|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Jun 21, 2023 20:51:25 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. the idea of the NCAA policing high schoolers’ instagram posts is just baffling to me In law school my famous complex lit professor invited the main players of the opioid epidemic litigation to talk to our class—it was the first time any of those parties had gotten into a room together and discussed the case. A couple parties didn’t want to come and tried to get the court to forbid the class. As my professor said scathingly “the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over my classroom” The idea that the NCAA would have the power to punish a 15 year old for posting on instagram is kinda unthinkable, especially given that they’ve already gotten slapped down for antitrust violations/forbidding NIL |
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Jun 21, 2023 21:38:22 GMT -5
I hope this is some real Badger Tea. We have two puzzle pieces to consider:
1. ... And in the 300-mile radius of Lincoln, which has been good to the Huskers in the past, lies one of the top recruits in the nation — Abigail Mullen from Kansas City, Missouri. PrepVolleyball.com has Mullen as its No. 1 national recruit. [from Husker Extra]
2. Caroline Crawford posted this on her Twitter account according to Kelly's Twitter:
Look who is in KC! @kellypsheffield badgervb
twitter.com/ccpaigee9?lang=en
Is something brewing Badger Fans?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 22, 2023 0:26:47 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). I don't think you can say that quite yet. The situation due to Covid transfers was going to be screwed up with or without the rules change. I knew of two early recruits to tipity-top tier schools that had a year or two pulled from their offers (prior to signing their NLIs senior year) for transfers BEFORE Covid. That situation would have multiplied exponentially with Covid transfers and no rules change. It was going to be really ugly either way. I put the fault firmly on the coaches. The coaches already have a gentleman's agreement not to poach verbal commits that helps preserve limited budgets (and eliminates the need for expensive official visits for recruits you aren't going to sign). As a group they didn't have the discipline to NOT continually go lower and lower to outcompete each other. The NCAA has limited means to stop them making a verbal offer once they are allowed to communicate. The organization that COULD have done something was the AVCA, but they could not agree on rules to self police. It would be ideal if the coaches themselves could enforce their own rules about when verbal commits could be offered. The NCAA can mandate no communication before date X and no visits before date Y. If the coaches could have come together, through the AVCA, and agreed that no verbal offers could be made before date Z, we would have exactly what pretty much everyone agrees would be ideal. Trouble is, and for very, very good reasons, coaches don't trust each other and could not come to an agreement that they thought could be enforced, because of the lengths they felt some coaches would go to break the spirit of any agreed upon rules. My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2023 0:43:15 GMT -5
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). I don't think you can say that quite yet. The situation due to Covid transfers was going to be screwed up with or without the rules change. I knew of two early recruits to tipity-top tier schools that had a year or two pulled from their offers (prior to signing their NLIs senior year) for transfers BEFORE Covid. That situation would have multiplied exponentially with Covid transfers and no rules change. It was going to be really ugly either way. I put the fault firmly on the coaches. The coaches already have a gentleman's agreement not to poach verbal commits that helps preserve limited budgets (and eliminates the need for expensive official visits for recruits you aren't going to sign). As a group they didn't have the discipline to NOT continually go lower and lower to outcompete each other. The NCAA has limited means to stop them making a verbal offer once they are allowed to communicate. The organization that COULD have done something was the AVCA, but they could not agree on rules to self police. It would be ideal if the coaches themselves could enforce their own rules about when verbal commits could be offered. The NCAA can mandate no communication before date X and no visits before date Y. If the coaches could have come together, through the AVCA, and agreed that no verbal offers could be made before date Z, we would have exactly what pretty much everyone agrees would be ideal. Trouble is, and for very, very good reasons, coaches don't trust each other and could not come to an agreement that they thought could be enforced, because of the lengths they felt some coaches would go to break the spirit of any agreed upon rules. My 2 cents. Your two cents are accurate. The unforeseen consequences (Unforeseen by the NCAA that is. I saw this coming from a mile away) is that you've only delayed and actually intensified the pressure put on athletes regarding their decision. Sure, they are older, but they also have less information to go on. In a perfect world, coaches of fictional University of Sheboygan wouldn't be making offers to 8th graders. Sadly in the real world it happens. I don't think that delaying communication so that a player has to try and field 15 calls in two days to coaches she's never talked to before is a better way to go. Just my personal rant. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 22, 2023 0:44:08 GMT -5
