|
Post by 642fiddi on Feb 17, 2017 14:51:16 GMT -5
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. Each unofficial college visit we took cost me a minimum of 1000.00 dollars. We took a lot of visits.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 17, 2017 15:47:22 GMT -5
My understanding is that the parents of Haley Warner were unwilling to pay for a visit to Washington without an offer, while Keegan Cook wasn't willing to offer without a visit. The offer that might have been Warner's went to Dani Cole instead.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Feb 17, 2017 16:46:09 GMT -5
Sarkisian did offer a 6th grader at UW some years ago... Growth spurt does matter in volleyball. It is much less a factor in softball and lacrosse, where hand-eye coordination, quickness, and general athleticism are much more important than height. The kid switched commitments a few more times before finally signing with Ohio State.
|
|
|
Post by curiousvolleyballdad on Feb 17, 2017 17:09:28 GMT -5
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. Each unofficial college visit we took cost me a minimum of 1000.00 dollars. We took a lot of visits. Ditto here. One of the visits we took cost me $1200.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Feb 18, 2017 9:42:07 GMT -5
Each unofficial college visit we took cost me a minimum of 1000.00 dollars. We took a lot of visits. Ditto here. One of the visits we took cost me $1200. That's... wow. A lot. And yet not surprising. Plane tix plus lodging plus maybe a rental car plus meals. Plus possibly care for younger siblings or pets, plus time off work for the parent... You could make it work, but what about the kids whose families really can't? More argument to at least start allowing official visits as a junior. Let kids use all 5 to make an informed decision Make the schools have some skin in the game too by having them foot the bill for kids hey are really interested in.
|
|
|
Post by curiousvolleyballdad on Feb 19, 2017 15:34:37 GMT -5
Ditto here. One of the visits we took cost me $1200. That's... wow. A lot. And yet not surprising. Plane tix plus lodging plus maybe a rental car plus meals. Plus possibly care for younger siblings or pets, plus time off work for the parent... You could make it work, but what about the kids whose families really can't? More argument to at least start allowing official visits as a junior. Let kids use all 5 to make an informed decision Make the schools have some skin in the game too by having them foot the bill for kids hey are really interested in. It wasn't about the amount of money spent it was about the correct decision being made not on what is heard but what you see for yourself.
With that said I will go out on a limb and say Schools should pay for visits at ANY age. If the athlete is able to commit than the school should be able to foot the bill. Again it would stop all of this early recruiting and undo pressure on the young athletes.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Feb 19, 2017 17:04:24 GMT -5
That's... wow. A lot. And yet not surprising. Plane tix plus lodging plus maybe a rental car plus meals. Plus possibly care for younger siblings or pets, plus time off work for the parent... You could make it work, but what about the kids whose families really can't? More argument to at least start allowing official visits as a junior. Let kids use all 5 to make an informed decision Make the schools have some skin in the game too by having them foot the bill for kids hey are really interested in. It wasn't about the amount of money spent it was about the correct decision being made not on what is heard but what you see for yourself.
With that said I will go out on a limb and say Schools should pay for visits at ANY age. If the athlete is able to commit than the school should be able to foot the bill. Again it would stop all of this early recruiting and undo pressure on the young athletes.
Absolutely. That sort of due diligence is necessary to make sure that the correct decision is made. My point is that your family had the means to help your daughter do her due diligence with a national recruitment, but other players' families may not. Which is why I agree with you that official visits should be made available earlier, to allow all players to make as informed a decision as your daughter did.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 19, 2017 17:46:48 GMT -5
With that said I will go out on a limb and say Schools should pay for visits at ANY age. If the athlete is able to commit than the school should be able to foot the bill. Again it would stop all of this early recruiting and undo pressure on the young athletes. They could allow each school to pay for a certain number of "invitees" to visit per sport per year (two?), prior to their senior year. Right now, I'd guess most recruits are committed long before they have a chance to make a single official visit. Remember also that a lot of recruits' parents are also paying for their dear child to go to camps.
|
|
|
Post by Sorry Ass Sal on Feb 19, 2017 17:55:43 GMT -5
Shaffmaster looked really good today. So does she take an official visit to Minnesota her senior year?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbuff on Apr 17, 2017 0:14:38 GMT -5
As a big Colorado Buffalo fan in all sports, just saw in a thread of the lacrosse forum I visit (http://network.laxpower.com/laxforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=61768&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) that, FOR LACROSSE, NCAA Council Proposal 2016-26 just passed. Their coaches association supported the proposal, which per their announcement at www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=52314 , is effective immediately. Per grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/sasu/genrel/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/ncaa_council_positions_feb_17.pdf , this proposal is - " In lacrosse, to specify that: (1) off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school and that contacts that occur during a prospective student-athlete's junior year may occur only at the prospective student-athlete's educational institution or residence; (2) telephone calls may not be received from an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school; and (3) an unofficial visit with athletics department involvement shall not occur with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school. " Would assume that, if the volleyball coaches are really for it, they could get something similar done, and you'd think the NCAA would WANT some consistency. (From QUICKLY scanning the 1st link above, The only proposal I could see related to women's volleyball recruiting, 2016-40, looks to allow an earlier official visit. (No idea if it passed, is under consideration, or was turned down?) It simply says- "In women's volleyball, to permit an institution to provide an expense-paid visit to a prospective student-athlete on or after January 1 of her junior year in high school.")
