|
Post by Friday on Mar 2, 2019 9:06:51 GMT -5
There definitely seems to be more of a push to get offers out and verbals ahead of the deadline. My daughter is a 2022 and we will definitely be caught in the middle. It will be weird going from talking to coaches to radio silence.
And then when the gun goes off August 1 of junior...the offers will come again and will they want an immediate response before they move on to the next on the board? I think so. With the shortened timeline coaches will want to know before others backups on their board commit elsewhere.
The changes are definitely a plus down the road but for these couple of classes right now in the middle of the process - ugh!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 6, 2019 21:34:56 GMT -5
Looks like the most recent version of the proposal is getting eliminating the oral offer of aid restriction: Status: Ready for Vote
Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2018-93 to remove the restriction on providing an oral offer 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.
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=103609What isn't immediately clear to me is if the college coach can indicate to a recruiting coordinator that a scholarship will be saved for the kid if she verbally commits before the first allowable contact.
|
|
|
Post by rvdadvb on Mar 7, 2019 8:35:21 GMT -5
Looks like the most recent version of the proposal is getting eliminating the oral offer of aid restriction: Status: Ready for Vote
Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2018-93 to remove the restriction on providing an oral offer 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.
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=103609What isn't immediately clear to me is if the college coach can indicate to a recruiting coordinator that a scholarship will be saved for the kid if she verbally commits before the first allowable contact. The way I read "the proposal will allow such offers to occur on the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athletes" and taken in context with the rest of the proposed legislation, indicates no offers can be made prior to June 15, even indirectly. This adjustment makes a lot of sense. It was going to be extremely weird for coaches and athletes to begin talking on June 15th but that no verbal offers could be given until August 1st. "Yes, we like you, but we really can't say anything else until August!" I really wish they would have just made everything (communication AND visits) a single date of June 15th so kids could have that summer between Sophomore and Junior year to begin getting on campus. Regardless, this is a smart change to the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by charger0304 on Mar 7, 2019 8:43:11 GMT -5
Looks like the most recent version of the proposal is getting eliminating the oral offer of aid restriction: Status: Ready for Vote
Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2018-93 to remove the restriction on providing an oral offer 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.
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=103609What isn't immediately clear to me is if the college coach can indicate to a recruiting coordinator that a scholarship will be saved for the kid if she verbally commits before the first allowable contact. The way I read "the proposal will allow such offers to occur on the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athletes" and taken in context with the rest of the proposed legislation, indicates no offers can be made prior to June 15, even indirectly. This adjustment makes a lot of sense. It was going to be extremely weird for coaches and athletes to begin talking on June 15th but that no verbal offers could be given until August 1st. "Yes, we like you, but we really can't say anything else until August!" I really wish they would have just made everything (communication AND visits) a single date of June 15th so kids could have that summer between Sophomore and Junior year to begin getting on campus. Regardless, this is a smart change to the proposal. The delay between contact and visits makes sense to me...it provides both parties the opportunity to get to know each other before making a decision to spend time (kids) and money (schools) on visits.
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Mar 7, 2019 9:11:43 GMT -5
When will this all take affect? If I remember last year it was the last week of April.
|
|
|
Post by rvdadvb on Mar 7, 2019 9:41:42 GMT -5
The delay between contact and visits makes sense to me...it provides both parties the opportunity to get to know each other before making a decision to spend time (kids) and money (schools) on visits. Good point. I was looking at it a little too narrowly from my own perspective of having my daughter already be in contact with coaches under the existing rules. If TRUE first contact isn't until June 15, then I completely agree with your thoughts. It will make more sense for future classes then it does for the 2021's caught in the middle of the changes.
|
|
|
Post by rvdadvb on Mar 7, 2019 9:43:35 GMT -5
When will this all take affect? If I remember last year it was the last week of April. I believe the vote is during an April 16-17 meeting and, if approved, will be effective immediately.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 7, 2019 11:20:49 GMT -5
Looks like the most recent version of the proposal is getting eliminating the oral offer of aid restriction: Status: Ready for Vote
Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2018-93 to remove the restriction on providing an oral offer 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.