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). I don't think you can say that quite yet. The situation due to Covid transfers was going to be screwed up with or without the rules change. I knew of two early recruits to tipity-top tier schools that had a year or two pulled from their offers (prior to signing their NLIs senior year) for transfers BEFORE Covid. That situation would have multiplied exponentially with Covid transfers and no rules change. It was going to be really ugly either way. I put the fault firmly on the coaches. The coaches already have a gentleman's agreement not to poach verbal commits that helps preserve limited budgets (and eliminates the need for expensive official visits for recruits you aren't going to sign). As a group they didn't have the discipline to NOT continually go lower and lower to outcompete each other. The NCAA has limited means to stop them making a verbal offer once they are allowed to communicate. The organization that COULD have done something was the AVCA, but they could not agree on rules to self police. It would be ideal if the coaches themselves could enforce their own rules about when verbal commits could be offered. The NCAA can mandate no communication before date X and no visits before date Y. If the coaches could have come together, through the AVCA, and agreed that no verbal offers could be made before date Z, we would have exactly what pretty much everyone agrees would be ideal. Trouble is, and for very, very good reasons, coaches don't trust each other and could not come to an agreement that they thought could be enforced, because of the lengths they felt some coaches would go to break the spirit of any agreed upon rules. My 2 cents. Frankly it's amazing there's not more poaching going on. Getting that many people with that much at stake to agree on anything and then abide by it astounds me, regardless of the reasons. IMO it's less altruistic, and more mutually assured destruction, nonetheless it impresses me. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 22, 2023 0:47:12 GMT -5
I don't think you can say that quite yet. The situation due to Covid transfers was going to be screwed up with or without the rules change. I knew of two early recruits to tipity-top tier schools that had a year or two pulled from their offers (prior to signing their NLIs senior year) for transfers BEFORE Covid. That situation would have multiplied exponentially with Covid transfers and no rules change. It was going to be really ugly either way. I put the fault firmly on the coaches. The coaches already have a gentleman's agreement not to poach verbal commits that helps preserve limited budgets (and eliminates the need for expensive official visits for recruits you aren't going to sign). As a group they didn't have the discipline to NOT continually go lower and lower to outcompete each other. The NCAA has limited means to stop them making a verbal offer once they are allowed to communicate. The organization that COULD have done something was the AVCA, but they could not agree on rules to self police. It would be ideal if the coaches themselves could enforce their own rules about when verbal commits could be offered. The NCAA can mandate no communication before date X and no visits before date Y. If the coaches could have come together, through the AVCA, and agreed that no verbal offers could be made before date Z, we would have exactly what pretty much everyone agrees would be ideal. Trouble is, and for very, very good reasons, coaches don't trust each other and could not come to an agreement that they thought could be enforced, because of the lengths they felt some coaches would go to break the spirit of any agreed upon rules. My 2 cents. Your two cents are accurate. The unforeseen consequences (Unforeseen by the NCAA that is. I saw this coming from a mile away) is that you've only delayed and actually intensified the pressure put on athletes regarding their decision. Sure, they are older, but they also have less information to go on. In a perfect world, coaches of fictional University of Sheboygan wouldn't be making offers to 8th graders. Sadly in the real world it happens. I don't think that delaying communication so that a player has to try and field 15 calls in two days to coaches she's never talked to before is a better way to go. Just my personal rant. Sounds fair to me. I just think any system implemented is going to have flaws. Doesn't mean someone can't rant about it, though. I feel like you're making legitimate points. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2023 1:02:56 GMT -5
