|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 21, 2018 11:54:18 GMT -5
80% of Div 1 softball coaches voted in favor of adopting the current Lacrosse recruiting rules, which sets "September 1 of junior year as the start date for all recruiting contact: unofficial visits, correspondence, telephone calls, and recruiting conversations at camps and clinics". NCAA Division I Coaches Take a Stand Against Early RecruitingThis tells me that most coaches feel trapped into recruiting the "kiddie court" and desperately want a Get Out of Jail card. That's nice. Now tell me what many coaches are doing/would do to circumvent any such restriction. Because many will. Because where there is will (to gain a competitive advantage), there's a way. As it is, coaches cultivate relationships with club coaches and use their summer camps as recruiting grounds, as ways of creating ties which may or may not bind. But they're hoping. None of this is to say that some rules, if adopted, wouldn't help to curb abuses, however one defines them. But if the coaching world hears of some 8th grader who touches 9'6" and is super coordinated to boot, you know someone will find some way to start the recruiting process going. It isn't like these girls are in a harem protected by a squadron of NCAA eunuchs. Is this really a problem? Yes, recruitment of 8th graders happens. But how many 8th graders are that tall, that good, that young? And that interested? It's the rare girl who commits, verbally, that early. But when it happens, the board predictably goes into a tizzy. Yes, much more of an issue in sports like softball and lacrosse, where hand/eye coordination, reaction time, speed, etc., are more important than the post-pubertal growth spurt. I was 6-2 when I was 14 - thought I was heading for the NBA! Guess how tall I am now? 6-2. The no-contact rules are in effect now for men's and women's lacrosse, so we should start to see how it is working over the next couple of years. It is, in essence, an honor system. The junior high school I went to had an honor system. There were no locks on the lockers. It actually worked. Another question is: Whose interest will the club directors/coaches be serving, the athlete's or the recruiter's? Can they be honest brokers? So what happens if young recruits start tweeting that they've committed to Moo State? Won't that put the spotlight on the cheater? That alone can be a powerful deterrent. Yes the coach can still tell her, through her club coach, to not announce it (a silent verbal). But if she can't announce it, is she really committed? If he breaks the rule and contacts her, can she trust him? On the other hand, if she can't directly meet and talk with the coach, how personal will their relationship be? That's partly what keeps commits faithful, a personal bond with the coach. That it's a bond between a 40-ish and, in most cases, male coach and a 14-year-old girl should, of course, cause a pause. They can still scout her, attend her matches, etc. She'll still be hit by an avalanche of recruiting interest, if worthy of it, starting Sept. 1 of her junior year...
|
|
|
Post by americasgame on Jan 21, 2018 15:24:32 GMT -5
So what happens when the 8th grade commit (or sophomore commit for that matter) doesn't work out? What tactics do coaches use to get out of those commitments? Conversely, what do players who commit early and then blossom into a big-time player do to get out of their verbals? If it is an unwritten rule that everyone sticks to verbals, why do schools recruit kids who have decommitted previously and why would anyone ever want to play for a coach who reneged?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 21, 2018 16:37:52 GMT -5
So what happens when the 8th grade commit (or sophomore commit for that matter) doesn't work out? What tactics do coaches use to get out of those commitments? Conversely, what do players who commit early and then blossom into a big-time player do to get out of their verbals? If it is an unwritten rule that everyone sticks to verbals, why do schools recruit kids who have decommitted previously and why would anyone ever want to play for a coach who reneged? Under the proposals being considered, coaches will still be able to pull their offer to a commit that does not pan out. Recruits will still be able to switch their commitment up until signing an NLI. The coach who won the national championship last year is a reneger...
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Jan 21, 2018 16:57:10 GMT -5
So what happens when the 8th grade commit (or sophomore commit for that matter) doesn't work out? What tactics do coaches use to get out of those commitments? Conversely, what do players who commit early and then blossom into a big-time player do to get out of their verbals? If it is an unwritten rule that everyone sticks to verbals, why do schools recruit kids who have decommitted previously and why would anyone ever want to play for a coach who reneged? Under the proposals being considered, coaches will still be able to pull their offer to a commit that does not pan out. Recruits will still be able to switch their commitment up until signing an NLI. The coach who won the national championship last year is a reneger... What proposals would change anything happening now? Kids change their minds and coaches pull back offers prior to signing day all the time.
|
|
|
Post by americasgame on Jan 21, 2018 18:17:28 GMT -5
Under the proposals being considered, coaches will still be able to pull their offer to a commit that does not pan out. Recruits will still be able to switch their commitment up until signing an NLI. The coach who won the national championship last year is a reneger... What proposals would change anything happening now? Kids change their minds and coaches pull back offers prior to signing day all the time. So I guess it is wise for a kid to verbal to the best offer in hand and keep talking to schools in case something changes either way up until signing day (renege, coaching change etc.)
