|
|
Post by chibadgerfan on Jun 25, 2024 14:36:01 GMT -5
Sorry, longtime lurker, noob at actually posting. I suspect many on here have been through this on one side or another but having literally just gone through this with my daughter, this couldn’t ring more true. Having the first official contact coincide with offers and potential acceptance of those offers is nonsensical. Coaches are always going to have more info than the PSA - they’ve been watching film and scouting live games for months. The kids maybe see them on their courts, get questionnaires in the mail and maybe get a little color from a club director or recruiting coordinator but really don’t know with any certainty just how interested a school may be. The best way to get a feel for these programs and campuses before official contact is to attend a camp but they don’t really begin in earnest until a week or so before the contact date - when choosing a camp they’re really only guessing at the level of interest of a school, traveling around the country is costly, and there’s a finite amount of time to do this pre Jun15. When the date comes, an hour phone call is maybe all the two have to mutually get to know each other’s personality. From a coaches perspective, they have a list of kids they’re interested in and may feel pressure to get offers out to not lose a kid who maybe already has attended camp somewhere else while also allowing themselves time to work their way down their list if one of their kids come off the board. If they don’t want to blindly offer, the kid could end up elsewhere when in actuality, they may have been a better fit. The PSA, a 16 yo kid who has never been through this overwhelming process before, feels pressure to commit or risk losing the offer. Even if they’ve attended a camp and have a good handle on one school, there’s a good chance they get other offers or interest that they’ve been unable to investigate. This mad scramble leads to a ton of undue stress at a time that should be joyful and ultimately poorly informed major life decisions are made on both sides and no one, school or athlete, is better off for it. At a minimum, there should be a mandated cooling off period between offers or indications of interest/communication of where a kid ranks in a schools list and the date at which the PSA can actually commit so they have time to make informed decisions regarding prioritizing camps, campus visits and vetting colleges and programs. Actual acceptance day will still be chaos, but everyone will be better armed with information to find a good mutual fit and be able to fully commit and be all in without a nagging thought in the back of their head of ‘what if’. Most of Coach Booth’s recommendations make sense and you can nit pick the details here and there but it should definitely be a more graduated process. I love so much about this but it comes from a place of misinformation - the same misinformation in KBB's twitter post, and mentioned in Halle Thompson's VBadrenaline interview. JUNE 15 IS NOT THE OFFER June 15 is talking, including talking about offering, but it's just talking. That and the 16 months following are just the engagement - "if I asked, would you say yes?" - but the offer is the National Letter of Intent and that cannot come until November of senior year. Coaches, like car salesman, may paint a picture that makes you feel pressure that isn't real. FWIW, Halle Thompson said Wisconsin told her she had all the time in the world - sometimes the pressure is peer pressure of FOMO, sometimes it is the club who wants you committed so they can brag/market that before tryouts. It isn't always the coaches, but sometimes it is. And the coaches don't advertise this but your verbal commitment is only a promise (on both sides) that you are trying on for size. You are not - NOT - actually committed until signing day, in 17 months. And you don't have to sign then if you aren't ready. You don't even have to sign in the spring! In the age of the portal, we know there are scholarships open each May for that fall. You could take 22 more months to make your decision and still land on your feet. 22 months is enough time to take up a new sport and get recruited for it if you wanted to. With the class of 2026 especially, with the anticipation of adding 4-8 additional scholarship for 60-80 programs (200-700 additional scholarships total), there was no rush on June 15. The pressure was not real. There is nothing the NCAA can do about peer pressure, or bad advice, or the rest of it. You really do have all the time in the world to get to know a program, to make visits, go to camps, see who commits where, etc. I recall Rachel Adams waited ages and I think about 8 programs held scholarships for her until she committed to Texas in November of senior year if I recall. Every so often there is an athlete that knows her value and makes the schools play their game, and if you are good, they will gladly play. For a long time Stanford's admissions process made many athletes slow down and gave an excuse to many others. A daughter of a friend was waiting on Stanford and had at least 3 other top schools more than happy to hold offers for her incase it didn't work out at Stanford. It worked out, and the other schools moved on. Yet Richkern.com is approaching 130 players committed in 10 days, so I don't think this message is getting out. While true to the letter of the rules, the underlaying market functions differently. The concerns that Thompson expressed are real. Everybody knows that between Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Texas, there are only about a dozen scholarships available for the class of 2026, and about two dozen athletes who have a realistic shot at them. Hence as verbal offers are made and accepted, remaining possibilities dwindle, and speed matters. It’s true nothing is written down, but no matter because if either school or athlete flakes for no good reason, their reputation deteriorates considerably. Frankly this market is similar to a hot real estate market. |
|
|
|
Post by Pepperjack on Jun 25, 2024 18:30:49 GMT -5
Sarah Hickman, if you’re reading this… it’s your sign to become a Wisconsin Badger
|
|
|
|
Post by For_volley06 on Jun 25, 2024 18:49:05 GMT -5