I don't think you can say that quite yet. The situation due to Covid transfers was going to be screwed up with or without the rules change. I knew of two early recruits to tipity-top tier schools that had a year or two pulled from their offers (prior to signing their NLIs senior year) for transfers BEFORE Covid. That situation would have multiplied exponentially with Covid transfers and no rules change. It was going to be really ugly either way. I put the fault firmly on the coaches. The coaches already have a gentleman's agreement not to poach verbal commits that helps preserve limited budgets (and eliminates the need for expensive official visits for recruits you aren't going to sign). As a group they didn't have the discipline to NOT continually go lower and lower to outcompete each other. The NCAA has limited means to stop them making a verbal offer once they are allowed to communicate. The organization that COULD have done something was the AVCA, but they could not agree on rules to self police. It would be ideal if the coaches themselves could enforce their own rules about when verbal commits could be offered. The NCAA can mandate no communication before date X and no visits before date Y. If the coaches could have come together, through the AVCA, and agreed that no verbal offers could be made before date Z, we would have exactly what pretty much everyone agrees would be ideal. Trouble is, and for very, very good reasons, coaches don't trust each other and could not come to an agreement that they thought could be enforced, because of the lengths they felt some coaches would go to break the spirit of any agreed upon rules. My 2 cents. Frankly it's amazing there's not more poaching going on. Getting that many people with that much at stake to agree on anything and then abide by it astounds me, regardless of the reasons. IMO it's less altruistic, and more mutually assured destruction, nonetheless it impresses me. Oh attempts are still made. One school that my daughter, early on, said "No thank you." to, continued to send her correspondence even after she had publicly committed to the school of her choice. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 22, 2023 1:04:55 GMT -5
Frankly it's amazing there's not more poaching going on. Getting that many people with that much at stake to agree on anything and then abide by it astounds me, regardless of the reasons. IMO it's less altruistic, and more mutually assured destruction, nonetheless it impresses me. Oh attempts are still made. One school that my daughter, early on, said "No thank you." to, continued to send her correspondence even after she had publicly committed to the school of her choice. Haha! Yeah, I was thinking of effective poaching. There's not much effective poaching that goes on. That is interesting, though. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2023 1:08:55 GMT -5
Your two cents are accurate. The unforeseen consequences (Unforeseen by the NCAA that is. I saw this coming from a mile away) is that you've only delayed and actually intensified the pressure put on athletes regarding their decision. Sure, they are older, but they also have less information to go on. In a perfect world, coaches of fictional University of Sheboygan wouldn't be making offers to 8th graders. Sadly in the real world it happens. I don't think that delaying communication so that a player has to try and field 15 calls in two days to coaches she's never talked to before is a better way to go. Just my personal rant. Sounds fair to me. I just think any system implemented is going to have flaws. Doesn't mean someone can't rant about it, though. I feel like you're making legitimate points. And I fully acknowledge that no system is perfect. As much as my daughter didn't enjoy having phone calls with coaches in 7th and 8th grade, she did appreciate that it helped her make better, more informed choices in the end. You know when people say they don't want to work out because they're afraid they'll get too big? Well there's no such thing because you can control how big you get. I understand that parents didn't like that kind of responsibility placed on younger kids, but if the parents are there to manage it, the amount of pressure is completely controlled by them. |
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Jun 22, 2023 6:30:55 GMT -5
