|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Apr 20, 2018 10:33:21 GMT -5
sounds like some coaches weren't even smart enough to hide the cash in duffel bags. It seems more like they were just standing on a roof top throwing money into the air
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Apr 20, 2018 11:02:18 GMT -5
sounds like some coaches weren't even smart enough to hide the cash in duffel bags. It seems more like they were just standing on a roof top throwing money into the air You are thinking of college basketball.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 20, 2018 11:29:00 GMT -5
If it's a rule to do something explicitly not recognized by the NCAA, I'm sure not gonna find it there. Then... those aren’t rules.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 20, 2018 11:47:26 GMT -5
If it’s legislated by the NCAA it’s a rule.. and it’s written...
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 20, 2018 12:14:13 GMT -5
There are plenty of coaches who don't follow the actual rules now. What makes you think they'll follow these new ones? Especially when the new ones are incredibly easy to circumvent and the recruits and their families play a significant role in accelerating the recruiting process. You want to "fix" early recruiting (which I'm not convinced is a problem)? Allow PSAs to sign multi-year grant-in-aids at any time beginning freshman year. GIAs are binding only for the school- the recruit is still free to look elsewhere and could sign with multiple schools. If a coach offers a freshman, that kid can come right back and say, "sign on the dotted line and commit to me for the next eight years while I can keep looking around." That'd stop some coaches dead in their tracks. I have no problem with the multi-year grant-in-aid happening at the time of a verbal commit, but I think it should should junior year, after an athlete can meet with the coach. I have a really hard time putting much faith in anything said by somebody who has knowledge of lacrosse, softball and where volleyball is quickly headed and can say you are not convinced there is a problem with early recruiting. There is a huge disconnect somewhere. I have at no time heard an argument from anybody in the least bit convincing that a verbal commit to Nebraska is healthier and better for the kid in 8th grade than it is for the kid as a junior. Will schools "cheat"? Of course, but a private verbal with a coach in 8th grade that violates the rules means the kid has 3 more years to change their mind with no repercussions. They can still talk to other coaches or not, learn more about other potential schools or not, but nobody will think less of them for changing their mind in those 3 years. Certainly not the coach who would be admitting to cheating if they said anything. Currently a kid is no longer recruited once they verbal, and reneging carries a social stigma that is very significant to them. 1. If you think there aren't volleyball coaches who recruit kids committed to other schools, you're not paying attention. People do it now, and they were doing it 10 years ago. The NCAA doesn't care about it- they barely care when coaches recruit players enrolled at other colleges.2. Outside of the financial benefits for some families not having to pay for visits (which I agree are significant), I'm having a hard time figuring out how this helps the athletes. The top kids will still visit schools on their own dime and will still commit as freshmen and sophomores. There's nothing in the new volleyball rules which prevents coaches from making offers to 8th, 9th, or 10th graders and there's nothing stopping those kids from publicly committing. September 1 is going to be absolutely out of control for 80% of the DI recruits. Every school interested in them will be pressuring them to visit immediately and there are going to be hundreds of kids who get incredibly short deadlines to make decisions. I'm talking 48 hours. How is that better for anyone? 3. I don't think early recruiting is as big a deal as others do. I feel like I have some insight, as I've stood court side at 14s matches and passed business cards to coaches working with 8th graders. I've been on staffs where we offered freshmen. Even so, we're talking about a relatively small percentage of DI recruits and a tiny percentage of all future college players. Ultimately, if an athlete wants to commit to a university as a 15 year old, why should the NCAA stand in the way of them acquiring the best possible picture of the university and program they want to be a part of?