Sorry, longtime lurker, noob at actually posting. I suspect many on here have been through this on one side or another but having literally just gone through this with my daughter, this couldn’t ring more true. Having the first official contact coincide with offers and potential acceptance of those offers is nonsensical. Coaches are always going to have more info than the PSA - they’ve been watching film and scouting live games for months. The kids maybe see them on their courts, get questionnaires in the mail and maybe get a little color from a club director or recruiting coordinator but really don’t know with any certainty just how interested a school may be. The best way to get a feel for these programs and campuses before official contact is to attend a camp but they don’t really begin in earnest until a week or so before the contact date - when choosing a camp they’re really only guessing at the level of interest of a school, traveling around the country is costly, and there’s a finite amount of time to do this pre Jun15. When the date comes, an hour phone call is maybe all the two have to mutually get to know each other’s personality. From a coaches perspective, they have a list of kids they’re interested in and may feel pressure to get offers out to not lose a kid who maybe already has attended camp somewhere else while also allowing themselves time to work their way down their list if one of their kids come off the board. If they don’t want to blindly offer, the kid could end up elsewhere when in actuality, they may have been a better fit. The PSA, a 16 yo kid who has never been through this overwhelming process before, feels pressure to commit or risk losing the offer. Even if they’ve attended a camp and have a good handle on one school, there’s a good chance they get other offers or interest that they’ve been unable to investigate. This mad scramble leads to a ton of undue stress at a time that should be joyful and ultimately poorly informed major life decisions are made on both sides and no one, school or athlete, is better off for it. At a minimum, there should be a mandated cooling off period between offers or indications of interest/communication of where a kid ranks in a schools list and the date at which the PSA can actually commit so they have time to make informed decisions regarding prioritizing camps, campus visits and vetting colleges and programs. Actual acceptance day will still be chaos, but everyone will be better armed with information to find a good mutual fit and be able to fully commit and be all in without a nagging thought in the back of their head of ‘what if’. Most of Coach Booth’s recommendations make sense and you can nit pick the details here and there but it should definitely be a more graduated process. I love so much about this but it comes from a place of misinformation - the same misinformation in KBB's twitter post, and mentioned in Halle Thompson's VBadrenaline interview. JUNE 15 IS NOT THE OFFER June 15 is talking, including talking about offering, but it's just talking. That and the 16 months following are just the engagement - "if I asked, would you say yes?" - but the offer is the National Letter of Intent and that cannot come until November of senior year. Coaches, like car salesman, may paint a picture that makes you feel pressure that isn't real. FWIW, Halle Thompson said Wisconsin told her she had all the time in the world - sometimes the pressure is peer pressure of FOMO, sometimes it is the club who wants you committed so they can brag/market that before tryouts. It isn't always the coaches, but sometimes it is. And the coaches don't advertise this but your verbal commitment is only a promise (on both sides) that you are trying on for size. You are not - NOT - actually committed until signing day, in 17 months. And you don't have to sign then if you aren't ready. You don't even have to sign in the spring! In the age of the portal, we know there are scholarships open each May for that fall. You could take 22 more months to make your decision and still land on your feet. 22 months is enough time to take up a new sport and get recruited for it if you wanted to. With the class of 2026 especially, with the anticipation of adding 4-8 additional scholarship for 60-80 programs (200-700 additional scholarships total), there was no rush on June 15. The pressure was not real. If this really was a structural issue, then yes, the NCAA would need to change, but there is nothing the NCAA can do about peer pressure, or bad advice, or impatience. You really do have all the time in the world to get to know a program, to make visits, go to camps, see who commits where, etc. I recall Rachel Adams waited ages and I think about 8 programs held scholarships for her until she committed to Texas in November of senior year if I recall. Every so often there is an athlete that knows her value and makes the schools play her game, and if you are good, they will gladly play. For a long time Stanford's admissions process made many athletes slow down and gave an excuse to many others. A daughter of a friend was waiting on Stanford and had at least 3 other top schools more than happy to hold offers for her incase it didn't work out at Stanford. It worked out, and the other schools moved on. Yet Richkern.com is approaching 130 players committed in 10 days, so I don't think this message is getting out. What message isn't getting out? This is literally like saying you're not getting married because you haven't had the wedding and you're only engaged. Yes June 15th is the offer (or engagement). Yes signing day is the official ceremony. Most people understand that all engagements don't always result in the marriage. This day and age......if you wait, you will miss out on some opportunities. Many coaches do put a timeline on accepting an official offer made after June 15th. Some don't. Maybe other opportunities will open up but that is a big gamble for the majority of girls and their families. I'm not saying it's a great system and I do wish the girls could really take their time but it's not the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by TimTheEnchanter on Jun 25, 2024 18:54:17 GMT -5
[. [/quote]
I love so much about this but it comes from a place of misinformation - the same misinformation in KBB's twitter post, and mentioned in Halle Thompson's VBadrenaline interview.
