|
Post by bigfan on Apr 18, 2018 21:04:16 GMT -5
Typical not making sense. Don't confuse me "not making sense" with you "not understanding". Typical position of the ignorant. Typical not making sense.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Apr 18, 2018 21:48:24 GMT -5
Good for a school like Nebraska who has a robust recruiting budget. Might not make a huge difference though since their recruiting pool is small.
Typical not making sense. Seems pretty straight forward. Nebraska will operate pretty much the same way, as will most schools.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Apr 18, 2018 22:28:10 GMT -5
Typical not making sense. Seems pretty straight forward. Nebraska will operate pretty much the same way, as will most schools. Most P5 schools you mean? Or maybe RPI top 75 teams?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 18, 2018 22:43:56 GMT -5
Nope - the NCAA has a specific definition as to what a PSA is. If you are not a PSA by definition, then any rule that specifically pertains to a PSA does not allpy to you. The NCAA definition of PSA is -- From NCAA -- "A prospective student-athlete is a student who has started classes for the ninth grade. In addition, a student who has not started classes for the ninth grade becomes a prospective student-athlete if the institution provides such an individual (or the individual's relatives or friends) any financial assistance or other benefits that the institution does not provide to prospective students generally." I'm pretty sure the switch from "prospective student athlete" to "individual" was intended to cover middle schoolers. From the rationale: "This proposal slows down the recruiting process and allows middle school students and freshmen in high school to focus on academics and athletics success." "Potential student-athletes" seems broader than "prospective student-athletes", but the writer is likely just fudging it. Worth seeing the new rules - if they don't redefine what a PSA is...
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Apr 19, 2018 0:26:16 GMT -5
Few Questions:
“Additionally, athletics departments can’t participate in a recruit’s unofficial visit until Sept. 1 of the recruit’s junior year in high school, and recruiting conversations during a school’s camp or clinic can’t happen before Sept. 1 of the junior year. Both rules apply to all sports but football and basketball, which have their own rules.”
So we can visit the school, just as long as the athletic department doesn’t participate. Is there a way to see the facilities as ling as the athletic department has nothing to do with it? (assuming this means any athletic staff, not just sport specific.) Can we still go into the gym as long as we talk to no one? Obviously if we’re looking at the school we’d want to see where they play. Can someone else from the university show us around?
Calls, texts and emails stay the same. Dumb question, but what’s the rules on FaceTime and Skype?
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 19, 2018 1:01:25 GMT -5
Don't confuse me "not making sense" with you "not understanding". Typical position of the ignorant. Typical not making sense.
Typical making reposts a larger font instead of actually providing real insight into the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on Apr 19, 2018 1:09:47 GMT -5
I imagine schools may put a sample "athletic facilities tour" or what it is like to be an athlete at XYZ university as an option for any student and have general students run them fairly regularly...maybe 30 min to add on to a regular school tour? Especially those campuses that really want to show their facilities off. Won't be nearly the in-depth look inside locker rooms/training room/weight room/etc that you would get on a private tour by the coaching staff, but still maybe OK. Many schools have their virtual facilities tour where you can get a better look online as well. I know many campuses you could also just walk in during regular business hours and see a court if not in use and their public hall of honors/athletic museums, etc. In addition possibly more practices/scrimmages open to the public in general during the spring?
This may be good for the fans/general public, more opportunities because they want to make sure to have opportunities for future recruits.
In regard to FaceTime and Skype...not sure what the current rules are??...It wasn't around when I coached. My kid was recruited and I think did FaceTime with a coach, but I believe it was after 9/1 of her Junior year, so that could make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Apr 19, 2018 6:49:16 GMT -5
This was on Auburn’s compliance page. Wonder if this stil applies:
Are there NCAA regulations governing the use of video-conferencing tools like "Skype" and "Face Time"? Yes. Under NCAA rules all electronically transmitted human voice exchange (including video-conferencing and videophones) shall be considered telephone calls. There are several restrictions as to when and how many telephone calls may be made by coaches. If, however, a prospective student-athlete initiates and pays the expenses of a telephone call (or video-conference), the exchange is not restricted by NCAA legislation and is not counted within the limitations on telephone calls.