|
|
|
Post by Northern lights on Apr 20, 2018 23:17:56 GMT -5
I have no problem with the multi-year grant-in-aid happening at the time of a verbal commit, but I think it should should junior year, after an athlete can meet with the coach. I have a really hard time putting much faith in anything said by somebody who has knowledge of lacrosse, softball and where volleyball is quickly headed and can say you are not convinced there is a problem with early recruiting. There is a huge disconnect somewhere. I have at no time heard an argument from anybody in the least bit convincing that a verbal commit to Nebraska is healthier and better for the kid in 8th grade than it is for the kid as a junior. Will schools "cheat"? Of course, but a private verbal with a coach in 8th grade that violates the rules means the kid has 3 more years to change their mind with no repercussions. They can still talk to other coaches or not, learn more about other potential schools or not, but nobody will think less of them for changing their mind in those 3 years. Certainly not the coach who would be admitting to cheating if they said anything. Currently a kid is no longer recruited once they verbal, and reneging carries a social stigma that is very significant to them. 1. If you think there aren't volleyball coaches who recruit kids committed to other schools, you're not paying attention. People do it now, and they were doing it 10 years ago. The NCAA doesn't care about it- they barely care when coaches recruit players enrolled at other colleges.2. Outside of the financial benefits for some families not having to pay for visits (which I agree are significant), I'm having a hard time figuring out how this helps the athletes. The top kids will still visit schools on their own dime and will still commit as freshmen and sophomores. There's nothing in the new volleyball rules which prevents coaches from making offers to 8th, 9th, or 10th graders and there's nothing stopping those kids from publicly committing. September 1 is going to be absolutely out of control for 80% of the DI recruits. Every school interested in them will be pressuring them to visit immediately and there are going to be hundreds of kids who get incredibly short deadlines to make decisions. I'm talking 48 hours. How is that better for anyone? commitments at the sophomore season. 3. I don't think early recruiting is as big a deal as others do. I feel like I have some insight, as I've stood court side at 14s matches and passed business cards to coaches working with 8th graders. I've been on staffs where we offered freshmen. Even so, we're talking about a relatively small percentage of DI recruits and a tiny percentage of all future college players. Ultimately, if an athlete wants to commit to a university as a 15 year old, why should the NCAA stand in the way of them acquiring the best possible picture of the university and program they want to be a part of? Your opinions are well formed. I have to disagree on the number of freshman being recruited, at least in the BIG and for the most part all of the Power 5 schools. The top kids are being chased as freshman and committing as sophomores. With many even earlier commitments. I just do not think a kid makes the best decision at that age, so it really becomes the kids and her parents decision, which can lead to later regrets. I also agree that this does nothing to address the problem though. It sucks for Coaches because now you have to recruit a kid from grade 9 in High School, all the way until that kids Senior season in College because of the trending free agency.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 21, 2018 8:08:52 GMT -5
First of all, a 15 year old CANNOT commit to a university, so you are already warping things and blurring lines for young minds that don't understand. I've also stood on plenty of 14u sidelines and received those cards (from our coach) from schools my daughter has never heard of in places she has never heard of. I may be warped since half the kids on our team got at least one of those, and 2 or 3 got a whole lot more. Serious question, do you honestly think you get as good a read on a girl in 8th grade, physically, intellectually and emotionally as you do in 11th grade? Also, if the recruiting field was level, what is the disadvantage in delaying the start of the process so that the top girls are contacted in 10th grade instead of 8th, and offered in 11th instead of 9th? I'm asking you as a coach because as a parent I can tell you there is a world of difference that I think is completely lost on younger coaches or coaches who do not have kids (Yet?) who ever went through the process. We can play semantics on what constitutes a "commitment" in college athletics, but the reality is a verbal is almost always final. I don't have exact numbers, but based on my experience, I'd say at least 85% of volleyball verbal commitments result in the athlete actually enrolling at that university. It may be higher, but I haven't seen anyone put together the data. To answer your question, I don't believe the read you get on an 8th grader is as good as the one you'll get as an 11th grader. The truly elite kids (top 10-20 senior aces) are pretty obviously elite as 8th and 9th graders, but that's a tiny percentage. It's always better to see how a recruit develops physically and, more importantly, emotionally. We have 20 year-olds who don't know who they are- how is a 13 year-old supposed to know? I know the recruiting process is confusing and stressful for families, but it's important to note that the player/family/club is driving a lot of this, too. The top players will be contacted young no matter what. The top WLAX and softball players are still going to get offers before junior year and the top volleyball players will, too. The difference is whether you'd like to put control of the process in the hands of the families and athletes or in the hands of club coaches and other intermediaries. At least now, the process is somewhat transparent.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 21, 2018 8:11:07 GMT -5
Your opinions are well formed. I have to disagree on the number of freshman being recruited, at least in the BIG and for the most part all of the Power 5 schools. The top kids are being chased as freshman and committing as sophomores. With many even earlier commitments. I just do not think a kid makes the best decision at that age, so it really becomes the kids and her parents decision, which can lead to later regrets. I also agree that this does nothing to address the problem though. It sucks for Coaches because now you have to recruit a kid from grade 9 in High School, all the way until that kids Senior season in College because of the trending free agency. There's a big difference between the number of kids who are getting evaluated/contacted as freshmen and the ones who are getting offered. An order of magnitude, probably.
