Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
NCexile

Registered:
Posts: 643
Reply with quote  #1 
Seems everyone agrees that 13/14 year-olds probably aren't ready to decide what college to attend.  Here's how to curb it.  Remove all age/grade restrictions on signing the NLI.  Sounds counterintuitive but doing so would mean that the coach from "I Want U" would now be offering a real scholarship to 8th grade phenom and the 8th grader would need to really commit by signing the NLI.  So the University would be committing to educate the kid whether she could play or not and the kid would be committing to dear old "I want U" whether the same was coach there or not.  All of a sudden so-called 'verbals' . . . which legally are meaningless . . . .  go away.  The stakes are raised for all parties and, for the most part, the age of the recruited player would likely revert back to at least 16.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #2 
Great solution, just one problem, the people who make the rules don't want to box themselves into signing these 8th or 9th graders when they can keep them hanging on for a couple of years before cutting them loose, if they aren't progressing.


__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
uga20

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #3 
Greta ideal but Maddog has a point they don't want to box themselves in... When you can have a parent pay to fly all over the country and pay for hotel and food it saves the college tens of thousands of $ for a official trips who kids not going to go to their college...The only official trip were the college has to pay for is the one they celebrating the signing class. Every other trip is on the parent I know this going through the process myself and now going thru it with my daughter
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,461
Reply with quote  #4 
I wonder if this one official visit crap for the girls could be a title IX issue
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
I wonder if this one official visit crap for the girls could be a title IX issue


Nah. No one is forcing the kids to commit early ir take only one visit.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,100
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
Seems everyone agrees that 13/14 year-olds probably aren't ready to decide what college to attend.  Here's how to curb it.  Remove all age/grade restrictions on signing the NLI.  Sounds counterintuitive but doing so would mean that the coach from "I Want U" would now be offering a real scholarship to 8th grade phenom and the 8th grader would need to really commit by signing the NLI.  So the University would be committing to educate the kid whether she could play or not and the kid would be committing to dear old "I want U" whether the same was coach there or not.  All of a sudden so-called 'verbals' . . . which legally are meaningless . . . .  go away.  The stakes are raised for all parties and, for the most part, the age of the recruited player would likely revert back to at least 16.


Though I agree and like the idea, I can only imagine coaches will continue to find loop holes and work-arounds.  It's kind of how life works.  Set up a system; people will figure out how to game the system; adjust the system to address that gaming; people will figure out how to game the new system.

I wonder how allowing coaches to sign 8th graders legally to a NLI would affect a school like Stanford who really can't do much until that admissions letter is in hand.
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,025
Reply with quote  #7 
I can see some "unofficial" commitments in this scenario, but it would be interesting if some 25-50 type schools would step in early with an very good offer and steal some higher rated players.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,006
Reply with quote  #8 
I see the big problem in early recruiting as it being so all-inclusive..........

You need to verbal by your sophomore year because all the scholarships get promised..........

A player really doesn't have a late-decision as an option, anymore........
uga20

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
I wonder if this one official visit crap for the girls could be a title IX issue


It's not a title IX issue because the young ladies have 5 official trips too but you can't take them till your Sr. Year... You already know where you going by the 10th grade...
uga20

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad


Nah. No one is forcing the kids to commit early ir take only one visit.


They not forcing kids but they are all at the same time...

When your Barnhill you can wait because your the # 1 recruit in the country everybody don't have those luxuries...
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uga20


They not forcing kids but they are all at the same time...

When your Barnhill you can wait because your the # 1 recruit in the country everybody don't have those luxuries...


Same could be said for the #1 baseball recruit as compared to your average D1 player. There is no Title IX violation because the schools did not do away with the official visits. The current process just makes them much less likely to happen.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 1,507
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uga20
It's not a title IX issue because the young ladies have 5 official trips too but you can't take them till your Sr. Year... You already know where you going by the 10th grade...


or 8th [biggrin]
uga20

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #13 
Some not a lot but some , most do it in 9th (14u) ball
redbirdone

Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uga20
Some not a lot but some , most do it in 9th (14u) ball


We're talking P5 schools here, right? I don't think the smaller schools have their recruiting quota filled up 4 years out.  

IMO, this is an arms race among the top 25 schools or so, it's a race to get the best 14u talent out there in hopes they stay on the same trajectory they have been on.  It's rare that an impact player for a T25 team is a "late bloomer" and is virtually unknown until their junior or senior year of high school.  One exception to that is the SEC freshman of the year this year Caylan Arnold.  Was off the radar until her junior year, but then got major major interest.  But for the most part the girls who will be all americans this year, willing to bet almost all of them were studs in 14u.  

And a lot of coaches don't like the 8th grade verbal, but worry that if they don't offer her, someone else will.  At this point I'd say that 50% of coaching at a major D1 program is not just coaching the team you have playing right now, but making sure your recruits are working hard, improving and in a position to grow.  I'm hearing more and more D1 early commits are being pushed into certain travel ball programs where the college coaches know the travel ball coaches and come up with plans to keep them improving and get them ready for the Big Show.  

...just my ramblings...


CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,025
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbirdone


We're talking P5 schools here, right? I don't think the smaller schools have their recruiting quota filled up 4 years out.  

IMO, this is an arms race among the top 25 schools or so, it's a race to get the best 14u talent out there in hopes they stay on the same trajectory they have been on.  It's rare that an impact player for a T25 team is a "late bloomer" and is virtually unknown until their junior or senior year of high school.  One exception to that is the SEC freshman of the year this year Caylan Arnold.  Was off the radar until her junior year, but then got major major interest.  But for the most part the girls who will be all americans this year, willing to bet almost all of them were studs in 14u.  

