|
Post by vbfamily on Feb 14, 2017 17:13:59 GMT -5
It truly depends on the position no matter how elite. If you are elite and very versatile you will still have great and often original options with a scholarship one to two years later. However setters/liberos on scholarship it is tougher. These position are not recruited in each class (certainly not liberos on money). In a setting position, coaches can't wait to "save" the scholarship for you to decide. The setting scholarship will not be the last scholarship they have remaining unless something unexpected happened with their roster. For example transfer/injury/decommitment...that position is too important!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 14, 2017 17:25:08 GMT -5
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. At nearly every tournament, the 14s through 18s are all in the same gym. Recruiters do this for a living. If there is an unsigned senior that is going to help your team win more matches, they'll know who you are and see you play. It doesn't matter where the "spotlight" is.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 14, 2017 17:29:56 GMT -5
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? I disagree that we should base any rules on a scenario that applies to a kid who has offers from Texas, Penn State, Washington and Nebraska as a 15-year-old. More realistically, say Suzie has a 30 offers from 100-200 RPI teams in the middle of her sophomore year. She doesn't want to commit until her senior year. At that point I think most of those 30 offers will be gone. Instead she'll have a handful of offers from 100-200 teams, some lower level teams, PLUS some teams at a higher level because they have an emergency opening. Waiting will mean your offers will be different. Some will be at a lower level, but I think some will be at a higher level as well.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 14, 2017 17:39:00 GMT -5
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? I disagree that we should base any rules on a scenario that applies to a kid who has offers from Texas, Penn State, Washington and Nebraska as a 15-year-old. More realistically, say Suzie has a 30 offers from 100-200 RPI teams in the middle of her sophomore year. She doesn't want to commit until her senior year. At that point I think most of those 30 offers will be gone. Instead she'll have a handful of offers from 100-200 teams, some lower level teams, PLUS some teams at a higher level because they have an emergency opening. Waiting will mean your offers will be different. Some will be at a lower level, but I think some will be at a higher level as well. This appears to be completely compatible with what I originally posted, so I'll agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 14, 2017 17:46:32 GMT -5
I disagree that we should base any rules on a scenario that applies to a kid who has offers from Texas, Penn State, Washington and Nebraska as a 15-year-old. More realistically, say Suzie has a 30 offers from 100-200 RPI teams in the middle of her sophomore year. She doesn't want to commit until her senior year. At that point I think most of those 30 offers will be gone. Instead she'll have a handful of offers from 100-200 teams, some lower level teams, PLUS some teams at a higher level because they have an emergency opening. Waiting will mean your offers will be different. Some will be at a lower level, but I think some will be at a higher level as well. This appears to be completely compatible with what I originally posted, so I'll agree with it. Yeah pretty close. The only part that I mildly disagree with is that for the average Division I recruit, you undersold the possibility of actually ending up a program better than the level they were getting recruited at as a sophomore.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 14, 2017 17:58:45 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is arguing that, if a prospect doesn't commit early, there won't be any offers available later. The question is whether delaying commitment, for non-elite athletes, generally pays or not (results in better or worse offers). Clearly there are risks either way. The old adage about a bird in hand vs birds in bushes still applies. Since there is no bar on switching later, committing early, but keeping an eye out in case a better opportunity comes along, is likely to be the smarter choice.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Feb 15, 2017 15:00:52 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. They have the ability to, but are there unsigned seniors good enough to go to those schools...my guess is they are extremely rare.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 15, 2017 15:12:49 GMT -5
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. They have the ability to, but are there unsigned seniors good enough to go to those schools...my guess is they are extremely rare. Right, but that's the premise of this conversation. If an elite kid doesn't want to commit early, is she penalized for that? I think the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by curiousvolleyballdad on Feb 15, 2017 16:52:25 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. And the colleges make out this way. For the other sports athletes usually make that official visit with their families on the colleges dime. Allow for earlier official visits and it will kill the early commitment argument. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 15, 2017 17:26:01 GMT -5
They have the ability to, but are there unsigned seniors good enough to go to those schools...my guess is they are extremely rare. Right, but that's the premise of this conversation. If an elite kid doesn't want to commit early, is she penalized for that? I think the answer is no. Elite athletes are exactly the exceptions who can afford to wait (and pick a hat). Coaches will hold a slot for them if they think they have a chance. As far as I know, UW is still holding onto a 2018 scholie, in case a certain middle blocker doesn't go to Stanford. It is non-elite athletes who need to think long and hard before turning down an early offer from a quality school. Melanie Wade had to walk on at Washington, after not getting an offer from Stanford. I'm sure she could have found a scholarship somewhere, but apparently not to a school she wanted to go to.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Feb 16, 2017 11:19:12 GMT -5
