|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 2, 2019 10:35:17 GMT -5
Secret offers, intermediaries, and verbals will be the modus operandi. I suspect this is true. There will still be networks of club, school, and college coaches. There will still be coaches who find a way to let players know that they would be welcome as recruits. Plausible deniability will be an important skill to master.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 2, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -5
Does anyone who posts here actually know how things are working in fastpitch recruiting since they implemented the new rules last spring? Have the new, stricter rules made any meaningful impact? Or is it still too early to tell? Or lacrosse a year earlier? spikeninja : Of course the power 5 will still go first. The rule has nothing to do with parity. They will just go several years later, at a much more controlled and appropriate age. According to the interpretation by the NCAA of the softball/lacrosse rules, your scenarios are clear violations. Third parties may not be used to circumvent the no contact rules. What you are describing is the kind of loss of institutional control that will get an athletic department in trouble well beyond volleyball. Are schools really wishing to risk that for volleyball, and has that kind of cheating been an issue in lacrosse and softball so far? How do you enforce a ban on what topics can come up in a conversation between a club coach and a college coach over beers after a tournament? Passing unenforceable rules does nothing but hurt the good coaches in the sport who try to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 2, 2019 13:14:56 GMT -5
How do you enforce a ban on what topics can come up in a conversation between a club coach and a college coach over beers after a tournament? Passing unenforceable rules does nothing but hurt the good coaches in the sport who try to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. There would be no ban of any kind on any and all conversations between a club coach and a college coach over beers after a tournament. You made that up. There would be a ban on college coaches giving a specific message to the club coach to deliver to a PSA and for the club coach to pass a specific message back from a PSA to a college coach. There would be absolutely no problem with a college coach asking about a girl to get the opinion of the club coach. I also see no problem with the club coach telling a girl that coach A asked about her and seems interested, as long as they don't start passing messages. Interest is not a mystery, since the college coach has most likely already spent a ton of time parked on her court with their school emblazoned in 6 inch letters across their chest. How will the new rules be enforced? In the first place, most coaches have a sense of ethics and will bend a gray area like crazy for competitive advantage but will stop short of blatantly violating black and white rules. Second, to pass messages to a PSA through a club coach requires a lot of trust since all parties know the coach is committing an NCAA violation. Multiply that by the dozens of girls that a coach is recruiting from 8th grade on, and what coach is willing to put that much trust and power over their career to strangers they don't even know? Every coach legally contacting a PSA will tell them they contacted them at the absolutely earliest possible moment because they really care, and that anybody who contacted them any earlier was in violation of NCAA rules and could lose their job if it is reported and may not be there to greet the recruit. No, I don't think coaches will cheat openly and widely, and anyone that does won't last long. Division I Proposal 2018-9313.9.1 Oral Offer of Aid -- Sports Other Than Basketball, Football and Men's Ice Hockey. In sports other than basketball, football and men's ice hockey, an athletics department staff member shall not, directly or indirectly, provide an individual an oral offer (or indicate that an offer will or may be made) of athletically related financial aid, other institutional financial aid, admission to the institution or as a member of an intercollegiate team before August 1 at the beginning of the individual's junior year in high school. web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103278Club coach: "Hey Jim, what do you think of Suzie on our 16s team?" College coach: "Suzie's great. Just the kind of kid we're looking for in our program. Would love to have her." That is certainly indirectly indicating that an offer will be made.
|
|
|
Post by charger0304 on Jan 2, 2019 15:07:20 GMT -5
Secret offers, intermediaries, and verbals will be the modus operandi. I suspect this is true. There will still be networks of club, school, and college coaches. There will still be coaches who find a way to let players know that they would be welcome as recruits. Plausible deniability will be an important skill to master. Not sure plausible deniability will even be needed, as long as folks don't get caught. The stories of coaches circumventing the transfer portal already.....