JUNE 15 IS NOT THE OFFER
June 15 is talking, including talking about offering, but it's just talking. That and the 16 months following are just the engagement - "if I asked, would you say yes?" - but the offer is the National Letter of Intent and that cannot come until November of senior year. Coaches, like car salesman, may paint a picture that makes you feel pressure that isn't real. FWIW, Halle Thompson said Wisconsin told her she had all the time in the world - sometimes the pressure is peer pressure of FOMO, sometimes it is the club who wants you committed so they can brag/market that before tryouts. It isn't always the coaches, but sometimes it is.
And the coaches don't advertise this but your verbal commitment is only a promise (on both sides) that you are trying on for size. You are not - NOT - actually committed until signing day, in 17 months. And you don't have to sign then if you aren't ready. You don't even have to sign in the spring! In the age of the portal, we know there are scholarships open each May for that fall. You could take 22 more months to make your decision and still land on your feet. 22 months is enough time to take up a new sport and get recruited for it if you wanted to.
With the class of 2026 especially, with the anticipation of adding 4-8 additional scholarship for 60-80 programs (200-700 additional scholarships total), there was no rush on June 15. The pressure was not real. If this really was a structural issue, then yes, the NCAA would need to change, but there is nothing the NCAA can do about peer pressure, or bad advice, or impatience.
You really do have all the time in the world to get to know a program, to make visits, go to camps, see who commits where, etc. I recall Rachel Adams waited ages and I think about 8 programs held scholarships for her until she committed to Texas in November of senior year if I recall. Every so often there is an athlete that knows her value and makes the schools play her game, and if you are good, they will gladly play. For a long time Stanford's admissions process made many athletes slow down and gave an excuse to many others. A daughter of a friend was waiting on Stanford and had at least 3 other top schools more than happy to hold offers for her incase it didn't work out at Stanford. It worked out, and the other schools moved on.
Yet Richkern.com is approaching 130 players committed in 10 days, so I don't think this message is getting out.
[/quote]
While your description of the current set of rules and the read between the lines nuances are accurate in theory, the mere fact that 130 girls have committed prove that in reality that is not the case. True, June 15 is the start of talking but the reality is offers are made as well. True, girls can take all the time they want but they are taking a calculated risk that if an offer is pulled, which does happen, something better or even just acceptable comes along. Sure, if they want to play volleyball in college, they can find a home somewhere but you are assuming all volleyball programs are fungible which they clearly are not in numerous ways from geographical location to coaching staff to size or feel of campus to quality of academics to will they compete for national championships or conference championships and on and on. When you start filtering schools based on these criteria, many of which are important to kids, the universe gets pretty small. If, after all of that filtering, they’re able to secure an early offer on a fit, the risk/reward may not be worth it. The very top prospects may have more bargaining power, but the vast majority of girls do not.
Yes it is only a verbal commitment, but it’s a commitment and that means something to a lot of people, and should. It’s a matter of mutual respect and absent extenuating circumstances, which do occur, I don’t think you’d want breaking that by either party to become commonplace.
