|
|
Post by Friday on Jan 26, 2019 19:38:53 GMT -5
I'd love to see them allow emails or mail during freshman year. Unofficial visits the summer before sophomore year. Official visits and promises of financial aid the summer before junior year.
Just more time to get to know the coaches and campus/university and allowing families to do this over the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 26, 2019 19:52:58 GMT -5
In a related topic, a USC early commit and early entry football player has decided to transfer.
He had graduated early, and started school in January. But with the assistant coach leaving (so they claim) , is now transferring g to Texas. Since he already started classes, he has to sit out a year.
Seems like a big fail there.
|
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Jan 27, 2019 16:30:50 GMT -5
Here’s an interesting thought—what if they got rid of verbal commitments? But you could make an official offer and sign a contract at any age? Coaches would only offer to the kids they absolutely knew they wanted and would maybe wait a little later to make those offers, but if they wanted to take a big risk on a young kid they could.
|
|
|
|
Post by noreaster14 on Jan 27, 2019 18:43:03 GMT -5
Here’s an interesting thought—what if they got rid of verbal commitments? But you could make an official offer and sign a contract at any age? Coaches would only offer to the kids they absolutely knew they wanted and would maybe wait a little later to make those offers, but if they wanted to take a big risk on a young kid they could. It's an interesting "what if", but the transfers thread would hit triple digits quickly if this were to happen |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 27, 2019 19:23:58 GMT -5
Here’s an interesting thought—what if they got rid of verbal commitments? But you could make an official offer and sign a contract at any age? Coaches would only offer to the kids they absolutely knew they wanted and would maybe wait a little later to make those offers, but if they wanted to take a big risk on a young kid they could. I'm not groking what you're saying. How can you eliminate what, officially, doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 27, 2019 20:37:04 GMT -5
Here’s an interesting thought—what if they got rid of verbal commitments? But you could make an official offer and sign a contract at any age? Coaches would only offer to the kids they absolutely knew they wanted and would maybe wait a little later to make those offers, but if they wanted to take a big risk on a young kid they could. I'm not groking what you're saying. How can you eliminate what, officially, doesn't exist? Allowing official commitments at any age would essentially eliminate verbals. |
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jan 27, 2019 21:05:44 GMT -5
The numbers of 2022s committed as gone up quite a bit in the last week or so. 2021s the same. Guessing there really is a push to get more commits before the new rules are in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 27, 2019 23:48:41 GMT -5
I'm not groking what you're saying. How can you eliminate what, officially, doesn't exist? Allowing official commitments at any age would essentially eliminate verbals. I'm saying they should allow early offers (following 8th grade, prior to 11th grade) if accompanied by a contractually binding promise of aid. Nebraska would still have offered the Rolfzen twins, who were sure bets, but I suspect many other early offers would dry up. The school would be contractually bound to provide the aid, but the recruit could opt out prior to 11th grade. I don't see why this would eliminate "verbals", which are just recruits accepting an offer. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 28, 2019 0:41:32 GMT -5
Why not? With the few data points we have on this it seems to have worked out well. (Only the Rolfzens come to mind) The question wasn't whether Nebraska (who recently jettisoned yet another early recruiting "miss") had successfully navigated early recruiting for it's advantage, the question was is it healthy for the kids. The Student Athlete Experience committee issued an emphatic "no it's not" with these proposed changes. Coaches have been working for years on a way to limit early recruiting without much success. That is partially because they are entrenched in it and partially because a number of prominent coaches benefit from it so will pay proper lip service but don't really want it fixed. I've seen up close what early recruiting does to girls, parents, teammates, girls on rival teams, club coaches, etc. It is a hot mess and causes a ton of problems. I know you don't care about any of that, because the Rolfzens did ok and Nebraska benefited. What early recruiting “miss” are you talking about? Mclellan? I think that Nebraska is probably the best example of a program out there that doesn’t actually honor commitments and pushes people out if they don’t live up to expectations, but I’m honestly not blaming John Cook. He’s in it to win it and needs the best players he can find. If these athletes are “mature” enough to decide where they will graduate a decade later, they are mature enough to understand that if they aren’t good enough to compete, they gotta go. If they aren’t mature enough to understand that, they shouldn’t be commiting early. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 28, 2019 2:36:04 GMT -5
