|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 21, 2023 16:17:35 GMT -5
I appreciate the self correction.  Your observation about parental/ coaching guidance is spot on. I will maintain that we provided that for our daughter when she was going through the process as a 7th and 8th grader. At that age the process only gets as out of hand as you, as a parent, allow it to. I am firmly against 8th graders making verbal commitments, but I'm also not in favor of delaying everything until now. Its a catch-22. The NCAA has no control over verbal commitments, so the moment coaches can communicate, you by definition allow verbal commits at that point. If you try to open communication earlier, you necessarily open up verbal commits earlier. The only way a verbal commit is currently not allowed, is because any verbal commit prior to when communication is allowed indicates a clear violation in NCAA communication rules. I don't see any feasible way that the NCAA can allow communication to start earlier but delay verbal commits until some later date. I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. |
|
|
|
Post by dbro1970 on Jun 21, 2023 16:20:32 GMT -5
All the more surprising when she looked really bad initially, at least in the Under Armour game (some) people put way too much stock in how a player looks in the UA game, especially middles. The fact that a player is selected in the first place is good proof that they are elite quality volleyball players for their class. HOW they play in one match where they have a day or two to practice with a bunch of other players many have never played with is almost entirely irrelevant to how good of a player they were in club or how good they will be in college. There have been stars in the UA match that have never been All Americans and players that ended up multiple year All Americans who played poorly in the UA game or never wasn't even selected. So true. Sidney Hilley and Grace Loberg played together in the AU game, but Dana Rettke was not even invited! |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 21, 2023 16:24:15 GMT -5
Its a catch-22. The NCAA has no control over verbal commitments, so the moment coaches can communicate, you by definition allow verbal commits at that point. If you try to open communication earlier, you necessarily open up verbal commits earlier. The only way a verbal commit is currently not allowed, is because any verbal commit prior to when communication is allowed indicates a clear violation in NCAA communication rules. I don't see any feasible way that the NCAA can allow communication to start earlier but delay verbal commits until some later date. I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. Well, the First Amendment comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jun 21, 2023 16:28:29 GMT -5
I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. Well, the First Amendment comes to mind. Isn't the NCAA a private organization? Not that I agree with the original poster's comments, but without going to much into the weeds, I would think that the NCAA could have a pretty long leash here. They obviously wouldn't be able to stop a player from going to a school, but they do have sway over athletic scholarship rules. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 21, 2023 16:35:31 GMT -5
Well, the First Amendment comes to mind. Isn't the NCAA a private organization? Not that I agree with the original poster's comments, but without going to much into the weeds, I would think that the NCAA could have a pretty long leash here. They obviously wouldn't be able to stop a player from going to a school, but they do have sway over athletic scholarship rules. You think there’s no room for a lawsuit if the NCAA tells a player they can’t receive a scholarship because they posted on social media they’re committed to going to that school? |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jun 21, 2023 16:48:18 GMT -5
Isn't the NCAA a private organization? Not that I agree with the original poster's comments, but without going to much into the weeds, I would think that the NCAA could have a pretty long leash here. They obviously wouldn't be able to stop a player from going to a school, but they do have sway over athletic scholarship rules. You think there’s no room for a lawsuit if the NCAA tells a player they can’t receive a scholarship because they posted on social media they’re committed to going to that school? Oh there is definitively room for a lawsuit, but I'd say that about just about anything these days. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 21, 2023 16:50:32 GMT -5
You think there’s no room for a lawsuit if the NCAA tells a player they can’t receive a scholarship because they posted on social media they’re committed to going to that school? Oh there is definitively room for a lawsuit, but I'd say that about just about anything these days. Well, what I can tell you is that the NCAA is very lawsuit averse these days, so if it’s likely to bring on a lawsuit, they’re very likely not to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jun 21, 2023 17:14:57 GMT -5
Oh there is definitively room for a lawsuit, but I'd say that about just about anything these days. Well, what I can tell you is that the NCAA is very lawsuit averse these days, so if it’s likely to bring on a lawsuit, they’re very likely not to do it. Very true. Surely they would never create such a rule, and I wouldn't support it. However, as a matter of the First Amendment, the NCAA already has plenty of rules specifically restricting speech as it relates to NCAA institutions and perspective student athletes. If those can pass the constitutional smell test, this probably could too. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jun 21, 2023 17:26:45 GMT -5
Its a catch-22. The NCAA has no control over verbal commitments, so the moment coaches can communicate, you by definition allow verbal commits at that point. If you try to open communication earlier, you necessarily open up verbal commits earlier. The only way a verbal commit is currently not allowed, is because any verbal commit prior to when communication is allowed indicates a clear violation in NCAA communication rules. I don't see any feasible way that the NCAA can allow communication to start earlier but delay verbal commits until some later date. I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. Not sure the NCAA would be interested in trying to police something like verbal commitments. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 21, 2023 18:05:09 GMT -5
Its a catch-22. The NCAA has no control over verbal commitments, so the moment coaches can communicate, you by definition allow verbal commits at that point. If you try to open communication earlier, you necessarily open up verbal commits earlier. The only way a verbal commit is currently not allowed, is because any verbal commit prior to when communication is allowed indicates a clear violation in NCAA communication rules. I don't see any feasible way that the NCAA can allow communication to start earlier but delay verbal commits until some later date. I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. If you notice, neither coaches nor schools ever say anything about a verbal commit other than a silly "bingo" or other flag for their fan base to go scour the instagram accounts of 15 year old girls. Those announcements always come from the girls, who are not even registered PSAs yet. The NCAA has zero jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 21, 2023 18:14:40 GMT -5
I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. Not sure the NCAA would be interested in trying to police something like verbal commitments. They may not be interested in it, but if they're interested in "protecting" the athletes they should really analyze what's going on now and if it's better for the girls in the long run. Also take a peek at how many girls who graduated high school in '22 transferred out after one year and hit the portal. Some of that could've been avoided. imo |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 21, 2023 18:18:34 GMT -5
I'm unsure as to why the NCAA couldn't have control on when verbal commitments are made public. Just because a coach can make contact (and even make an offer) there's no reason the athlete needs to make a commitment at that time. The NCAA could have a provision that the announcement of a verbal commitment before a certain period is a violation and disqualifies that athlete from going to that school. If you notice, neither coaches nor schools ever say anything about a verbal commit other than a silly "bingo" or other flag for their fan base to go scour the instagram accounts of 15 year old girls. Those announcements always come from the girls, who are not even registered PSAs yet. The NCAA has zero jurisdiction. I won't disagree with you, but I will say that the steps taken by the NCAA to "protect" girls in volleyball may have been more detrimental than helpful. Again my opinion (and echoed by others on VT). |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 21, 2023 18:43:22 GMT -5
I believe everyone gets an opinion, and there’s certainly validity on all sides of the equation, but I’m of the opinion that more legislation is not a good answer. It creates difficulties in enforcement when the NCAA already has huge issues with how the enforce the current rules on the books. It also feels like a solution in search of a problem.