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 2, 2019 17:13:29 GMT -5
I suspect this is true. There will still be networks of club, school, and college coaches. There will still be coaches who find a way to let players know that they would be welcome as recruits. Plausible deniability will be an important skill to master. Not sure plausible deniability will even be needed, as long as folks don't get caught. The stories of coaches circumventing the transfer portal already..... (my emphasis) Plausible deniability is only a concept that matters when you do get caught.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 2, 2019 17:37:10 GMT -5
Division I Proposal 2018-9313.9.1 Oral Offer of Aid -- Sports Other Than Basketball, Football and Men's Ice Hockey. In sports other than basketball, football and men's ice hockey, an athletics department staff member shall not, directly or indirectly, provide an individual an oral offer (or indicate that an offer will or may be made) of athletically related financial aid, other institutional financial aid, admission to the institution or as a member of an intercollegiate team before August 1 at the beginning of the individual's junior year in high school. web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103278Club coach: "Hey Jim, what do you think of Suzie on our 16s team?" College coach: "Suzie's great. Just the kind of kid we're looking for in our program. Would love to have her." That is certainly indirectly indicating that an offer will be made. Only a complete idiot could not have that conversation while dead drunk without violating the rule. That person should not be in coaching. Arguably your conversation doesn't include any offer and is fine as is, but it is still easy not to come even that close. The only thing even close is "would love to have her" which still isn't an offer but there is no reason to even say that. Yes, but once again, "plausible deniability". Can you legitimately say, "I never made any promise of a scholarship" while at the same time making it clear that you are offering a scholarship? Of course you can. When you hold a $20 in your hand and ask the maitre d, "Isn't there some way we can skip the waiting list?", is that a bribe? You bet it's a bribe, but both parties can still pretend it wasn't a bribe until the maitre d actually takes the 20 and says, "OK, I can get you in in five minutes".
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jan 2, 2019 18:06:24 GMT -5
There would be no ban of any kind on any and all conversations between a club coach and a college coach over beers after a tournament. You made that up. There would be a ban on college coaches giving a specific message to the club coach to deliver to a PSA and for the club coach to pass a specific message back from a PSA to a college coach. There would be absolutely no problem with a college coach asking about a girl to get the opinion of the club coach. I also see no problem with the club coach telling a girl that coach A asked about her and seems interested, as long as they don't start passing messages. Interest is not a mystery, since the college coach has most likely already spent a ton of time parked on her court with their school emblazoned in 6 inch letters across their chest. How will the new rules be enforced? In the first place, most coaches have a sense of ethics and will bend a gray area like crazy for competitive advantage but will stop short of blatantly violating black and white rules. Second, to pass messages to a PSA through a club coach requires a lot of trust since all parties know the coach is committing an NCAA violation. Multiply that by the dozens of girls that a coach is recruiting from 8th grade on, and what coach is willing to put that much trust and power over their career to strangers they don't even know? Every coach legally contacting a PSA will tell them they contacted them at the absolutely earliest possible moment because they really care, and that anybody who contacted them any earlier was in violation of NCAA rules and could lose their job if it is reported and may not be there to greet the recruit. No, I don't think coaches will cheat openly and widely, and anyone that does won't last long. Division I Proposal 2018-9313.9.1 Oral Offer of Aid -- Sports Other Than Basketball, Football and Men's Ice Hockey. In sports other than basketball, football and men's ice hockey, an athletics department staff member shall not, directly or indirectly, provide an individual an oral offer (or indicate that an offer will or may be made) of athletically related financial aid, other institutional financial aid, admission to the institution or as a member of an intercollegiate team before August 1 at the beginning of the individual's junior year in high school. web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103278Club coach: "Hey Jim, what do you think of Suzie on our 16s team?" College coach: "Suzie's great. Just the kind of kid we're looking for in our program. Would love to have her." That is certainly indirectly indicating that an offer will be made. I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is what the NCAA means by “indirectly.” I think they mean “Hey club coach tell Cindy we want to offer her.” I don’t think to legislate general discussions between associates.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 2, 2019 20:24:25 GMT -5
Division I Proposal 2018-9313.9.1 Oral Offer of Aid -- Sports Other Than Basketball, Football and Men's Ice Hockey. In sports other than basketball, football and men's ice hockey, an athletics department staff member shall not, directly or indirectly, provide an individual an oral offer (or indicate that an offer will or may be made) of athletically related financial aid, other institutional financial aid, admission to the institution or as a member of an intercollegiate team before August 1 at the beginning of the individual's junior year in high school. web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=103278Club coach: "Hey Jim, what do you think of Suzie on our 16s team?" College coach: "Suzie's great. Just the kind of kid we're looking for in our program. Would love to have her." That is certainly indirectly indicating that an offer will be made. I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is what the NCAA means by “indirectly.” I think they mean “Hey club coach tell Cindy we want to offer her.” I don’t think to legislate general discussions between associates. Is there really a practical difference between "We want to offer Suzie" and "tell Suzie we want to offer her"?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 2, 2019 20:27:31 GMT -5
