|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 29, 2019 19:40:46 GMT -5
In my opinion, the only way to restrain early recruiting is to authorize early offers (starting in ninth grade), but attaching a price to them. If you don't think a recruit can justify the price, then don't offer. Simple as that. It will also create an expectation among recruits that real offers carry real money, rather than an empty "promise" that can easily be withdrawn. The goal would be to eliminate most early offers, with only sure bets (the Rolfzens, for instance) being offered. Commits can't happen if the offers don't exist. Sure bets are also the ones who can most afford to wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2019 12:22:59 GMT -5
The only way to restrain early recruiting is to authorize unrestrained early recruiting? I don't follow. What is the negative of just making the Rolzens wait to commit like everybody else rather than stroke their ego by making them the earliest ever commits? How is requiring that a price (a contractually binding promise of aid) be attached to early offers (starting in ninth grade) authorizing "unrestrained early recruiting"? That only happens if the price of making an offer is too low - currently it is zero. If you want to argue against my proposal, do, but dispense with the deliberate mischaracterizing "strawman" argument. You're assuming the NCAA could have forced the Rolfzens "to wait to commit like everybody else". How? By passing an easily breakable rule that can't be enforced? Do you honestly believe that John Cook would have waited to offer them, rule or no rule? Come now, let's be real. Stop dealing in fantasies. The reality is that the Rolfzens could have waited - Cook would have held scholarships for them, regardless (or, more likely, pushed out anyone needed to make room for them). |
|
|
|
Post by NebraskaVBfan93 on Jan 30, 2019 15:21:55 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been discussed, but if you want to stop early recruiting, skip the verbals and let them sign whenever they want and make it binding. If the kid changes their mind and wants to go somewhere else, fine. They lose a year of eligibility. If the coach changes their mind, fine. They lose that scholarship for that year. Those two elements would slow down early offers a great deal IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2019 16:03:47 GMT -5
The reality is the Rolfzens did wait until their senior year to sign. You propose a rule change to actually let them sign as 8th graders.No, that is not what I have proposed. An 8th grader can't sign an enforceable contract, even with a parent or guardian co-signing with her. I'm clearly proposing that if a school wants to "offer" a 9th or 10th grader ( not an 8th grader) a scholarship to play a sport, they should be required to do so in writing, with a contractually binding offer of aid attached that, once accepted, can't be unilaterally withdrawn, although contingent on attending and playing the sport. It would only become binding on the recruit if she does not opt out by a certain date (I've suggested by junior year). Offers could be time-limited. Other contingencies could apply, such as not being charged or convicted of a crime. Being admitted, enrolled, and turned out for the sport, of course. Performance shouldn't be one, however. I'm not claiming there aren't potentially problematic aspects. Whether a 9th or 10th grader agreeing to an opt-out, even with a parent cosigning, would pass legal muster, is one of them. 17-year-olds (and, I suspect, even some 16-year-olds) are signing co-signed NLIs now, however. The date of the opt-out, whether by junior or senior year, is another - if junior year, it could become the new "ad hoc" signing-day, with recruits rushing to sign for certain money, for instance. A way around that would be to require that all "offers of aid" be contractually binding on the school - the NLI signing date would become the new opt-out for "non-early" offers made after the start of junior year. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2019 16:11:44 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been discussed, but if you want to stop early recruiting, skip the verbals and let them sign whenever they want and make it binding. If the kid changes their mind and wants to go somewhere else, fine. They lose a year of eligibility. If the coach changes their mind, fine. They lose that scholarship for that year. Those two elements would slow down early offers a great deal IMO. That's close to what I'm proposing, except I'm excluding 8th graders and providing for an opt-out (rather than requiring an opt-in, signing an NLI, as in your case). |
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Jan 30, 2019 17:31:37 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been discussed, but if you want to stop early recruiting, skip the verbals and let them sign whenever they want and make it binding. If the kid changes their mind and wants to go somewhere else, fine. They lose a year of eligibility. If the coach changes their mind, fine. They lose that scholarship for that year. Those two elements would slow down early offers a great deal IMO. I thought the same thing! I think the real possibility on missing out on a year of eligibility would be plenty of motivation for everyone to slow the process way down. But I guess there would be no way to prevent people from secretly verbally committing to a school... |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2019 19:29:33 GMT -5
The part you took issue with is 8th graders? First, all the examples thrown out have been 8th graders (Rolfzens, Shaffmaster, Endsley, new girl). Under your plan girls will still be recruited early, exactly as before, and they will still verbally commit in 8th grade, exactly as before. What changes? Verbal commits don’t exist now and they won’t exist under your plan in exactly the same way. Early recruiting would go on exactly as before under your plan. You can’t force either party to offer or to sign your contract, and the schools probably woldn’t allow coaches to use them anyway, so nothing changes. I've said all along that 8th graders should be excluded - authorized early offers should be limited to 9th and 10th graders. Under current rules, 8th graders aren't even considered to be PSAs, which means none of the contact rules apply to them. It has been "open season" on under-14s, year round. Under the proposed rules, there will be nothing stopping a recruiter from providing a secret offer to an 8th grader, asking for a silent verbal in return. I believe that will happen. Most coaches are ethical, but it takes only a few "bad apples" to spoil the whole barrel. That is why grown coaches are running around proffering "candy" to 14-year-olds - because they're afraid somebody will beat them to it. It is called a "race to the bottom." Accepting an authorized offer by signing it would be a commitment to play for the school, unless later choosing to opt out. Since it would be a written agreement, there would be no need for a "verbal." The signed offer would be faxed to the school, which would then include it in a publicly available database. If an authorized offer is a written agreement that, if accepted, binds the school to provide at least one year of aid, why would any recruit accept anything less? |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 30, 2019 21:47:23 GMT -5