What early recruiting “miss” are you talking about? Mclellan? I think that Nebraska is probably the best example of a program out there that doesn’t actually honor commitments and pushes people out if they don’t live up to expectations, but I’m honestly not blaming John Cook. He’s in it to win it and needs the best players he can find. If these athletes are “mature” enough to decide where they will graduate a decade later, they are mature enough to understand that if they aren’t good enough to compete, they gotta go. If they aren’t mature enough to understand that, they shouldn’t be commiting early. I don't blame Cook and some of the others for aggressively trying to game a broken system. I blame the NCAA for not backing up their rules so that they are clear to all and enforceable. I think you are joking a bit here, because the recruiting miss is now one of yours, and this line of yours so beautifully and very sarcastically sums up the stupidity and how jacked up is the current system: "If these athletes are “mature” enough to decide where they will graduate a decade later, they are mature enough to understand that if they aren’t good enough to compete, they gotta go. If they aren’t mature enough to understand that, they shouldn’t be commiting early." The answer, of course, is no, they are not nearly mature enough to make the decision of where they will graduate in 10 years, and they are certainly not mature enough to understand that they might get pushed out in 11th grade by the coach that is lavishing them with praise in 8th grade. Endsley is 2 years away from even playing a college match. How anyone can call her an early recruiting miss this early seems pretty ridiculous. But back on topic, I agree with you, they aren’t mature enough. I think it’s easy to look at some success stories of really early commitments at programs but lose sight of the players that didn’t pan at. Just at Nebraska alone sure their 2013 class was good, but then you factor in players like Sieckman, Simpson, Atherton, McClellan, who all committed by their freshmen year but did absolutely nothing for Nebraska. |
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Jan 28, 2019 8:52:39 GMT -5
Wasn't Endsley still offered a 'partial' by Nebraska, just not a 'full'. She took a walk instead and committed to Washington. I think she will have a great 4 years for the Huskies.
* Being offered a 'partial' -> is a "recruiting miss" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jan 28, 2019 9:01:26 GMT -5
In a related topic, a USC early commit and early entry football player has decided to transfer. He had graduated early, and started school in January. But with the assistant coach leaving (so they claim) , is now transferring g to Texas. Since he already started classes, he has to sit out a year. Seems like a big fail there. Actually he's not an early commit. He publicly committed to USC on the Saturday prior to starting classes at USC on Monday. Mixed reports on whether he actually signed on the football early signing date in late December. Realistically he's a very late commit. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 28, 2019 9:08:29 GMT -5
Wasn't Endsley still offered a 'partial' by Nebraska, just not a 'full'. She took a walk instead and committed to Washington. I think she will have a great 4 years for the Huskies. * Being offered a 'partial' -> is a "recruiting miss" ? I believe the story goes that she was offered a full four years. Then Cook reduced the offer to less than that so she bailed. |
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Jan 28, 2019 10:21:42 GMT -5
Thoughts: Since most kids start getting steered toward their career goals during their sophomore year of HS, including the college of their choice if they have one, -> 'their plan'; I see no problem with college being added into that equation. I would allow 'contact' starting August 1 of the PSA Sophomore Year, and allow 'visits' and 'offers' beginning June 1 after completion of their Sophomore Year.
*I would hate to be a PSA on the cut-off bubble at the school of their choice, and just find out on Aug.1 that no full (4yr) scholarship is offered, and then having to scramble to their next choices while they are attending school.
** A PSA still has till November of their Senior Year (initial NLI signing) to change their mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 28, 2019 21:41:05 GMT -5
Allowing official commitments at any age would essentially eliminate verbals. What problem are you trying to solve? Do you really think the big problem is verbal commits? Verbal commits are a symptom of early recruiting, not the cause. Replacing verbals with official commits won't change early recruiting at all. There is also an issue regarding what it means to have an "official" commit of an 8th grader. A minor can typically void a contract at any time until they reach the age of majority, which can vary from state to state but is usually 18. Why would the NCAA and member institutions allow an employee (coach) to obligate them to such a one-sided contract that in many cases would obligate the school after the coaches current contract is up, but the PSA could void at any time? Then, under the scenario I've painted, don't offer her unless you believe her to be a sure or near sure thing. That's the whole idea... Of course you can't sign a 14-year-old to a binding contract. As it is, however, NLIs for prospects not yet 18 have to be cosigned by a parent or guardian. An opt-out clause co-signed by a parent/guardian could be just as enforceable. If not, the parent/guardian could agree to pay a penalty ($1,000?) if severing the agreement following the opt-out (by not signing the NLI). |
|