You make many valid points, but right or wrong, real or perceived, perception becomes reality and a lot of this hand wringing could be avoided by a simple rule change mandating separation of the permissible talking date and offer/acceptance date.
|
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Jun 25, 2024 18:59:48 GMT -5
TL;DR - this setup isn’t perfect but it’s what we got
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jun 26, 2024 1:00:17 GMT -5
All these rankings are a joke. But I have to say, this vbadrenaline guy’s rankings are really laughable. Who from that list do you think shouldn't be there? I've seen video of most of those players and none strike me as out of touch to be listed as among the best in their position for the 2026 class. I actually prefer this style of "ranking", but for it to go even further and remove the order of the players within the position groups. List the 10 or so players, per position, that you think will likely end up being among the best college players in that class by time they graduate. I think that's a much healthier and fruitful way to do general player rankings/evals. One only needs to peruse the Wisconsin or Texas recruiting threads to find people literally obsessed with a ranking of a player that means absolutely nothing. All it does is increase pressure and expectation for no good reason. I've been following club ball for years and while in a number of years, the top two or three recruits are plainly obvious, the rest are much less clear, and I think as more young girls play volleyball and the training and coaching at the prep level continues to elevate, it will continue to be much less clear. Even when the coaches had input in the rankings, there were frequent misses. This was the top 10 Senior Aces in 2020: 1- Taylor Landfair 2- Madison Skinner 3- Jenna Wenaas 4- Jess Mruzik 5- Leila Smith 6- Naomi Cabello 7- Iman Ndaiye 8- Emily Londot 9- Madison Williams 10- Regan Rutherford We've now had 4 full seasons of the 2020 class. Raise your hand if you are putting Jenna Wenaas on your team over Sarah Franklin or Anna DeBeer (who weren't in the top 10). Iman Ndaiye v. Devyn Robinson (who wasn't in the top 10). Madison Williams isn't even putting the ball away on an NC State team playing in the ACC. I won't even touch Naomi Cabello. People also think that somehow only certain elite schools (*Cough* Texas, *Cough* Nebraska) can unlock talent and develop national team players. Sophie Fischer (in this 2020 class), who wasn't a top 10 recruit and found her legs at Georgia, is currently on the most elite collegiate USAV team in the country. Elena Scott, who is on the same elite collegiate team, wasn't even a top 50 recruit, Cara Cresse, also on the same team, wasn't even ranked in the top 150. Now we have Prep Dig (no coach input) as apparently the standard bearer for numerical rankings. Their top 3 for 2022 was Wucherer (OH), Middleton (OH) and Carlson (S). Anyone else here rather have Rubin (OH), Hudson (OH), and Stucky (S) next year? I know I would. Get rid of the numerical rankings and just do general groupings. Less pressure, less expectation, and probably a lot less egg on the face. |
|
crossover2
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 183
|
Post by crossover2 on Jun 26, 2024 14:05:53 GMT -5
All these rankings are a joke. But I have to say, this vbadrenaline guy’s rankings are really laughable. Who from that list do you think shouldn't be there? I've seen video of most of those players and none strike me as out of touch to be listed as among the best in their position for the 2026 class. I actually prefer this style of "ranking", but for it to go even further and remove the order of the players within the position groups. List the 10 or so players, per position, that you think will likely end up being among the best college players in that class by time they graduate. I think that's a much healthier and fruitful way to do general player rankings/evals. One only needs to peruse the Wisconsin or Texas recruiting threads to find people literally obsessed with a ranking of a player that means absolutely nothing. All it does is increase pressure and expectation for no good reason. I've been following club ball for years and while in a number of years, the top two or three recruits are plainly obvious, the rest are much less clear, and I think as more young girls play volleyball and the training and