The “bad apples” currently offering 14 year olds are not technically breaking any rules and won’t be under your proposal unless you add in a no contact clause prior to 9th grade. If you are going to do that, then why not just bump it to June 15th after sophomore year? I told you why I don’t think your proposal would work. You haven’t yet said how delaying contact until end of sophomore year would have harmed those 8th grade commits. The "bad apples" are now the whole barrel. Perfectly ethical coaches are chasing 13- and 14-year-olds, because, under current rules, they believe they have no choice, if they want to be successful. See Heather Tarr at UW. I am in favor of a no-contact rule prior to the 9th grade (freshmen). Whether that should be extended to prior to 10th grade (sophomores) is certainly worth a discussion, but a no-contact rule until they are juniors (or June 15 before junior year) will only encourage cheaters (bad apples). I have no problem with 8th, 9th, or 10th graders delaying committing - that's what I want to see happen. I'm concerned that a no-contact rule, by itself, will just end up driving early recruiting underground. Why are 14-year-olds trying to choose which college they will be going to? Because, just like the coaches, they believe they have to, or risk being left out in the cold. What I'm proposing has two objectives: 1) causing coaches to not offer prospects they aren't sure about and 2) creating among prospects the expectation that a "real" offer offers something real (an actual year of aid). |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 31, 2019 1:54:34 GMT -5
I am on board with pretty much everything you said. My biggest concern with the idea of formalizing early commits is that it doesn't address the actual recruiting part of early recruiting. Once recruiting starts, the pressure is on until a girl commits. Just like if one coach goes young then other coaches feel they have to, if one girl commits young then others in the same class feel pressured to engage with coaches and get committed. My experience is that the recruiting window for a PSA is about the same length of time regardless of when it starts, at between roughly 6 and 18 months. That being the case, starting to talk to coaches at the end of sophomore year seems to me to work well. If early commits were formalized, I still see coaches pushing to go young and PSA's pressured to start the process too young. It's too late for me and my kids, but I don't wish our experience on others and think it could be greatly improved. My other concern with formalizing early commits is a practical one that I am skeptical the NCAA member schools will accept that legal risk, but I could be wrong. That's why I am in favor of strict contact rules. I honestly think coaches want to and will live by the letter of the rule, and even if someone tries to cheat it will be quiet and not a threat to other coaches and PSA's. If some coach feels the need to tweet out Bingo! for a 9th grader they illegally recruited, they are essentially outing themselves for cheating, which is then easy to address. I agree that the pressure to commit is a significant issue. The best solution is to convince coaches to delay offering. One way could be to place a "price" on making an offer that coaches will hesitate to pay, as I've suggested. I would be in favor of strict contact rules, to limit where, when, how, and how often contact can occur. Coaches can't talk about recruits now, until they sign an NLI. That wouldn't change. Now, if a girl suddenly started displaying a school's colors, mascot, etc., that could be a "sign" that she had committed. A secret offer would likely be couched: "If you reveal it, you lose it." If a girl tweets, "I'm committed to Big State U!", the coach could just say, "That's news to me." I do think it would eventually get around that coach x or coach y is bending the contact rules (ala "Slick Rick"), but proving it would be another matter. |
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Feb 1, 2019 11:37:22 GMT -5
The Ncca should not only not recognize verbal contracts but make it illegal for a coach to offer one. That way coaches don't need to feel "unethical" for continuing to recruit a player just because a school has an inside track. What is unethical is collusion between coaches that "respect "each others verbal commitments.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 1, 2019 14:20:48 GMT -5
The Ncca should not only not recognize verbal contracts but make it illegal for a coach to offer one. That way coaches don't need to feel "unethical" for continuing to recruit a player just because a school has an inside track. What is unethical is collusion between coaches that "respect "each others verbal commitments. When a high schooler verbally commits, she announces to the world that she no longer wants to be recruited. Being finished with that process is a HUGE relief to kids. How is it unethical to respect that? |
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Feb 1, 2019 15:28:33 GMT -5
The Ncca should not only not recognize verbal contracts but make it illegal for a coach to offer one. That way coaches don't need to feel "unethical" for continuing to recruit a player just because a school has an inside track. What is unethical is collusion between coaches that "respect "each others verbal commitments. When a high schooler verbally commits, she announces to the world that she no longer wants to be recruited. Being finished with that process is a HUGE relief to kids. How is it unethical to respect that? It becomes unethical when a school pulls out of the verbal contract and the PSA is out of the recruiting loop. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 3, 2019 22:12:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 4, 2019 0:33:31 GMT -5
6-2 OH that is playing up 2 levels with the 16U team for an excellent California club - I don't think there is much risk in this commitment for BYU. here is her match from the 15's national championship (#14 in red). the announcer confirms that she is mormon (as if we had any doubt about that)... she also apparently doesn't play vb on Sundays (can't imagine that helps her club team at some of these tournaments). She certainly passes the eye test for such a young age. BYU could be getting a star in the making. Rosenthal on the other side of the net wasn't looking to shabby either! www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/Video/2019/06/30/2019-GJNCs--July-1--Court-38--Match-05 |
|
|
|
Post by mikasa01 on Aug 13, 2019 22:12:26 GMT -5
Another incredibly talented 2023 hopeful. Angelina Sayles, 6 rotation player:
|
|
