|
|
Post by oldman on Feb 13, 2017 8:11:53 GMT -5
There have been a number of threads dealing with whether early commitment by athletes is good or bad. This quote was in the article on female coaches.
"A survey of the association's Division I coaches found that 70 percent thought it was bad for a high school student to choose a college before her junior year."
Has anyone seen that survey?
If D I coaches think its bad surely more sure the NCAA will come out with more steps to restrict early commitments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Feb 13, 2017 8:50:46 GMT -5
While they think it is bad, they won't stop it. Coaches can't help themselves.
Plus the power 5 conferences have all the power. And early commitments help them the most, so there is no way they will vote against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayout on Feb 13, 2017 9:56:21 GMT -5
I don't think it is even possible for the NCAA to stop early commitments. They can't stop kids from visiting schools, and they can't stop them from saying "I like it here, I like you, I will be here in 2020."
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousvolleyballdad on Feb 13, 2017 10:11:02 GMT -5
Than the NCAA should allow official visits to start earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 13, 2017 15:25:00 GMT -5
I don't think it is even possible for the NCAA to stop early commitments. They can't stop kids from visiting schools, and they can't stop them from saying "I like it here, I like you, I will be here in 2020." Well, you could start simply by applying recruiting rules to athletes not yet enrolled in the 9th grade, instead of maintaining the convenient fiction that they aren't yet "prospects". Saying we can't stop it, when in reality it is "open season" on them, seems rather hollow. The question isn't whether a 14-year old and their parents shouldn't be able to visit as many campuses as they want on their own dime, but whether coaches should be able to invite them into their office and openly recruit them. |
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Feb 13, 2017 20:34:53 GMT -5
Coaches do think it is "wrong". Despite that, they are stuck taking and getting early commits because if they pass on a kid, someone else will take her. That puts program at competitive disadvantage and threatens job. It is not as easy as "I don't like it so I will not do it" for a coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by slackerdad on Feb 14, 2017 11:46:05 GMT -5
It's really up to the parents to stop this.
What 14-yo can make a well-informed decision about where she wants to attend college? Obviously the parents are having a huge impact on the decision to make a verbal commitment.
From a parent's perspective, not having the stress of playing the "college admissions game" as a senior or not having to worry about cost (for those that are very elite) is very appealing. Not having to "create a hook" and just being able to focus on academics and volleyball is probably a relief. As soon as an underclassmen commit, I'm guessing they quit most of the ancillary activities they were doing just to look attractive to colleges. The 2nd sport, music lessons, volunteering, ACT/SAT prep, AP coursework likely all drop off precipitously. That's a shame because 1) college matriculation should not be the goal of playing a sport or even life, 2) things change including coaches getting fired or reneging on their promise, 3) athletes get injured or burned out, and most importantly, 4) people's interest change and what seemed like a good fit many years ago could not feel like a burden or a job.
Sadly, so much of most parents' ego is wrapped up in where their kid goes to college. It has become a form of validation for so many families.
The way I see it is that if my kid is an elite athlete being recruited as a freshman, there is very little upside to committing then. If she continues to improve, there will be more offers and, most importantly, more time to try and find a better fit. If she commits early and circumstances change, ie. coach leaves, failure to develop/injury, burnout, etc. and the offer is withdrawn, there is very little recourse available to me until we sign the NLI & financial aid agreement. Prior to that, it looks far worse for an athlete who reneges on a commitment than it does for a coach. A power D1 coach in danger of losing his job has very little to lose by promising a scholarship to a 6'4" 14yo in exchange for a commitment. In football and men's basketball, where this early commitment stuff originated, is different. Elite D1 programs are essentially development leagues for pros that are followed and commented on very publicly, so a breach of an agreement by an reputable coach has more negative consequences.