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? Let's not forget the fact that unless you're in that top 5-10% who can make the coaches wait on you to decide, all the others are hearing offers with the comma followed by: now I need to know soon because we have offered another the same, so whoever accepts first...OR on the visit: you are here but someone else is coming next weekend. If you accept before she gets here, we will call and tell her not to visit. It's up to you. This is so common. The pressure games are real. I think this is the reason behind so many transfers or decommits. They jump so they don't get beat to it. But at what price for the athlete and or the program?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 16, 2017 11:30:28 GMT -5
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? Let's not forget the fact that unless you're in that top 5-10% who can make the coaches wait on you to decide, all the others are hearing offers with the comma followed by: now I need to know soon because we have offered another the same, so whoever accepts first...OR on the visit: you are here but someone else is coming next weekend. If you accept before she gets here, we will call and tell her not to visit. It's up to you. This is so common. The pressure games are real. I think this is the reason behind so many transfers or decommits. They jump so they don't get beat to it. But at what price for the athlete and or the program? Right. And hopefully people start to realize more and more that it's ok to just say no. More opportunities will become available. Even for those not in the top 5-10%. If you aren't ready, then don't commit.
|
|
|
Post by curiousvolleyballdad on Feb 16, 2017 12:11:06 GMT -5
Let's not forget the fact that unless you're in that top 5-10% who can make the coaches wait on you to decide, all the others are hearing offers with the comma followed by: now I need to know soon because we have offered another the same, so whoever accepts first...OR on the visit: you are here but someone else is coming next weekend. If you accept before she gets here, we will call and tell her not to visit. It's up to you. This is so common. The pressure games are real. I think this is the reason behind so many transfers or decommits. They jump so they don't get beat to it. But at what price for the athlete and or the program? Right. And hopefully people start to realize more and more that it's ok to just say no. More opportunities will become available. Even for those not in the top 5-10%. If you aren't ready, then don't commit. That's easier said than done. I said that exact same thing to my DD but with all of the pressure from peers and coaches it is hard to hold off on those commits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 13:44:57 GMT -5
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? I disagree that we should base any rules on a scenario that applies to a kid who has offers from Texas, Penn State, Washington and Nebraska as a 15-year-old. More realistically, say Suzie has a 30 offers from 100-200 RPI teams in the middle of her sophomore year. She doesn't want to commit until her senior year. At that point I think most of those 30 offers will be gone. Instead she'll have a handful of offers from 100-200 teams, some lower level teams, PLUS some teams at a higher level because they have an emergency opening. Waiting will mean your offers will be different. Some will be at a lower level, but I think some will be at a higher level as well. I agree that scenario could happen, and maybe often does happen. However, the risk to the kid is enormous hoping for a higher level team comes calling after they all passed on the kid to start with, and only now are interested in the kid as a senior because they have an emergency opening. If the kid is a late bloomer physically or skill wise, then it may work to her advantage. But odds of the emergency opening kid that is added her senior year of actually playing at the higher level is low. By the middle of a kid's junior club season, 17s typically, if they haven't found a chair at the higher level school they likely wont find one with money attached to it anyway. There are always programs looking to add the walk on to provide depth later in the process. Those tend to be in state kids to that will pay in state tuition and gives a local club some love as well. Nothing to lose for the higher level program to take a walk on. That's how these rosters approach 20 at some schools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 13:50:47 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is arguing that, if a prospect doesn't commit early, there won't be any offers available later. The question is whether delaying commitment, for non-elite athletes, generally pays or not (results in better or worse offers). Clearly there are risks either way. The old adage about a bird in hand vs birds in bushes still applies. Since there is no bar on switching later, committing early, but keeping an eye out in case a better opportunity comes along, is likely to be the smarter choice. agree. Plus, if the higher level program truly has an emergency opening, they will talk to club directors that have kids they are interested in regardless if that kid has a verbal commitment or not. The old, "is Suzy happy with her commitment?" Same tactic some coaches use to go after transfers. Optimal time, IMHO, where a recruit will be in position to hold multiple offers on her timeline is during her 16s club season or sophomore club year. Most schools will allow the kid to make visits during/after club season and would be patient until the end of summer for a commitment before pulling the offer and moving to another kid. One that they've been recruiting but have yet to offer. The "top 3 on the board" scenario.
|
|