Sounds fair to me. I just think any system implemented is going to have flaws. Doesn't mean someone can't rant about it, though. I feel like you're making legitimate points. And I fully acknowledge that no system is perfect. As much as my daughter didn't enjoy having phone calls with coaches in 7th and 8th grade, she did appreciate that it helped her make better, more informed choices in the end. You know when people say they don't want to work out because they're afraid they'll get too big? Well there's no such thing because you can control how big you get. I understand that parents didn't like that kind of responsibility placed on younger kids, but if the parents are there to manage it, the amount of pressure is completely controlled by them. A few thoughts, maybe not accurate: 1) Delaying the age at which commitments are made, seems to make sense, but not allowing contact doesn't. It just forces the SA to make decisions based on less information. 2) Why not allow the SA to make verbal non-binding commitments earlier. Thus they could always change their minds and open their recruitment back up. Schools would hate this. 3) The current system favors the best VB schools more than the others. Later commitments allow schools to better evaluate player development and potential. Thus allowing the better VB schools to more accurately pick the best players. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 22, 2023 6:54:41 GMT -5
I hope this is some real Badger Tea. We have two puzzle pieces to consider: 1. ... And in the 300-mile radius of Lincoln, which has been good to the Huskers in the past, lies one of the top recruits in the nation — Abigail Mullen from Kansas City, Missouri. PrepVolleyball.com has Mullen as its No. 1 national recruit. [from Husker Extra] 2. Caroline Crawford posted this on her Twitter account according to Kelly's Twitter: Look who is in KC! @kellypsheffield badgervb twitter.com/ccpaigee9?lang=en Is something brewing Badger Fans? I admit my brain went straight there, but we already have Horner. |
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Jun 22, 2023 6:59:36 GMT -5
I hope this is some real Badger Tea. We have two puzzle pieces to consider: 1. ... And in the 300-mile radius of Lincoln, which has been good to the Huskers in the past, lies one of the top recruits in the nation — Abigail Mullen from Kansas City, Missouri. PrepVolleyball.com has Mullen as its No. 1 national recruit. [from Husker Extra] 2. Caroline Crawford posted this on her Twitter account according to Kelly's Twitter: Look who is in KC! @kellypsheffield badgervb twitter.com/ccpaigee9?lang=en Is something brewing Badger Fans? I admit my brain went straight there, but we already have Horner. It appears both Mullen and Spears are taking time to consider their options. Smart girls. |
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Jun 22, 2023 7:09:24 GMT -5
I admit my brain went straight there, but we already have Horner. It appears both Mullen and Spears are taking time to consider their options. Smart girls. Three schools previously mentioned with respect to Mullen: UCLA, her sister plays there Stnford, could be awaiting academic acceptance Nebraska with a summer clinic in July I'm sure there are more |
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Jun 22, 2023 7:49:10 GMT -5
Three schools previously mentioned with respect to Mullen: UCLA, her sister plays there Stnford, could be awaiting academic acceptance Nebraska with a summer clinic in July I'm sure there are more Wisconsin's elite camp is right after Nebraska's camp. Looks like they might be a player now. USC could also be a player with her club setter just committing there. Potentially critical factor. Can Larson participate in the NE clinic in-person or only in a video? Or via teleconference? |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2023 8:10:01 GMT -5
And I fully acknowledge that no system is perfect. As much as my daughter didn't enjoy having phone calls with coaches in 7th and 8th grade, she did appreciate that it helped her make better, more informed choices in the end. You know when people say they don't want to work out because they're afraid they'll get too big? Well there's no such thing because you can control how big you get. I understand that parents didn't like that kind of responsibility placed on younger kids, but if the parents are there to manage it, the amount of pressure is completely controlled by them. A few thoughts, maybe not accurate: 1) Delaying the age at which commitments are made, seems to make sense, but not allowing contact doesn't. It just forces the SA to make decisions based on less information. 2) Why not allow the SA to make verbal non-binding commitments earlier. Thus they could always change their minds and open their recruitment back up. Schools would hate this. 3) The current system favors the best VB schools more than the others. Later commitments allow schools to better evaluate player development and potential. Thus allowing the better VB schools to more accurately pick the best players. 1) Yes definitely. 2) Yep, I can be onboard with that. 3) No matter what system is used, the best VB schools come out on top. I just want to see SA's that are not in the Top Twenty be able to make decisions with the most amount of information possible and the least amount of pressure attached. |
|