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Jan 21, 2018 18:52:30 GMT -5
So what happens when the 8th grade commit (or sophomore commit for that matter) doesn't work out? What tactics do coaches use to get out of those commitments? Conversely, what do players who commit early and then blossom into a big-time player do to get out of their verbals? If it is an unwritten rule that everyone sticks to verbals, why do schools recruit kids who have decommitted previously and why would anyone ever want to play for a coach who reneged? The more ethical coaches politely explain that while the player's progress is less than anticipated, the scholarship offer still stands. However, based on her likely competition on the team, it is doubtful she will see any significant playing time. If she mainly just wants to play volleyball, the coach can help try to find a lower lever team that is a better fit.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 22, 2018 2:53:18 GMT -5
What proposals would change anything happening now? Kids change their minds and coaches pull back offers prior to signing day all the time. So I guess it is wise for a kid to verbal to the best offer in hand and keep talking to schools in case something changes either way up until signing day (renege, coaching change etc.) A total ban on ALL recruiting contacts prior to Sept. 1 of Junior year would change quite a bit. Lacrosse coaches already have it, 80% of D1 softball coaches say they want it. Volleyball, in which the problem isn't as bad, might get the less extreme SAEC proposal: * Unofficial visits to start first day of the PSA's Sophomore year. They can visit the campus earlier, but can't meet with the coach, staff, or team. * Recruiting conversations at camps and clinics not allowed until first day of the PSA's Sophomore year. * Official visits to start first day of the PSA's Junior year. * While other recruiting contacts are banned until first day of the PSA's Sophomore year, PSA-initiated telephone calls are not (called a "loophole" by some). fastpitchnews.com/college-softball-news/ncaa-division-coaches-take-stand-early-recruiting/349634
|
|
|
Post by jma1968 on Jan 22, 2018 10:06:32 GMT -5
2 quick questions:
1. Is it still Sept 1, Junior year? A parent was trying to tell me it was now (or soon will be) Jan 1, Junior year. 2. How would things change if scholarships were 4 year commitments, instead of 1?
|
|
|
Post by dgo on Jan 22, 2018 10:53:26 GMT -5
I think the only way there will be a change in early recruiting is if there is a real and meaningful downside for the coaches. As it currently stands, it seems to me that it is pretty much all upside. If an early commit develops as hoped, the coach has got a superstar. If she tops out sophomore year of high school, the coach can cut ties (either by rescinding the offer or by "encouraging" her to find a more appropriate program).
I think one way to do this would be to bind the school as soon as a kid commits. If you want to get really serious about it, you could determine the length of time that the school would be bound by the timing of the commitment. If an athlete is offered/commits before freshman year, the school is stuck with that scholarship for four years. If freshman year - three years; sophomore year - two years; junior year or later - one year. If a coach is going to offer young, he or she better be right about the kid. If not, there will be lasting consequences for the coach and the program. An important element of this would be to figure out some way to still have the program be accountable for the early offer if a kid transfers. If the coach can get off the hook by pressuring an athlete transfer, this would accomplish nothing. But if a coach who made a couple bad calls on early recruiting finds him/herself with only 10 scholarship players on roster because of those mistakes...
Note that this is only if there is a need to change the early recruiting. I'm not 100% convinced there is a need. In the absence of any meaningful changes, I'd like to see official visits allowed after completing sophomore year, but I suspect that there's no chance that will ever happen because the schools are very happy to have families footing the bill for all the visits.