Again, too many parents view college as the end product of their parenting; a good college means they did a good job. A brand name colleges allows for very public ways of boasting to others. Personally, I think one should raise their kids to be successful regardless of whether they play volleyball in college or even go to college. If my kids love to play the sport and can learn a bit about life through those experiences, I feel like I've accomplished what I've wanted. Of course, this is from the perspective of a parent whose kids will likely never make an "official visit" to any school.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 14, 2017 12:18:43 GMT -5
Without an offer, there can be no commitment. The notion that early commitments are the fault of parents and their children is patently absurd. Apparently, they just can't seem to resist the "candy" they are being offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 14, 2017 12:40:24 GMT -5
The way I see it is that if my kid is an elite athlete being recruited as a freshman, there is very little upside to committing then. If she continues to improve, there will be more offers and, most importantly, more time to try and find a better fit. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case the recruits are sellers (with the limited opportunity to make one "sale") and the programs are buyers (also with a limited number of "purchases" they can make, based on the scholarship limits). The way these things work out is that it can be very risky (for both buyers and sellers) to commit either too soon or too late. Too soon and they may end up not finding the best available fit. Too late, and the pool of sellers and buyers shrinks so much that they end up with less-attractive options. So there is a window of time when it is optimal to make these choices, and that window of time depends mainly on when everyone else is also making these choices. In a way, it's like merging on the freeway. It works best if you do it about the same place where everyone else is doing it. Too early or too late causes problems. |
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Feb 14, 2017 14:01:09 GMT -5
If a coach comes calling and offers my kid a full scholarship while she is in 8th or 9th grade and she wants to do it, hell yeah we are jumping. This has nothing to do with prestige, it has everything to do with finances. With the cost of college on average around $40-50K for a state public or $120 for a private college it is one less thing that we as parents and her for her future have to worry about. Now she does not have a 10 year loan to repay and I don't have to mortgage my house to help her out.
College is not the end game where if she is not offered a scholarship she has failed but it has to be considered as a possibility. College is not why she is playing right now but volleyball may end up opening doors that would otherwise be closed. Only a fool would turn it down if the opportunity arose. Right now she is playing because she loves the game and wants to be the best she can be while having fun but as kids mature they start to look towards their future with a different perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 14, 2017 15:55:31 GMT -5
Too late, and the pool of sellers and buyers shrinks so much that they end up with less-attractive options. I disagree because I think this premise is simply false. The options will likely be different a year (or two) later, but sometimes they're better, sometimes they're worse. Even at the highest end of Division I there are SOOO many transfers that if a kid really is good enough to play in the Big Ten or Pac-12, there will still be scholarships open for them in the spring of their senior year. If Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn St, etc can bring in transfers in January, they also have the capability to bring on an unsigned senior. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Feb 14, 2017 16:13:38 GMT -5
Than the NCAA should allow official visits to start earlier. I agree with this. It would level the playing field for recruits from varied financial backgrounds, and allow recruits to make more informed decisions before committing. As it is right now, nobody really uses their official visits for what they're intended for. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 14, 2017 16:37:30 GMT -5
Too late, and the pool of sellers and buyers shrinks so much that they end up with less-attractive options. I disagree because I think this premise is simply false. The options will likely be different a year (or two) later, but sometimes they're better, sometimes they're worse. Even at the highest end of Division I there are SOOO many transfers that if a kid really is good enough to play in the Big Ten or Pac-12, there will still be scholarships open for them in the spring of their senior year. If Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn St, etc can bring in transfers in January, they also have the capability to bring on an unsigned senior. Sure, if a recruit is good enough, there will be a place for her to play -- somewhere. But I didn't say that there would be no options. I said that there would be less-attractive options. Let's say that as a 15-yr-old she had offers from Texas, Penn State, Washington, Nebraska, etc. If she waits until she's 17, are all those offers still going to be available? Likely not. Will *any* of those offers still be available? Maybe, or maybe not. Will there be some B1G or PAC school that has an open spot? Sure. But it might be Washington or it might be Oregon State. It might be Wisconsin or it might be Maryland. See what I'm saying? Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 14, 2017 17:04:09 GMT -5
Too late, and the pool of sellers and buyers shrinks so much that they end up with less-attractive options. I disagree because I think this premise is simply false. The options will likely be different a year (or two) later, but sometimes they're better, sometimes they're worse. Even at the highest end of Division I there are SOOO many transfers that if a kid really is good enough to play in the Big Ten or Pac-12, there will still be scholarships open for them in the spring of their senior year. If Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn St, etc can bring in transfers in January, they also have the capability to bring on an unsigned senior. Except that if she waits too long, unless she's an elite recruit (or "hat-picker"), she's going to age out of the "spotlight", which is on sophomores or younger. Hard to gain attention, when half of the recruiters, or more, are fixated on the 14U action. She's much more likely to end up signing with a school due to need, or walking on at a school that she wants. Transfers, by their nature, tend to cancel themselves out. They are as likely to close slots as open them. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 14, 2017 17:09:43 GMT -5
As soon as an underclassmen commit, I'm guessing they quit most of the ancillary activities they were doing just to look attractive to colleges. The 2nd sport, music lessons, volunteering, ACT/SAT prep, AP coursework likely all drop off precipitously. Ironically, most of that stuff has nothing to do with whether you will get into a selective college anyway. (Well, the academic stuff might, but if you are struggling in AP classes you would probably be better off in the non-AP classes, and if you aren't struggling then you probably won't quit them anyway.) Selective colleges aren't looking for kids who took music lessons and did two sports just to pad their applications. So it doesn't help. |
|