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 17, 2017 8:03:21 GMT -5
As a big Colorado Buffalo fan in all sports, just saw in a thread of the lacrosse forum I visit (http://network.laxpower.com/laxforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=61768&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) that, FOR LACROSSE, NCAA Council Proposal 2016-26 just passed. Their coaches association supported the proposal, which per their announcement at www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=52314 , is effective immediately. Per grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/sasu/genrel/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/ncaa_council_positions_feb_17.pdf , this proposal is - " In lacrosse, to specify that: (1) off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school and that contacts that occur during a prospective student-athlete's junior year may occur only at the prospective student-athlete's educational institution or residence; (2) telephone calls may not be received from an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school; and (3) an unofficial visit with athletics department involvement shall not occur with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school. " Would assume that, if the volleyball coaches are really for it, they could get something similar done, and you'd think the NCAA would WANT some consistency. (From QUICKLY scanning the 1st link above, The only proposal I could see related to women's volleyball recruiting, 2016-40, looks to allow an earlier official visit. (No idea if it passed, is under consideration, or was turned down?) It simply says- "In women's volleyball, to permit an institution to provide an expense-paid visit to a prospective student-athlete on or after January 1 of her junior year in high school.") It might be wise to see how this plays out for lacrosse. Let them be the test case then decide for our sport in a couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Apr 17, 2017 8:38:47 GMT -5
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. actually for us (top 10 kid) the answer was yes but it was ok. Offers in 9th grade from top programs were/are time dependent. Each came with a deadline. And when the deadline came (all but two before end of 10th grade, two said she had till fall junior year) they virtually all said the same thing. "We understand you want to wait till junior year. We will be offering your spot to our 2nd/third/4th choice for your spot (month/year most before end of 10th grade). Even if another commits know that we still want you and while we will not have a scholarship the year you graduate we will have one the following year and beyond." One school said the offer was good till end of junior year but called (the club) mid way thru 10th grade. "Our 2nd choice is ready to commit. We will need an answer earlier than we said last year. We would like to know if --- can commit to ---- by ---- (2 weeks). It all worked out. But it took a lot of faith. It took the mindset of "if we have to pay for year one in order to do what we believe is the right thing to do then we are willing to do it". We could afford to. Some can't. That is great resolve by you, your DD and your family. I'm sure that had to be tough. This example is exactly what's wrong with the system. This is a Top 10 kid. Fall outside the Top 50 and this dynamic changes drastically and fear of being left on the outside looking in becomes the main motivator. And from the coaches side, I can't believe any of them enjoy the early, early recruiting. It has to be near impossible (outside of the super freaks) to project 5 yr progression of a 13-14 year old. And it's down right creepy, which I'm sure about 95% of the college coaches are uncomfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 17, 2017 8:53:51 GMT -5
That is great resolve by you, your DD and your family. I'm sure that had to be tough. This example is exactly what's wrong with the system. This is a Top 10 kid. Fall outside the Top 50 and this dynamic changes drastically and fear of being left on the outside looking in becomes the main motivator. And from the coaches side, I can't believe any of them enjoy the early, early recruiting. It has to be near impossible (outside of the super freaks) to project 5 yr progression of a 13-14 year old. And it's down right creepy, which I'm sure about 95% of the college coaches are uncomfortable with. Yes and no. Making decision about those kids is miserable. However, getting to know a kid for a full year before offering them is huge and that's what this lacrosse legislation is taking away. September 1st will hit, and the coaches will call and offer scholarships (with deadlines) without ever having talked to the kids before. They'll actually probably offer those scholarships through the club coach before that. Then kids will be on a clock to make decisions knowing less about the school and staff plus the coaches will know less about the kids. I'm not denying that everybody would be happier if kids could make later decisions. However, I'm have concerns that the problems this creates could be worse.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Apr 17, 2017 10:50:44 GMT -5
I agree Noob. Player personality fit, etc is also something that needs to be evaluated. I think outside of the super freaks the young recruiting will take care of itself as more mistakes are made and progressions continue to come up short or explode over a 5 year period. Too your point, I'm not sure any additional rules will make the situation better. Maybe a tweek of the paid visit rules and a continued deterioration of the "commitment" will slide the real recruiting back to the 16 & 17 yr old time frame. I'm firmly in your camp regarding more rules. It will probably just make it worse. From my seats, I only see top 50-75 type players being aggressively recruited early and most of those result in mistakes on one side or the other. Erasing the taboo of a decommitment by either side will quickly correct those. I realize that would come with another set of problems.
|
|