|
Post by ijokpl on Apr 24, 2019 8:51:06 GMT -5
What will be allowed with players sophomore and under. I am sure most are trying to figure out how to communicate without breaking rules.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 9:01:38 GMT -5
What will be allowed with players sophomore and under. I am sure most are trying to figure out how to communicate without breaking rules. Almost nothing. Coaches cannot make or receive phone calls. College coaches cannot communicate through a club coach (the extent of what they can tell the club coach is "we are interested in Suzie"). Recruits can attend camps but no recruiting conversations can take place. The recruit can visit a college but cannot meet with anybody in the athletic department while there.
|
|
|
Post by retiredd1coach on Apr 24, 2019 9:43:53 GMT -5
Colleges may not make a verbal offer until the athlete has made a visit (official or unofficial).
That's actually not a rule. But it should be.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 9:45:33 GMT -5
Colleges may not make a verbal offer until the athlete has made a visit (official or unofficial). That's actually not a rule. But it should be. Currently, it's only a 6-week window where that can happen. Plus, recruits can only take a total of 5 official visits. It's not a bad thing if the kid knows an offer is waiting for her to help her decide which schools she wants to visit.
|
|
|
Post by retiredd1coach on Apr 24, 2019 9:53:44 GMT -5
Agreed. But here's what's happening now. Hundreds of schools are making offers to sophomores and freshman even though they've never been on campus. Or, they are rushing them to make a decision before they have time to take their visits. So, my rule isn't perfect, but this is stupid. Also, they are creating one day "camps" in May and June (poorly advertised of course) which are essentially a way to make it legal to talk to a small group of recruits and give them a tour of campus so that when they offer them June 15th, the player feels better informed.
This whole mini camp thing is an out of control way to skirt the rules.
|
|
|
Post by atticus on Apr 24, 2019 11:25:11 GMT -5
Agreed. But here's what's happening now. Hundreds of schools are making offers to sophomores and freshman even though they've never been on campus. Or, they are rushing them to make a decision before they have time to take their visits. So, my rule isn't perfect, but this is stupid. Also, they are creating one day "camps" in May and June (poorly advertised of course) which are essentially a way to make it legal to talk to a small group of recruits and give them a tour of campus so that when they offer them June 15th, the player feels better informed. This whole mini camp thing is an out of control way to skirt the rules. Agreed! Colleges can fill in with these whenever they want it seems. When the evaluation period start got pushed back to President’s Day this year, we saw colleges opt to host one day elite Winter mini camps for small numbers of recruits. A campus tour was involved, the recruits typically got to play against the college players and ask the coaches questions as they led the tour. Although these were technically open to anyone, they were not publicized in the same way that money-generating summer camps are. They were posted online quietly/obscurely and often registration was opened up for just a day and the college coaches would let the recruits know when registration would go live. Starts to feel a little like a tryout under those circumstances though technically they are following all the rules. Going forward I suppose that restrictions on communications between coaches and players younger than juniors could make that sort of elite mini camp difficult to pull off since there wouldn’t be the same opportunity to specifically invite via a communication through your club coach. Or does the loophole for communicating just about camps still allow for this sort of thing?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 11:31:05 GMT -5
What will be allowed with players sophomore and under. I am sure most are trying to figure out how to communicate without breaking rules. Interestingly, lacrosse was adamant that they preferred their own even later timeline that they adopted 2 years ago, and did not want to adopt the new rules. The primary reason was that they did not want their contact date moved any earlier, from Sept 1 to June 15. That makes sense for them, because summer is their evaluation period similar to spring for club volleyball. Lacrosse has had 2 years of an even later timeline. There seems to be a lot of support for their rules and not a lot of negatives. There doesn't seem to be any push to relax their rules or go back the way they came. Here is an interesting recent article quoting a bunch of lacrosse coaches on the push to keep their own even later timeline. Coaches' Reaction: 2019 NCAA Recruiting Rule ProposalI thought this might have been the most interesting comment: "What is sometimes lost in the discussion is the detrimental impact early recruiting has on the work-life balance of college coaches. Women’s lacrosse is one of the few sports still predominantly coached by women. The NCAA and the IWLCA should work in partnership to create a work model with retention of young women coaches as a high priority. The early recruiting model will ultimately drive young women coaches out of the game because of the time demands and the unhealthy work cycle." George Washington coach How does a later recruiting timeline help work-life balance? If women's volleyball allows 80 recruiting days, how does which age group you're recruiting affect work/life balance? Roll back those 80 days to 60, and you give people more free time. But 80 days on the road is 80 days on the road no matter who you're watching. I really don't understand that argument.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 11:37:09 GMT -5
Or does the loophole for communicating just about camps still allow for this sort of thing? Coaches can send a camp email to the kid. A coach CANNOT reach out to the club coach and say "we REALLY want Suzie to come to camp" or "If Suzie is trying to decide if it's worth it, she's at the top of our list". If the college coach is following the rules, there would be no way for the recruit to know if she's #1 on the college's list or if she's somebody that they're just keeping an eye on in case other people fall through. Source: ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d1/legislation/2018-19D1GOV_Prop2018-93and2018-94FAQ.pdf
|
|
|
Post by retiredd1coach on Apr 24, 2019 11:54:50 GMT -5
A: Female lacrosse and volleyball youth participation numbers are apples and oranges as is the number of scholarships available. Comparing the two seems silly. B: While I support the new June 15 after sophomore rules (mostly), the previous stuff is stupid. Making January a quiet period did not help coaches quality of life, nor did it encourage colleges to spend more time with their athletes. that was an agenda pushed by a handful of people. We should allow coaches to use the 80 days as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 12:18:14 GMT -5
How does a later recruiting timeline help work-life balance? If women's volleyball allows 80 recruiting days, how does which age group you're recruiting affect work/life balance? Roll back those 80 days to 60, and you give people more free time. But 80 days on the road is 80 days on the road no matter who you're watching. I really don't understand that argument. As stated for the timeline of that sport, it gives coaches the month of August off to do something other than coaching their team or recruiting. I would assume that's because that's a quiet period for them. In theory, there is still recruiting to be done at that time (rising seniors) so I don't think the first contact date is what gives them August off, it's probably a quiet period.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 24, 2019 12:20:15 GMT -5
A: Female lacrosse and volleyball youth participation numbers are apples and oranges as is the number of scholarships available. Comparing the two seems silly. B: While I support the new June 15 after sophomore rules (mostly), the previous stuff is stupid. Making January a quiet period did not help coaches quality of life, nor did it encourage colleges to spend more time with their athletes. that was an agenda pushed by a handful of people. We should allow coaches to use the 80 days as they see fit. I couldn't agree with (B) more. It forces coaches to go out and recruit on weekends when most teams are playing in spring matches.