coaching at the prep level continues to elevate, it will continue to be much less clear. Even when the coaches had input in the rankings, there were frequent misses. This was the top 10 Senior Aces in 2020: 1- Taylor Landfair 2- Madison Skinner 3- Jenna Wenaas 4- Jess Mruzik 5- Leila Smith 6- Naomi Cabello 7- Iman Ndaiye 8- Emily Londot 9- Madison Williams 10- Regan Rutherford We've now had 4 full seasons of the 2020 class. Raise your hand if you are putting Jenna Wenaas on your team over Sarah Franklin or Anna DeBeer (who weren't in the top 10). Iman Ndaiye v. Devyn Robinson (who wasn't in the top 10). Madison Williams isn't even putting the ball away on an NC State team playing in the ACC. I won't even touch Naomi Cabello. People also think that somehow only certain elite schools (*Cough* Texas, *Cough* Nebraska) can unlock talent and develop national team players. Sophie Fischer (in this 2020 class), who wasn't a top 10 recruit and found her legs at Georgia, is currently on the most elite collegiate USAV team in the country. Elena Scott, who is on the same elite collegiate team, wasn't even a top 50 recruit, Cara Cresse, also on the same team, wasn't even ranked in the top 150. Now we have Prep Dig (no coach input) as apparently the standard bearer for numerical rankings. Their top 3 for 2022 was Wucherer (OH), Middleton (OH) and Carlson (S). Anyone else here rather have Rubin (OH), Hudson (OH), and Stucky (S) next year? I know I would. Get rid of the numerical rankings and just do general groupings. Less pressure, less expectation, and probably a lot less egg on the face. That is exactly my point. When I refer to rankings, I am referring to numerical rankings. Volleyball Adrenaline is no different than the others- it is numeric. The only rankings I have seen that is by “stars” is Vballrecruiter. I hate to say it, but hers might be the most accurate that way. In the past, only a handful of “top 10s” ever made it in college. And for the 2026 class, who I feel are by far less talented than 2024, 2025 AND 2027s, these numerical rankings wont mean a thing in two years. And they shouldn't mean a thing today. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 26, 2024 15:26:31 GMT -5
There is not a single talent evaluative mechanism that is perfect.
Professional sports is littered with mistakes in their respective drafts, and that’s with access to resources volleyball recruiting services can’t even begin to approach.
There’s also the human need to rank things. We see it more than ever with social media because it’s compelling, but the impulse has been there all along. Even with the star system in football and basketball, there are still overall rankings regardless of position.
All I know is that Texas and Nebraska are perennially at the top of the sport, and not so coincidentally they are also at the top in talent acquisition rankings. Sure, both programs have misses. All programs have misses. ALL talent recruitment procedures have misses, regardless of industry or endeavor.
Instead of pulling out individual players to show the ranking systems aren’t perfect, which to me is pointing out the blinding glimpse of the obvious, it’s better to measure lists in aggregate. And at the end of the day no one is hoisting hardware over recruiting rankings anyway. More than anything else they’re good for driving conversation and having some kind of measuring stick to go by. The same way players are talked about in terms of their draft status years after they enter the professional leagues.
I feel like some people who poo poo the lists demand some kind of impossible perfection.
I will say it’s my belief some of these ranking services have turned their lists into revenue generating mechanisms by collecting payments from clubs and parents to advance specific players’ profiles, but I don’t have any receipts or copies of payments to prove it. I don’t understand how widespread it is, either. It does make the rankings a bit suspect for me, but I don’t have a deep emotional investment in it one way or another.
The best thing, IMO, is for publications that feature recruiting information to derive a more robust percentage of their income from fans of the sport, rather than players/parents/clubs. I feel like as long as a significant chunk of the subscribers are the latter, that’s who the chief audience will be. That does not create a healthy incentivization for accuracy and integrity, IMO.