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=103609What isn't immediately clear to me is if the college coach can indicate to a recruiting coordinator that a scholarship will be saved for the kid if she verbally commits before the first allowable contact. The way I read "the proposal will allow such offers to occur on the first opportunity for a coach to communicate with a prospective student-athletes" and taken in context with the rest of the proposed legislation, indicates no offers can be made prior to June 15, even indirectly. This adjustment makes a lot of sense. It was going to be extremely weird for coaches and athletes to begin talking on June 15th but that no verbal offers could be given until August 1st. "Yes, we like you, but we really can't say anything else until August!" I really wish they would have just made everything (communication AND visits) a single date of June 15th so kids could have that summer between Sophomore and Junior year to begin getting on campus. Regardless, this is a smart change to the proposal. So why not just change the date of the first offer of aid to June 15? The previous rule may have been unenforceable anyway so it may not really matter, but this seems to open the door to making offers through a club coach.
|
|
|
Post by rvdadvb on Mar 7, 2019 12:15:28 GMT -5
So why not just change the date of the first offer of aid to June 15? The previous rule may have been unenforceable anyway so it may not really matter, but this seems to open the door to making offers through a club coach. You are right. I thought the legislation otherwise addressed that absolutely no contacts could be made, even through the club coach, until after June 15, but after scouring it, it does not. This would leave a big ole' loophole for early offers still able to come through the club coach no matter how early or young the SA is, even though that was what they claimed they were trying to get rid of. The only difference is that they can't have had the chance to get to know each other or talk about it prior to making an offer. (Add eyeroll here)
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 7, 2019 12:17:32 GMT -5
So why not just change the date of the first offer of aid to June 15? The previous rule may have been unenforceable anyway so it may not really matter, but this seems to open the door to making offers through a club coach. You are right. I thought the legislation otherwise addressed that absolutely no contacts could not be made, even through the club coach, until after June 15, but after scouring it, it does not. This would leave a big ole' loophole for early offers still able to come through the club coach no matter how early or young the SA is, even though that was what they claimed they were trying to get rid of. The only difference is that they can't have had the chance to get to know each other or talk about it prior to making an offer. (Add eyeroll here) On the bright side, coaches will also ignore the rule about no recruiting conversations during camp (before junior year) so they'll get to know each other there.
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Mar 8, 2019 18:17:37 GMT -5
So who in their right mind invites a soft verbal on an official visit? Why spend money on someone who has committed somewhere else?
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Mar 8, 2019 18:19:34 GMT -5
A friend of mine coaches D1 track and says that track coaches rarely recruit kids before their Junior year—too much about an athlete can change throughout high school to take a gamble on any young kids.
That said, the track world isn’t constantly in chaos—I doubt these rule changes would create too much insanity on the volleyball side either.
|
|
snatr
Sophomore
Posts: 212
|
Post by snatr on Mar 8, 2019 21:49:49 GMT -5
A friend of mine coaches D1 track and says that track coaches rarely recruit kids before their Junior year—too much about an athlete can change throughout high school to take a gamble on any young kids. That said, the track world isn’t constantly in chaos—I doubt these rule changes would create too much insanity on the volleyball side either. From my conversations with Track coaches, their recruiting consists of "what's their time and/or measurement?" And the evaluation part of recruiting is over. I think they can handle all of the recruiting being the PSA's end of junior and senior year.
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Mar 9, 2019 4:37:10 GMT -5
A friend of mine coaches D1 track and says that track coaches rarely recruit kids before their Junior year—too much about an athlete can change throughout high school to take a gamble on any young kids. That said, the track world isn’t constantly in chaos—I doubt these rule changes would create too much insanity on the volleyball side either. From my conversations with Track coaches, their recruiting consists of "what's their time and/or measurement?" And the evaluation part of recruiting is over. I think they can handle all of the recruiting being the PSA's end of junior and senior year. Yeah, it’s a bit of a different world, that’s true. But a little bit more goes into it than that. They look at time, how much they’ve improved throughout high school, evaluate technique and future potential, and of course do a bit of screening for difficult personalities and eating disorders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 6:58:53 GMT -5
So who in their right mind invites a soft verbal on an official visit? Why spend money on someone who has committed somewhere else? Wild guess here: because they've stated that, while they aren't decommitting, they are "opening up their recruiting," and because they are an off-the-charts talent, and you believe your school was their second choice before they "committed," that you now have a great chance to get them to commit to your school. And that would be really good for you and your school.
|
|