|
Post by n00b on Apr 16, 2019 6:12:20 GMT -5
Seems like a good spot to restate the theory behind this. The NCAA wants it to be a college search and application process - with a chance to play volleyball. Not simply a volleyball recruiting process, and by the way you can go to school too. Spend sophomore year being a normal student and make a list of schools you might want to go to. If the only schools you are considering are the schools who might offer some athletic scholarship benefit, OK fine, that can be done junior year. I've never seen that theory stated anywhere. If the NCAA is trying to pretend that it's a normal college application process, they're delusional.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 16, 2019 16:48:51 GMT -5
College Scholarships for Middle Schoolers? N.C.A.A. Plans Vote to Limit Early Recruiting nyti.ms/2VJkEWU
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 16, 2019 19:34:52 GMT -5
I actually think this is a step in the right direction. Contact after your sophomore year is reasonable. The 90% of honest coaches will probably follow this rule. If the other 10% would do the same, I think it would soften the landscape in a positive way. But they won't. Don't understand how they will prevent club coaches from forwarding emails to parents. They aren't bound to any NCAA rules. Single day camps are out of control and will only get worse. They need to figure that out. College coaches coaching club needs work. I like the restriction that they can only coach 14 and under. Private camps run by clubs need to be prohibited, not just count as an evaluation day.
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Apr 19, 2019 5:44:40 GMT -5
Vote is approaching. There’s been lots of commitment activity this week. If the vote takes affect May 1 as some say, you’ll see much more over the next 10 days.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbuff on Apr 19, 2019 12:13:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Apr 19, 2019 15:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2019 17:44:03 GMT -5
Browsing through the newly adopted rules and I'll point out the ones that are of interest... 2018-60 Permits Division I coaches to recruit and coach club at the same event 2018-93 New Recruiting Model. 2018-93-1 Amendment of 2018-93 to remove the restriction of an oral offer of aid. 2018-103 Walk-ons do not need to sit out a year if they transfer. TABLED2018-57 Allowing 8 weeks of coaching over the summer
|
|
|
Post by vballgirl88 on Apr 19, 2019 19:53:11 GMT -5
Browsing through the newly adopted rules and I'll point out the ones that are of interest... 2018-93 New Recruiting Model. 2018-93-1 Amendment of 2018-93 to remove the restriction of an oral offer of aid. Well, there you go. They amended it so the offers can still go out. 2018-93-1 states that these verbal offers can still be made. So, they might not be able to communicate with the freshmen or sophomore, but they are still going to be able to indicate that they have an offer waiting for them thanks to this amendment. So, the issue will not be solved.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2019 20:51:18 GMT -5
Well, there you go. They amended it so the offers can still go out. 2018-93-1 states that these verbal offers can still be made. So, they might not be able to communicate with the freshmen or sophomore, but they are still going to be able to indicate that they have an offer waiting for them thanks to this amendment. So, the issue will not be solved. Not true. This Q&A outlines what types of conversations can be had between a college coach and a club coach. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d1/legislation/2018-19D1GOV_Prop2018-93and2018-94FAQ.pdfThat amendment simply allows offer on June 15 instead of August 1.
|
|
|
Post by vballgirl88 on Apr 19, 2019 21:05:53 GMT -5
Well, there you go. They amended it so the offers can still go out. 2018-93-1 states that these verbal offers can still be made. So, they might not be able to communicate with the freshmen or sophomore, but they are still going to be able to indicate that they have an offer waiting for them thanks to this amendment. So, the issue will not be solved. Not true. This Q&A outlines what types of conversations can be had between a college coach and a club coach. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d1/legislation/2018-19D1GOV_Prop2018-93and2018-94FAQ.pdfThat amendment simply allows offer on June 15 instead of August 1. Does it matter that the Q&A document was written to address 2018-93. 2018-93-1 is an amendment to that proposal though. So, I am not sure that the Q&A would address that. If it was simply to move the date to June 15, why didn't they just amend it to replace August 1 with June 15? Instead, they eliminated the entire paragraph of language.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2019 21:11:19 GMT -5
Does it matter that the Q&A document was written to address 2018-93. 2018-93-1 is an amendment to that proposal though. So, I am not sure that the Q&A would address that. If it was simply to move the date to June 15, why didn't they just amend it to replace August 1 with June 15? Instead, they eliminated the entire paragraph of language. Under this proposal, coaches could NEVER make an offer through a coach. The paragraph existed because in the original proposal, coaches could talk to athletes directly on June 15th. But during that period between June 15th and August 1, coaches weren’t allowed to make offers directly to the kid. They decided that was impractical and impossible to enforce.
|
|
|
Post by vballgirl88 on Apr 20, 2019 5:12:23 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. The reason they could not go through a coach for the offer was because the original proposal said that it could not happen "directly or indirectly". The indirectly is what included coaches, recruiting directors, etc. The amendment that was added this week wiped out that entire paragraph including the "indirectly" phrase. If they wanted to simply change the date from August 1 to June 15, then that is what they should have done. Change the date and leave the rest of the paragraph.
Personally, I think a coach would be doing a disservice to everyone to make an offer to a kid that he/she has never talked to. However, I think that it is still going to happen in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 20, 2019 5:20:09 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. The reason they could not go through a coach for the offer was because the original proposal said that it could not happen "directly or indirectly". The indirectly is what included coaches, recruiting directors, etc. The amendment that was added this week wiped out that entire paragraph including the "indirectly" phrase. If they wanted to simply change the date from August 1 to June 15, then that is what they should have done. Change the date and leave the rest of the paragraph. Personally, I think a coach would be doing a disservice to everyone to make an offer to a kid that he/she has never talked to. However, I think that it is still going to happen in one way or another. From the actual text of the proposal (2018-93-1): Rationale: There are some concerns with the enforceability of limiting oral offers of aid until a date that occurs after the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athlete. By removing the restriction on oral offers of aid, the proposal will allow such offers to occur on the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athletes.web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103609Yes, coaches will cheat. But the rule is pretty clear.
|
|
|
Post by vballgirl88 on Apr 20, 2019 6:12:33 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. The reason they could not go through a coach for the offer was because the original proposal said that it could not happen "directly or indirectly". The indirectly is what included coaches, recruiting directors, etc. The amendment that was added this week wiped out that entire paragraph including the "indirectly" phrase. If they wanted to simply change the date from August 1 to June 15, then that is what they should have done. Change the date and leave the rest of the paragraph. Personally, I think a coach would be doing a disservice to everyone to make an offer to a kid that he/she has never talked to. However, I think that it is still going to happen in one way or another. From the actual text of the proposal (2018-93-1): Rationale: There are some concerns with the enforceability of limiting oral offers of aid until a date that occurs after the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athlete. By removing the restriction on oral offers of aid, the proposal will allow such offers to occur on the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athletes.web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103609Yes, coaches will cheat. But the rule is pretty clear. The rationale is not the proposal, it is the rationale behind the vote in favor of the proposal. That is correct that it allows for those offers to be made when “direct” contact can be made. However, the removal of the “indirect” part also allows indirect offers to continue to be made as well. There is no longer a date specified since they eliminated the whole paragraph on offers. The only date is June 15 when direct communication can start. I still think some schools will make offers even though they cannot have direct communication yet.
|
|
|
Post by utoolity on Apr 20, 2019 19:42:00 GMT -5
Change the date for when you can sign an NLI. August 1 of start of junior year you can sign an NLi.
|
|