|
|
crossover2
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 183
|
Post by crossover2 on Jun 26, 2024 15:38:44 GMT -5
There is not a single talent evaluative mechanism that is perfect. Professional sports is littered with mistakes in their respective drafts, and that’s with access to resources volleyball recruiting services can’t even begin to approach. There’s also the human need to rank things. We see it more than ever with social media because it’s compelling, but the impulse has been there all along. Even with the star system in football and basketball, there are still overall rankings regardless of position. All I know is that Texas and Nebraska are perennially at the top of the sport, and not so coincidentally they are also at the top in talent acquisition rankings. Sure, both programs have misses. All programs have misses. ALL talent recruitment procedures have misses, regardless of industry or endeavor. Instead of pulling out individual players to show the ranking systems aren’t perfect, which to me is pointing out the blinding glimpse of the obvious, it’s better to measure lists in aggregate. And at the end of the day no one is hoisting hardware over recruiting rankings anyway. More than anything else they’re good for driving conversation and having some kind of measuring stick to go by. The same way players are talked about in terms of their draft status years after they enter the professional leagues. I feel like some people who poo poo the lists demand some kind of impossible perfection. I will say it’s my belief some of these ranking services have turned their lists into revenue generating mechanisms by collecting payments from clubs and parents to advance specific players’ profiles, but I don’t have any receipts or copies of payments to prove it. I don’t understand how widespread it is, either. It does make the rankings a bit suspect for me, but I don’t have a deep emotional investment in it one way or another. The best thing, IMO, is for publications that feature recruiting information to derive a more robust percentage of their income from fans of the sport, rather than players/parents/clubs. I feel like as long as a significant chunk of the subscribers are the latter, that’s who the chief audience will be. That does not create a healthy incentivization for accuracy and integrity, IMO. I agree. My issue is with volleyball adrenaline. $8 a month to have a profile. And you wont be mentioned or ranked if you dont. They arent any different than prepvolleyball and prepdig. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jun 26, 2024 15:59:23 GMT -5
Both coaches and recruits need more time to be able to communicate without the pressure of offers. Let people take unofficials in the spring, talk on the phone. Then June 15 you can offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by VBallLife on Jun 26, 2024 21:41:17 GMT -5
There is not a single talent evaluative mechanism that is perfect. Professional sports is littered with mistakes in their respective drafts, and that’s with access to resources volleyball recruiting services can’t even begin to approach. There’s also the human need to rank things. We see it more than ever with social media because it’s compelling, but the impulse has been there all along. Even with the star system in football and basketball, there are still overall rankings regardless of position. All I know is that Texas and Nebraska are perennially at the top of the sport, and not so coincidentally they are also at the top in talent acquisition rankings. Sure, both programs have misses. All programs have misses. ALL talent recruitment procedures have misses, regardless of industry or endeavor. Instead of pulling out individual players to show the ranking systems aren’t perfect, which to me is pointing out the blinding glimpse of the obvious, it’s better to measure lists in aggregate. And at the end of the day no one is hoisting hardware over recruiting rankings anyway. More than anything else they’re good for driving conversation and having some kind of measuring stick to go by. The same way players are talked about in terms of their draft status years after they enter the professional leagues. I feel like some people who poo poo the lists demand some kind of impossible perfection. I will say it’s my belief some of these ranking services have turned their lists into revenue generating mechanisms by collecting payments from clubs and parents to advance specific players’ profiles, but I don’t have any receipts or copies of payments to prove it. I don’t understand how widespread it is, either. It does make the rankings a bit suspect for me, but I don’t have a deep emotional investment in it one way or another. The best thing, IMO, is for publications that feature recruiting information to derive a more robust percentage of their income from fans of the sport, rather than players/parents/clubs. I feel like as long as a significant chunk of the subscribers are the latter, that’s who the chief audience will be. That does not create a healthy incentivization for accuracy and integrity, IMO. I agree. My issue is with volleyball adrenaline. $8 a month to have a profile. And you wont be mentioned or ranked if you dont. They arent any different than prepvolleyball and prepdig. FACTS |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 27, 2024 11:20:56 GMT -5
Both coaches and recruits need more time to be able to communicate without the pressure of offers. Let people take unofficials in the spring, talk on the phone. Then June 15 you can offer. There is no actual offer until November of senior year, that's the Letter of Intent. Sophomore June you can talk - the NCAA can request the call logs from coaches. August they can make official visits, and their are records kept about that. But once you allow communication, there is no way for the NCAA to police every recruiting conversation in every sport. How do you even have a recruiting conversation without questions like "are you interested in me/us?" or "what does your board look like?" What would the rule be? That you cannot use the words "scholarship," "offer" or "commitment?" Do we expect the NCAA to come up with an app that screens for these words? The NCAA has limited when the process can start to protect 8th and 9th graders and most people think that was a good idea, and it has worked. They don't allow the schools to comment publicly on recruits who are or are not being recruited. They