players into college baseball. Thus, given the small pool of high school draft picks, the long-term impact on opportunity creation for student-athletes will continue to rest primarily on whether we increase (or decrease) investments in playing opportunities at the HS and post HS level.
For those striving to play after HS, it will come down to how colleges at the 2yr junior college (“JuCo”) and 4yr college (“4yr”) level jointly invest, or not, in college baseball.
First, some numbers and context. In 2021, the MLB draft dropped to 20 rounds and approximately 600 players, from what used to be 50 rounds up through 2011 and then 40 rounds from 2012 through 2019, so roughly 1,200 to 1,500 players. Further, the historical split between high school versus college draftees has shifted from more than 50% high schoolers, to something closer to a third HS players and the remaining two-thirds college players, which implies 550 additional high school players have been heading to college baseball since the days of 50 rounds and a 50-50 split between HS and college draftees.
Today across JUCO and 4yr levels nationally, there are more than 1,600 teams. Using a per team player number of 35 (NCAA D1 and D2 recently moved to 34 man roster limits, but other levels don’t impose roster limits). This means there are approximately 56,000 college baseball roster spots across the U.S.
Since this new proposal means no HS players would be drafted, 200 additional HS players (20 rounds x 30 teams x 33%) need spots in college or elsewhere. But let’s say the D1 roster limits have taken away 2 players per program (it could arguably be more at the D1 level, and then more if we include the D2 impact), given the 300 plus D1 baseball programs, that’s more than 600 roster slots that have been removed. Simply put, the pre-MLB draft development system has already removed 3 times the number of new player roster slots that will be needed.
In light of these numbers, how could this change end up being a good, or not so good, for student athletes?
The good outcomes…
Perhaps this new draft model serves as a catalyst for states to enable more of their JUCOs to offer baseball teams, and to provide access to more players by adding JV or developmental teams for freshmen.
Perhaps more NCAA D1 and D2 programs add college baseball, and all of these college baseball programs increase scholarship slots to well more than the historical limits of 11.7 and 9 respectively.
Perhaps more NCAA D3 and NAIA programs add college baseball, and all of these college programs increase financial support for student-athletes looking to play at these levels.
Perhaps post-grad programs expand to offer player development opportunities and academic / apprenticeship training so these players can either continue playing at a 4yr college or enter the workforce after two years.
Perhaps more student-athletes and parents will need access to information and guidance around the college planning and recruiting process like that provided by my nonprofit MyNextPlay.org, and others.
The not so good outcomes…
Perhaps 4yr colleges continue to cut baseball programs (like Sonoma State and San Francisco State did here in California last year), while college football captures the vast majority of operating budget funding within college sports such that NCAA D1 and D2 get nowhere close to the roster limit numbers in scholarships, and for many, they actually don’t surpass the old limits. The reality today is that most programs aren’t even at the 11.7 and 9 full scholarship levels allowed before roster limits went into effect.
Perhaps the number of JUCOs offering baseball stays flat, or even declines, as states grapple with funding challenges, or they too decide to limit roster sizes so only a finite number of students get an opportunity to continue developing after HS at the 2yr level – a level that for many young people supports a window for maturing physically and mentally.
Perhaps post grad leagues expand, but rather than focusing on “access”, their charter instead mirrors that of today’s club/travel sports ecosystem. In this scenario, they too become exclusively focused on maximizing their profit & loss statements, leaving out students below specific financial levels.
The Net Net…
The proposed MLB Draft change is consistent with the trends and models professional sports leagues are moving towards to manage player development, i.e. labor costs. Ultimately it’s about narrowing the focus to the very top of the pyramid of elite players likely to ever make it onto a professional team roster.
My concern here is that changes like this don’t actually translate into creating more opportunity for student-athletes to play at the college level. If we don’t consciously invest in sports like baseball versus continuing to expand Power 4 conference college football, we’ll most certainly end up with the same “top of the pyramid” pro sports model, and the result will be that opportunities for student-athletes in sports like baseball will continue to contract.
And if we impose further roster limits and cut programs at the NCAA D1 mid-major, D2, D3, NAIA, and JUCO levels, we will only be accelerating the rate at which we’ll be reducing opportunities for student-athletes to play from HS through their college degree, therefore narrowing access to one of the most profound pathways for helping young people develop personally and professionally.
NextPlay>Forward AI Disclaimer: I very actively use artificial intelligence and large language models to generate the content you read here, but I do review it and edit it to make sure it can be generally useful to people who read it. Keep in mind that AI can make mistakes - check important information. Let me know if I make any errors and I will correct them.