|
|
|
Post by retiredd1coach on Apr 24, 2019 14:01:22 GMT -5
A: There is no sport like girls volleyball in terms of access to kids and recruiting opportunities. Not even close. Nobody bothered asking the college coaches what we wanted or what we thought was a good way to do it. B: The NCAA has created more stress by shortening the season. We can't be with our teams much in January unless you start your 70 days then (rare). The players rarely stop by for mentoring if they aren't practicing.
Quiet and dead periods don't help anything. They just force the 80 days into a smaller window. January created some free weekends, but made Feb-April a non-stop, never-at-home grind where you have to choose between recruiting and being with your team. If you want coaches to have more time, reduce the 80 days. Also, January was a great time to go visit local clubs and regional events. Pretty casual, with only MLK weekend as a travel necessity.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 14:04:37 GMT -5
A: There is no sport like girls volleyball in terms of access to kids and recruiting opportunities. Not even close. Nobody bothered asking the college coaches what we wanted or what we thought was a good way to do it. B: The NCAA has created more stress by shortening the season. We can't be with our teams much in January unless you start your 70 days then (rare). The players rarely stop by for mentoring if they aren't practicing. Quiet and dead periods don't help anything. They just force the 80 days into a smaller window. January created some free weekends, but made Feb-April a non-stop, never-at-home grind where you have to choose between recruiting and being with your team. If you want coaches to have more time, reduce the 80 days. Also, January was a great time to go visit local clubs and regional events. Pretty casual, with only MLK weekend as a travel necessity. Agree 100%. Plus the January free weekends come right after/during the extended break composed of after post-season, finals, winter break. Not exactly the time that the break from the road helps us or our athletes.
|
|
|
Post by retiredd1coach on Apr 24, 2019 18:08:13 GMT -5
College coaches did not cause the problem because THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. Who cares if a few 8th graders commit? Misguided parents jumping the gun, over-zealous club directors and a few (very few) greedy college coaches were the "problem."
You want to know who really caused the problem? A handful of people with a personal agenda whispering in the SAAC's ear and no one in the room to explain the unintended consequences of their actions.
Most of us followed the new calendar anyway. Except a year ago, we could tell a sophomore's coach that we liked them and see if it was mutual. Maybe set up an initial call to get things started. Arrange a camp or an unofficial. Then, offer their Junior year after they are BETTER INFORMED and had gone through the discovery process with multiple colleges. Can you imagine what it's going to be like June 15 for top tier sophomore prospects? Especially the ones still in school?
You want to blame someone? Blame the AVCA or the NCAA for shoving regulations down our throats. For assuming that the path to college of a talented student athlete should mimic an ordinary student. I call BS on that.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 24, 2019 18:39:24 GMT -5
College coaches did not cause the problem because THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. Who cares if a few 8th graders commit? Misguided parents jumping the gun, over-zealous club directors and a few (very few) greedy college coaches were the "problem." You want to know who really caused the problem? A handful of people with a personal agenda whispering in the SAAC's ear and no one in the room to explain the unintended consequences of their actions. Most of us followed the new calendar anyway. Except a year ago, we could tell a sophomore's coach that we liked them and see if it was mutual. Maybe set up an initial call to get things started. Arrange a camp or an unofficial. Then, offer their Junior year after they are BETTER INFORMED and had gone through the discovery process with multiple colleges. Can you imagine what it's going to be like June 15 for top tier sophomore prospects? Especially the ones still in school? You want to blame someone? Blame the AVCA or the NCAA for shoving regulations down our throats. For assuming that the path to college of a talented student athlete should mimic an ordinary student. I call BS on that. I disagree that most schools were offering junior year. I think the shift has gone to sophomore year and earlier to offer.
|
|