don't allow actual offers to go out until November of senior year. What else would the NCAA be able to do? Most of their rules are being thrown out in court as it is so if we don't like the process, they aren't going to be the solution. The Wisconsin kid said the school didn't put her on the clock, but she felt pressure from seeing other players commit. The issue there isn't with the NCAA, it's with social media. It's with parents and clubs posting to say "we did it!" The kids, who are not NCAA players and not subject to NCAA rules yet are free to say or post anything they want - "Hey I got an offer" or "hey I committed" - and the NCAA cannot stop them. I think it was maybe 8-10 years ago a football player publicly committed to Cal, had a signing ceremony and all that - only Cal had never heard of him! There is nothing the NCAA can do. I would emphasize to kids, you have until signing day. If you aren't ready, sign in the spring, and if the "right school" runs out of scholarships for '26, offer to take the fall off and go in January of '27. And this is easier for top TOP players but if you want time there are ways to buy time for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 27, 2024 11:36:19 GMT -5
The Wisconsin kid said the school didn't put her on the clock, but she felt pressure from seeing other players commit. The issue there isn't with the NCAA, it's with social media. It's with parents and clubs posting to say "we did it!" The kids, who are not NCAA players and not subject to NCAA rules yet are free to say or post anything they want - "Hey I got an offer" or "hey I committed" - and the NCAA cannot stop them. If this is true, a rule against coaches making offers would actually be effective. If a kid can't make a commitment post with an investigation being launched into the school to see if an offer was made, then we will succeed in removing the peer pressure that all of the public commitments make. Sure, it does not mean that a coach won't be able to call an athlete and say "we're offering you a full scholarship, but you can't tell anybody". But (a) it's hard to not sound super shady making that offer and (b) it still succeeds in slowing down the commitment process if the athlete can't publicly post. |
|
|
|
Post by straightnochaser on Jun 27, 2024 14:21:19 GMT -5
The Wisconsin kid said the school didn't put her on the clock, but she felt pressure from seeing other players commit. The issue there isn't with the NCAA, it's with social media. It's with parents and clubs posting to say "we did it!" The kids, who are not NCAA players and not subject to NCAA rules yet are free to say or post anything they want - "Hey I got an offer" or "hey I committed" - and the NCAA cannot stop them. If this is true, a rule against coaches making offers would actually be effective. If a kid can't make a commitment post with an investigation being launched into the school to see if an offer was made, then we will succeed in removing the peer pressure that all of the public commitments make. Sure, it does not mean that a coach won't be able to call an athlete and say "we're offering you a full scholarship, but you can't tell anybody". But (a) it's hard to not sound super shady making that offer and (b) it still succeeds in slowing down the commitment process if the athlete can't publicly post. IMO I don’t think the issue is the making of the offer. I think allowing the coaches to make the offers will allow the visits to make sense for the athletes. Are coaches going to spring for visits to athletes they don’t make offers too? That could get pretty expensive. I think if you restrict the time in which you can make a verbal commitment ( August 15th perhaps), you could alleviate some of the pressure. I think they should keep the calls and offers at June 15, move up visits and push back verbal commitments and I bet there will be less pressure. The reason athletes don’t commit right away is because they want to take their visits and those that commit right away don’t want to wait to schedule a visit so far down the road. This would give them a little more time to visit ( not much)since they wouldn’t be able to verbally commit until a later date. Those who already know where they want to go will still get some time to start visits but if they don’t feel they need to visit before they commit, they still have that 2 month cooling off period to decide. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 27, 2024 14:25:44 GMT -5
If this is true, a rule against coaches making offers would actually be effective. If a kid can't make a commitment post with an investigation being launched into the school to see if an offer was made, then we will succeed in removing the peer pressure that all of the public commitments make. Sure, it does not mean that a coach won't be able to call an athlete and say "we're offering you a full scholarship, but you can't tell anybody". But (a) it's hard to not sound super shady making that offer and (b) it still succeeds in slowing down the commitment process if the athlete can't publicly post. IMO I don’t think the issue is the making of the offer. I think allowing the coaches to make the offers will allow the visits to make sense for the athletes. Are coaches going to spring for visits to athletes they don’t make offers too? That could get pretty expensive. I think if you restrict the time in which you can make a verbal commitment ( August 15th perhaps), you could alleviate some of the pressure. I think they should keep the calls and offers at June 15, move up visits and push back verbal commitments and I bet there will be less pressure. The reason athletes don’t commit right away is because they want to take their visits and those that commit right away don’t want to wait to schedule a visit so far down the road. This would give them a little more time to visit ( not much)since they wouldn’t be able to verbally commit until a later date. Those who already know where they want to go will still get some time to start visits but if they don’t feel they need to visit before they commit, they still have that 2 month cooling off period to decide. For good reason, PSAs don't have rules about what they can and cannot do in their recruiting process. Only the paid employees of NCAA institutions are responsible for knowing and following NCAA bylaws. So I don't know how you restrict commitments. Restricting offers is a rule for coaches to follow, so is more doable. |
|
