Baseball's Other Racial Barrier

Latino Players Forge a Big-League Presence, but Are a Rarity on College Rosters

By JAMES WAGNER
The Wall Street Journal
June 24, 2008

It's hard to watch the college-baseball World Series, under way now in Omaha, Neb., without noticing how different the college game is from the major-league version. Not in the caliber of play or the funny ping of the aluminum bats, but in the way the players look.



Jim Nuttle

College players in the three main divisions are 86% white, according to the most-recent NCAA figures. That's a big difference from Major League Baseball, where one study puts the number at less than 60%. The most striking difference is in the number of Latinos on the field: They made up about 29% of all major leaguers in 2007 but only 5% of players in college.

While the percentage of Latino players has more than doubled in professional baseball since 1990, accounting for top stars such as Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz, the percentage of minorities in the college game remains extremely low. That's especially true for Latinos, for whom college ball's failure to keep pace with the diversity of the major leagues is most striking. And that's embarrassing to some.

"We don't like that we're all-white, either," says Ron Polk, who retired last month after 29 years as the head baseball coach at Mississippi State University. "I don't want anyone to draw the impression that we're happy about it."

Minority players clearly aren't being excluded from major-league stardom and wealth. But because college baseball has had trouble attracting nonwhite talent, minority prospects aren't enjoying the benefits of a recent shift in the game that puts a premium on college players. Last year, according to data provided by Major League Baseball, 55% of the players picked in baseball's amateur draft came from four-year institutions, up from 38% in 1998. The number of college players taken in the first four rounds, where teams pay the highest bonuses, has increased by 20% over the past 10 years. The average signing bonus through the first four rounds last year was $790,000.

At the center of the issue is a perennial choice facing young baseball prospects: College seems to afford less opportunity than the fast cash they can get signing with a pro team.

But now that college has become a sexier pipeline for the major leagues, those players may be making a bad economic decision: not just passing up an education but also earning less money in the long run.

Elliott Avent, head coach at North Carolina State University, argues that if Latino players, or any other aspiring major leaguers, don't go to college, "they're leaving a ton of money on the table."

It's an argument that college coaches are making to potential recruits now. Turtle Thomas, head coach at Florida International University in Miami, was praying one of his commitments from Puerto Rico wouldn't sign after this month's draft. He says he spent about an hour on the phone with the incoming shortstop and his father trying to convince them college would prove more lucrative and beneficial in the end.

Mr. Thomas says if the player signs now he would probably do it for $60,000. But after three years in college, he's sure that money could be close to $600,000. That's partly why major-league teams want to scout high-school players, says Mr. Thomas. "They like to sign guys for as cheaply as possible."

The player agreed to terms with the major-league team that drafted him.

Clearly, other college sports have had more success attracting minority talent. According to the most recent NCAA Division I data, Hispanics and blacks make up nearly 11% of college baseball players. Yet blacks account for much larger percentages in men's college basketball (58.9%) and Division I-A college football (46.9%).

Many forces beyond the easy cash compound this discrepancy. They include challenges in recruiting, a college draft that, unlike the National Basketball Association's, doesn't include prospects from abroad, and baseball scholarships that are fewer and less comprehensive than football and basketball scholarships.

Coaches say it is expensive for colleges in the NCAA's Division I to recruit overseas, even in Latin America. And foreign players often lack the appropriate transcripts, grades and test scores.

The scholarship policies of the NCAA pose other obstacles for luring Latino players. Since 1993, college baseball teams have been limited to 11.7 scholarships to cover about 35 players on the average team's roster. That is a smaller allotment than some sports with smaller teams have. Women's basketball, for example, gets 15 scholarships for about 15 players. Under this system, even some star players don't get full rides: University of Arizona head baseball coach Andy Lopez points out that last season his top pitcher, Preston Guilmet, received 79% of a scholarship.

Last year, the NCAA adopted a new policy regarding baseball scholarships. While it didn't change the total value of the scholarships baseball teams can offer, it dictated that the money should be spread out more evenly. Starting next season, up to 30 players on each baseball team must have an overall financial-aid package that covers at least 25% of their costs. That means some students who got little or no assistance will get some, while others who were well-funded may see cuts in the scholarship money available to them.

Athletic directors say they aren't sure what impact this policy will have on the recruitment of minority players, but that it promises to make the already difficult baseball-scholarship situation all the more complex.

Walter Harrison, the chairman of the NCAA's Division I Committee on Academic Performance, says the pressure on men's sports such as baseball is just a fact of life given the general pressure on athletic budgets. He says the most recent change to the baseball-scholarships policy was aimed at lowering the high number of college baseball players who transfer to other schools each year in pursuit of bigger scholarships -- and whose academic records tend to suffer. By spreading the money around more evenly, he says, the NCAA believes more players will stay put and that this, in turn, should improve academic performance.

But when it comes to signing players, Major League Baseball has fewer constraints. The draft is limited to residents of the U.S. and Canada, but foreign players are free to sign with major-league teams as free agents when they are as young as age 16. And most teams are so eager to tap this pool of talent they have built baseball academies in Latin American countries to help recruit and train young prospects.

It's working. According to league figures, nearly half the players currently under contract in the minor leagues are foreign-born, and this contingent is producing some of the best players in the sport. About one-third of the 66 players named to last year's All-Star Game were foreign-born, including nine from the Dominican Republic.

What bugs many coaches most is that baseball, a sport that has a legacy of integration dating back to Jackie Robinson, has become at the college level a game for the privileged -- a country-club sport. To be noticed by college recruiters, they say, players must participate in travel leagues and showcase tournaments, attend camps and work with well-known trainers and coaches. Only the families of wealthy kids can afford this, coaches say.

"With this explosion of showcase camps and travel teams, kids from less-affluent backgrounds will get less of a chance," says Mike Gaski, head coach at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He says his biggest fear is, "baseball is too quickly becoming an elitist sport."

Write to James Wagner at james.wagner@wsj.com