Yes, but once again, "plausible deniability". Can you legitimately say, "I never made any promise of a scholarship" while at the same time making it clear that you are offering a scholarship? Of course you can. When you hold a $20 in your hand and ask the maitre d, "Isn't there some way we can skip the waiting list?", is that a bribe? You bet it's a bribe, but both parties can still pretend it wasn't a bribe until the maitre d actually takes the 20 and says, "OK, I can get you in in five minutes". I think we are getting a little lost in the weeds on this one. There is a world of difference between a college coach and a club coach having a carefully worded conversation to convey that the school has interest in a player, and actual conversations between the player and the college coach where they build a relationship and directly discuss an offer. For your analogy to work, you have to make it a nightclub with a very strict policy of firing waiters who accept bribes, and with a bouncer that won't let anybody through the door who is not 21. You send in your club coach with $20 (why? I don't know) to arrange a table for you a year from now. The bouncer will never let you in so you do not get to talk to the waiter, so you have to trust that the club coach actually did talk to the waiter, that the waiter really did take the money and agree to hold a table for you a year from now, and the waiter has to trust that nobody overheard that would report them to management and that both you and your coach are trustworthy and won't go to management. If somebody comes along in the meantime and offers $50 for your table, does the waiter take it and risk you going to management because you are pissed? Did the waiter promise a job to your club coach that he can't deliver and now the club coach may go to his management and report the waiter? Nebraska recently cut loose a high profile recruit. If at the time that recruitment had been in direct violation of the rules, do you suppose a family that feels slighted might let that info out? Why would a college coach trust all their jilted recruits to keep the coach's secrets? I am a lot happier with the prospect of some coaches trying to communicate vaguely through channels that they have interest prior to official talks in 11th grade, than I am with a free for all where coaches talk directly to 8th graders and make them offers. I believe that most coaches will follow the rules for the most part because there is too much risk for too little reward not to. Ethical coaches will follow the spirit of the rule, unethical coaches will constantly push the limits of what can and cannot be said to club coaches. Players and club coaches obviously want to be on the good side of the coach so they'll never turn them in. It's an unenforceable rule that will give advantages to unethical coaches.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jan 2, 2019 20:37:01 GMT -5
Well originally that wasn’t the indirect example you presented. It was “Would love to have her.” That’s different than “tell Suzie we want to offer her.” The former is not a directive. It’s conversation.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 2, 2019 20:42:29 GMT -5
Well originally that wasn’t the indirect example you presented. It was “Would love to have her.” That’s different than “tell Suzie we want to offer her.” The former is not a directive. It’s conversation. If you can say anything you want as long as "tell Suzie" isn't included then this is absolutely worthless legislation. "Suzie is great. We're going to offer her the moment we're allowed" There's no directive there to pass on the message. But that's CLEARLY violating the intent of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on Jan 2, 2019 20:45:01 GMT -5
I think the idea is a college coach having lunch with a club coach on a break saying we really like Susie is fine., Susie already generally understands there is interest because she has constantly seen that school on the sidelines watching her games. I just love the fact that these kids/parents would not have the pressure so young. Coaches that are unethical and try to beat the system I think eventually will be outed since the rules should be clear to all.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 2, 2019 21:01:55 GMT -5
I'm curious to see what happens with the players who do call college coaches while still Sophomores. To date, the players were not expected to know the rules and couldn't break them. Now, I suppose it's on the coach/school not to answer a phone call from a parent or prospect? Or now since their is a rule the prospect can break, are they now expected to know the rules, and face consequences if they do?
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jan 2, 2019 21:20:52 GMT -5
Well originally that wasn’t the indirect example you presented. It was “Would love to have her.” That’s different than “tell Suzie we want to offer her.” The former is not a directive. It’s conversation. If you can say anything you want as long as "tell Suzie" isn't included then this is absolutely worthless legislation. "Suzie is great. We're going to offer her the moment we're allowed" There's no directive there to pass on the message. But that's CLEARLY violating the intent of the rule. Ah but the point is it doesn’t actually happen until Junior year. The kid can’t commit until then. They’re not locked in. They can’t confirm with the coach and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 2, 2019 21:22:33 GMT -5
If you can say anything you want as long as "tell Suzie" isn't included then this is absolutely worthless legislation. "Suzie is great. We're going to offer her the moment we're allowed" There's no directive there to pass on the message. But that's CLEARLY violating the intent of the rule. Ah but the point is it doesn’t actually happen until Junior year. The kid can’t commit until then. They’re not locked in. They can’t confirm with the coach and vice versa. Silent verbals.
|
|