I’d personally prefer if all student athletes took official visits before committing. But I do believe it’s important to have leeway and not get into the business of enforcing my personal preference. If a player knows where they want to go and they have the opportunity to go there, I don’t see an issue in making the announcement via social media to everyone that’s what they want to do. There’s nothing about it that’s binding. Frankly, in other sports players take visits all the time after making a commitment. Plenty of them make multiple commitments before signing a letter of intent.
Shoot, in football schools make offers that aren’t really even offers. The offer is simply a sign of interest, not something a player can actually commit to.
If I look at it on paper, and how the rules are designed to operate, they make sense to me. Coaches and players can’t talk to each other until June 15th. Allow them to communicate with one another so the player has an idea of who is interested in them, and who they’re interested in, in turn. Then in August they can start taking official visits to inform themselves better as to where they want to go, winnow it down, and make an informed decision as to where they’ll accept a scholarship offer from. I’d probably prefer all this after the junior year, but that’s not realistic for a variety of reasons. I’m glad we at least have the restrictions until after the sophomore season.
In the real world players have already visited elite camps. They’ve seen the coaches at their club matches. The recruiting coordinators for their clubs tell them which coaches are contacting them. There’s a lot of knowledge out there prior to June 15 that goes outside of what the NCAA can or wants to address.
As far as I’m concerned it shouldn’t be the NCAA’s job to guide student athletes to make the best decision for themselves other than providing a general framework. Which, IMO, they’ve done. Trying to enforce when and how a player can make a public non binding commitment to a specific program is getting WAY too far in the weeds, IMO. That should be the student athletes’ choice, whether I agree with it or not, and while acknowledging there’s some pressure being applied by college coaches to make a decision favorable to their program. Hey, welcome to the real world. At least it’s not binding and so they can change their mind if they want to, just like kids do in other sports ALL. THE. TIME.
Bringing in the numbers of portal players to the discussion misses the point, IMO. Not every decision we make is supposed to be the right one. The portal creates an efficient system for players to announce their availability and for coaches of other teams to be able to easily reach out to them. There are always going to be players in the portal regardless of what kind of original decision making process is implemented. Some of the best decisions I’ve made in my life were the wrong ones, because I learned the most from them. You can tell another person not to put their hand on the red stove because it’s hot, but no matter how many times you tell them, there are people in this world that have to find out for themselves, and then that lesson is learned in a much different way than it would have been simply by being told not to.
There are aspects of the college recruiting process and finding the right school that goes into that category for me. Some life lessons have to be learned by doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Jun 21, 2023 19:48:18 GMT -5
If you notice, neither coaches nor schools ever say anything about a verbal commit other than a silly "bingo" or other flag for their fan base to go scour the instagram accounts of 15 year old girls. Those announcements always come from the girls, who are not even registered PSAs yet. The NCAA has zero jurisdiction. I won't disagree with you, but I will say that the steps taken by the NCAA to "protect" girls in volleyball may have been more detrimental than helpful. Again my opinion (and echoed by others on VT). Tbh at that age I would’ve loved to have had colleges interested in me that early on. Not even for the bragging rights but i feel it would have supercharged my academics and approach to school in general. Not to mention just looking into what the whole world of studying a major was all about. I was a good student, but I think 8th grade me would have liked a bit more of a boost towards some structure/focus in the midst of TP’ing my friends’ houses and going to school dances. |
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jun 21, 2023 20:24:46 GMT -5
Not sure the NCAA would be interested in trying to police something like verbal commitments. They may not be interested in it, but if they're interested in "protecting" the athletes they should really analyze what's going on now and if it's better for the girls in the long run. Also take a peek at how many girls who graduated high school in '22 transferred out after one year and hit the portal. Some of that could've been avoided. imo “Protect girls” ?? From what exactly? Believe me the only thing that kept the transfer numbers low was before portal it was more difficult to transfer: 1) you need permission to contact 2) and a signed one time release transfer; with a list of schools the release didn't exempt you too : then the plsyer had to contact schools: blah, blah, blah. So ncaa (by request of athletes) simplified process and here we are: more visits doesn't help fo better decisions: i have tangented a bit more : protect the girls lol |
|