|
|
|
Post by shotcaller on Apr 19, 2018 8:12:52 GMT -5
I've been vocal on another thread about this, but my opinion is that this should be looked at as two separate legislations (which it is) Proposal 2017-111 (move official visits to Sep 1 junior year) this is fantastic!!! Moves the financial burden of a visit from the family to the school. Great stuff!! Proposal 2017-112 (move unofficial visits to Sep 1 junior year) this is ridiculous!!! If a PSA wants to visit and begin the process of getting to know a coaching staff then they should be allowed to! If you want to restrict it, move this to Sept 1 of the Sophomore year, or June 15 following the sophomore year so that recruiting conversations can still happen at camps and prior to Sept 1 of Junior year. UGH...this is a mess. I agree completely. I've been a huge proponent of earlier official visits for a long time, but if a kid wants to begin their recruitment earlier, they should be able to. The SAAC had proposed prohibiting scholarship offers during freshman year of HS, and not allowing verbal commitments until Sept 1 of junior year. They also wanted a single signing period to be open from November through August of senior year - probably so that kids who make a decision can sign right away and not have to wait. So the SAAC was on something good, and it's the adults in this situation who have gone and screwed it up, what really sucks is the end product is attributed to the SAAC which gives them a bad name. This is going to have to be reviewed within 12 months. It's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by dgo on Apr 19, 2018 9:16:16 GMT -5
I see in the NCAA rules (13.6.2.6) that there are limits on the number of official visits a school can host in football (56/year), basketball (24/two years) and baseball (25/year). Nothing said about other sports. I interpret that to mean that there are no limits. Is that correct?
I think that this will be an interesting rule change. I was/am in favor of this change, but I'm interested to see how it will play out. Even though I supported this change, I think a lot of people have made some good points on why it could turn out to be problematic.
Ultimately, I think it could help both schools and athletes to have a better idea where they stand. For less well-funded schools, the offer of an official visit in the junior year will be a clear indication for an athlete that the school is very serious and the athlete is a recruiting priority. Some schools put an awful lot of pressure on an athlete to come for an unofficial visit -- or even multiple unofficial visits, and it can be hard for the athlete to know whether that is because they are a priority or whether the school is just trying to "keep them on the line" in case the priority turns them down. On the flip side, an athlete's reluctance to use one of her five officials will tell schools that maybe they should move on. It's always easy for an athlete to say, "we can't afford to visit" to avoid having to say, "you're one of 10 schools that I'm trying to keep in play...but you're pretty low on the list." If an official visit is offered and declined, the school has a better idea where it stands.
|
|
|
Post by rblackley on Apr 19, 2018 9:17:13 GMT -5
Most D1 and D2 schools like to solidify their future rosters 2 years in advance. So by the end of this summer they want 2020 done so they can move onto looking at 2021 PSA's . This is either going to go 2 ways; 1. They get more uninformed verbals in the same time frame, which result in more re-commits later. 2. There is a mad rush in now september versus the spring/summer prior which takes time away from their fall college season.
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Apr 19, 2018 10:11:34 GMT -5
I think this will benefit the big wealthy schools - the small mid-majors that do not have the big budgets benefited from the early commitment schedule because athletes were paying for their own official visits. They benefited because they would use the official visit as a "reward" (for lack of a better word) for committing and would bring them to campus during their senior year as an official welcome to the program. The smaller/poorer schools could afford to bring 2 - 4 athletes to campus and pay the expenses. That is very different than paying the expenses of your top 8 - 10 recruits for official visits.
Also, why make these rules effective immediately after final approval? Why not have an effective date of Sept 1 (or whenever) so everyone - players and coaches - can plan ahead? What about the juniors taking unofficial visits now or in the near future who are spending money they would not need to 3 months from now? Guess it is their bad luck, no need for the NCAA to consider that...
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 19, 2018 10:16:41 GMT -5
I think this will benefit the big wealthy schools - the small mid-majors that do not have the big budgets benefited from the early commitment schedule because athletes were paying for their own official visits. They benefited because they would use the official visit as a "reward" (for lack of a better word) for committing and would bring them to campus during their senior year as an official welcome to the program. The smaller/poorer schools could afford to bring 2 - 4 athletes to campus and pay the expenses. That is very different than paying the expenses of your top 8 - 10 recruits for official visits. Also, why make these rules effective immediately after final approval? Why not have an effective date of Sept 1 (or whenever) so everyone - players and coaches - can plan ahead? What about the juniors taking unofficial visits now or in the near future who are spending money they would not need to 3 months from now? Guess it is their bad luck, no need for the NCAA to consider that... We have a pretty high-level 2021 in our club right now. Probably will be good enough to play L1 somewhere in the RPI 25-50 range, maybe higher. I've been trying to tell her and the parents about how this is going to change her recruitment but I'm not sure they really got the message. She's only taken a couple visits, all locally. Her recruiting process is going to be completely jacked moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Apr 19, 2018 11:04:10 GMT -5
Changes to the recruiting calendar? Heard that the January quiet period is going to start excluding MLK weekend from the recruiting period... that true?
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 19, 2018 11:21:50 GMT -5
Seems pretty straight forward. Nebraska will operate pretty much the same way, as will most schools. Most P5 schools you mean? Or maybe RPI top 75 teams? Most P5 schools.
|
|