|
|
|
Post by Northern lights on Apr 22, 2018 10:01:07 GMT -5
I have a question about NCAA rules regarding academic probation. If a player is suspended for academic reasons, can that player transfer in the off season to a new team and be able to play right away? A good example would be the middle from Texas who had to sit out 2016. Could she have transferred without restriction? I can never spell her name right without looking it up. Edit - Chiaka Ogbogu.
I know this is a recruiting thread but did not want to start an entire thread for a single question.
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Apr 22, 2018 11:47:15 GMT -5
Short answer is "no"...New school will send paperwork to old school regarding the transfer. One of the questions on that paperwork as if the athlete was eligible to participate at the time of transfer. If the answer to the question is"no", then they remain ineligible at new school. Ineligibility can be the result of NCAA roles or school policy - either way, I'd not eligible at old school, athlete will remain ineligible at new school until punishment is served (time) or grades are improved, or whatever....
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 22, 2018 13:38:49 GMT -5
Agreed.. SA must be in good fiscal and academic standing at the original institution...
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Apr 23, 2018 8:28:45 GMT -5
In regards to the quiet period going to the Friday before President's Day weekend... one positive pointed out is that D1 college staff will have to be on the the road less, but can they really see the number of recruits that they need to with one less big weekend (MLK)? I know that coaches that I talk to can't keep pace at the larger tournaments (head to a court to see someone in a blowout match or that's getting a set off for rest and have to come back to that court) or have to lose some of their time by watching a recruit just to placate the parents/player by showing the schools continued interest. I'm not talking about the top RPI schools but how about those in the 150+ range that might have a smaller staff/travel budget.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Apr 23, 2018 8:52:56 GMT -5
In regards to the quiet period going to the Friday before President's Day weekend... one positive pointed out is that D1 college staff will have to be on the the road less, but can they really see the number of recruits that they need to with one less big weekend (MLK)? I know that coaches that I talk to can't keep pace at the larger tournaments (head to a court to see someone in a blowout match or that's getting a set off for rest and have to come back to that court) or have to lose some of their time by watching a recruit just to placate the parents/player by showing the schools continued interest. I'm not talking about the top RPI schools but how about those in the 150+ range that might have a smaller staff/travel budget. February thru April will be much more intense, that's for sure. It's not just MLK weekend that is lost, but all the power leagues, mandatories, tour of Texas dates, that are lost as well. Everything will be ramped up for those three months. And good luck getting seen if you're a 17 playing up on an 18s...
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 23, 2018 8:56:59 GMT -5
In regards to the quiet period going to the Friday before President's Day weekend... one positive pointed out is that D1 college staff will have to be on the the road less, but can they really see the number of recruits that they need to with one less big weekend (MLK)? I know that coaches that I talk to can't keep pace at the larger tournaments (head to a court to see someone in a blowout match or that's getting a set off for rest and have to come back to that court) or have to lose some of their time by watching a recruit just to placate the parents/player by showing the schools continued interest. I'm not talking about the top RPI schools but how about those in the 150+ range that might have a smaller staff/travel budget. The number of days recruiting stayed at 80. How will coaches be on the road less? The tournaments between President's Day and May 1st will now just be bigger and more frequent. If your program is unable to send multiple coaches to multiple cities on a single weekend, you're in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by donneyp on Apr 23, 2018 12:36:00 GMT -5
So is August a dead period now, or are we still waiting on that?
|
|