|
|
|
Post by skiumahgopher on Jan 22, 2018 11:24:05 GMT -5
Why is volleyball different from football or basketball in terms of kids sticking to verbal commitments? Do volleyball coaches stop recruiting kids who have announced a verbal commitment? In football for example, many kids won't even get a look from a B1G unless they have several MAC or similar offers first. Many times these kids commit early and have big senior years and change their commitments close to signing day, so obviously they are still being recruited up until the last minute. I know in hockey there is a "gentlemen's agreement" not to recruit after a verbal is given. In football, Bobby Bowden once said that he loved when someone verballed early to another school, because then he knew who the oppositions was.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 22, 2018 13:59:45 GMT -5
What proposals would change anything happening now? Kids change their minds and coaches pull back offers prior to signing day all the time. So I guess it is wise for a kid to verbal to the best offer in hand and keep talking to schools in case something changes either way up until signing day (renege, coaching change etc.) Football and men's basketball prospects have certainly figured that out (it is called a "soft verbal"). Women sports prospects are more likely to have a stronger sense of loyalty and feel ethically obligated to keep their word, I presume.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 22, 2018 14:07:15 GMT -5
I think the only way there will be a change in early recruiting is if there is a real and meaningful downside for the coaches. As it currently stands, it seems to me that it is pretty much all upside. If an early commit develops as hoped, the coach has got a superstar. If she tops out sophomore year of high school, the coach can cut ties (either by rescinding the offer or by "encouraging" her to find a more appropriate program). I think one way to do this would be to bind the school as soon as a kid commits. If you want to get really serious about it, you could determine the length of time that the school would be bound by the timing of the commitment. If an athlete is offered/commits before freshman year, the school is stuck with that scholarship for four years. If freshman year - three years; sophomore year - two years; junior year or later - one year. If a coach is going to offer young, he or she better be right about the kid. If not, there will be lasting consequences for the coach and the program. An important element of this would be to figure out some way to still have the program be accountable for the early offer if a kid transfers. If the coach can get off the hook by pressuring an athlete transfer, this would accomplish nothing. But if a coach who made a couple bad calls on early recruiting finds him/herself with only 10 scholarship players on roster because of those mistakes... Note that this is only if there is a need to change the early recruiting. I'm not 100% convinced there is a need. In the absence of any meaningful changes, I'd like to see official visits allowed after completing sophomore year, but I suspect that there's no chance that will ever happen because the schools are very happy to have families footing the bill for all the visits. The other issue is that the power/prestige schools for volleyball (who are the ones recruiting/committing earliest) are also coming to realize that they have equal access to players on the "secondary market." It should be there would be downside for locking up all your scholarships in 8th/9th grade because some players would blossom later and end up at a competitor. However, if all of your peers are doing the same those players are ending up at lower level schools/conferences - and ripe for the picking once they've proven themselves at the NCAA level and everyone understands them wanting to compete at the highest levels. It's taking away the moral hazard of not allocating your scholarships too early and will get worse if permitted intraconference transfers become the norm - not only do the midmajors need to worry about the great late bloomer they picked up, but also the Oregon St.'s and the Indianas and Texas Techs of the world.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 22, 2018 14:43:46 GMT -5
Early offers/commits necessarily create uncertainty over whether future roster needs will be met and gaps filled. For the strong, the answer is simple - steal what you need from the weaker. Intra-conference rules, as they are, at least hamper them from stealing from their own family (other, but lesser, conference members).
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Jan 22, 2018 15:02:03 GMT -5
It’s like the arms race. If you don’t keep up you get left behind. It’s incredibly tough on coaching staffs because now you have to recruit 5 classes
|
|
scvb
High School
Posts: 10
|
Post by scvb on Jan 22, 2018 16:51:12 GMT -5
I am a parent of a (summer of 9th grade going into 10th) verbal scholarship commit. Here’s why we allowed our daughter to commit at that age: after her unofficial visit and camp, she said she felt like she was “home,” even though it was not a school on her original list. She had other schools knocking on the door at that time, had done other unofficials and camps, so we played devil’s advocate for weeks by asking her how she would feel if this or that Really Great University came calling later. She was never even slightly deterred (even now), so from start to finish it was about four months.
The positives of making this early decision: the pressure is off for recruiting during a really important time of emotional and skills growth. She (and her coaches) believe she’s actually more able to focus on her volleyball progress rather than stressing over the process. (A process that she really, really disliked, by the way. It was aggressive and difficult because each coach had a different philosophy about early recruiting and when they might offer; but, I’m not sure it would have felt any less so the older she got as she has a gentle nature off the court.) Now, however, she’s been able to cultivate a very nice relationship with her future coach, who she actually looks forward to calling to check in with every so often.
The negatives: She’s locked in because she’s made a verbal commitment to this coach. As great as that is for the reasons above, we know it can also easily change with a coaching resignation or firing, which would mean the process could need to start all over again. So we’ve essentially closed all the doors to recruiting which we would have to figure out how to reopen, if that was the case.
Lastly, her future coach is all for restructuring the recruiting process and is working with other coaches to affect that change with the NCAA. Start all recruiting communication September 1 of Junior year. No earlier loopholes, just all lines of communication open both ways at that time. The onus is then on the coaches/their staff to locate the talent needed for their programs within a year or two, not four or five, get them on campus for a visit, so all concerned are much more confident and informed about offers and commitments.
|
|