And a lot of coaches don't like the 8th grade verbal, but worry that if they don't offer her, someone else will.  At this point I'd say that 50% of coaching at a major D1 program is not just coaching the team you have playing right now, but making sure your recruits are working hard, improving and in a position to grow.  I'm hearing more and more D1 early commits are being pushed into certain travel ball programs where the college coaches know the travel ball coaches and come up with plans to keep them improving and get them ready for the Big Show.  

...just my ramblings...





I'd say the Cajuns have had a fairly large group of signee's who became AA's and weren't considered "studs" in the 14u group. I could even argue that most weren't offered by other T25 teams.
Dusty

Registered:
Posts: 113
Reply with quote  #16 
Ok, probably a newb question here but why not just do away with all verbals, whether early or late, entirely?  Nobody's committed anywhere until they sign a NLI.
uga20

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbirdone


We're talking P5 schools here, right? I don't think the smaller schools have their recruiting quota filled up 4 years out.  

IMO, this is an arms race among the top 25 schools or so, it's a race to get the best 14u talent out there in hopes they stay on the same trajectory they have been on.  It's rare that an impact player for a T25 team is a "late bloomer" and is virtually unknown until their junior or senior year of high school.  One exception to that is the SEC freshman of the year this year Caylan Arnold.  Was off the radar until her junior year, but then got major major interest.  But for the most part the girls who will be all americans this year, willing to bet almost all of them were studs in 14u.  

And a lot of coaches don't like the 8th grade verbal, but worry that if they don't offer her, someone else will.  At this point I'd say that 50% of coaching at a major D1 program is not just coaching the team you have playing right now, but making sure your recruits are working hard, improving and in a position to grow.  I'm hearing more and more D1 early commits are being pushed into certain travel ball programs where the college coaches know the travel ball coaches and come up with plans to keep them improving and get them ready for the Big Show.  

...just my ramblings...




I couldn't have said it better , 100% correct ...But we are only talking P5 schools non P5 schools usually commit later but JMU and ULL are schools that if they offered a family would have to consider jumping on the offer...Even tho ULL does wait a little longer and find the sleeper types...
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,636
Reply with quote  #18 
As far as the NCAA is concerned, verbals don't exist, so no problem. You can't do away with something that doesn't exist.
redbirdone

Registered:
Posts: 287
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty
Ok, probably a newb question here but why not just do away with all verbals, whether early or late, entirely?  Nobody's committed anywhere until they sign a NLI.


There's an "unwritten code" among the softball coaches.  Once they find out so-and-so verballed to Whatever State they ignore them. Much much much different than football and basketball where coaches are always trying to sway you up to the last minute.




Prowler

Registered:
Posts: 1,398
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbirdone


There's an "unwritten code" among the softball coaches.  Once they find out so-and-so verballed to Whatever State they ignore them. Much much much different than football and basketball where coaches are always trying to sway you up to the last minute.






Once this 'unwritten code" becomes a thing of the past and coaches stop honoring verbals to other schools and keep going after kids, this early commit thing will fade away.

Get to the point that you're only keeping 20 percent or so of your ealry-early verbals and spending 90 percent of your time trying to fight off the competition, you'll quit offering early -- you're only identifying targets for competitors.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,100
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowler
Once this 'unwritten code" becomes a thing of the past and coaches stop honoring verbals to other schools and keep going after kids, this early commit thing will fade away. Get to the point that you're only keeping 20 percent or so of your ealry-early verbals and spending 90 percent of your time trying to fight off the competition, you'll quit offering early -- you're only identifying targets for competitors.


+1 ... but bring on the grayshirting.  (just for clarification sarcasm on the gray shirting comment)
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,629
Reply with quote  #22 
The general idea is right - attach a price (a guaranteed scholie offer) to early offers if you want to discourage them. A 14-year old can't be a party to a binding contract, however - she'd need an opt-out.
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 750
Reply with quote  #23 
I like it. Make them binding for the school at 14. Make them binding for the SA only at the current traditional signing date?
__________________
Mark H
Prowler

Registered:
Posts: 1,398
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_H
I like it. Make them binding for the school at 14. Make them binding for the SA only at the current traditional signing date?


How does that work?

If the school offers a full scholarship to a 14-year-old, the school is locked in ... but the player changes her mind when she's 16. Is School A still locked in at that point if she changes her commitment and says "I'm decommiting from School A and am now committed to School B"? So two schools have full scholarship commitments at this point to the same player, and now the one who she decommitted from cannot offer that scholarship money to another player?

And what if the player who accepts an early commitment quits softball? Is arrested for a major felony? Flunks out? Etc. Is the school still bound to honor the full scholarship and unable to recruit another player?
NCexile

Registered:
Posts: 643
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowler
How does that work? If the school offers a full scholarship to a 14-year-old, the school is locked in ... but the player changes her mind when she's 16. Is School A still locked in at that point if she changes her commitment and says "I'm decommiting from School A and am now committed to School B"? So two schools have full scholarship commitments at this point to the same player, and now the one who she decommitted from cannot offer that scholarship money to another player? And what if the player who accepts an early commitment quits softball? Is arrested for a major felony? Flunks out? Etc. Is the school still bound to honor the full scholarship and unable to recruit another player?


My daughter's grant-in-aid (athletic scholarship) had certain stipulations that we/she agreed to.  It clearly stated that felony convictions and academic failure could result in it's removal.  It even stated that injury due to certain high-risk activities (snow skiing included) could also result in it's removal. Clearly if she quit her sport she would not longer receive aid.  All the same would be true for the 13-year-old signee. The scholarship would stipulate that she be able to gain admission to the institution upon graduation.  However, if the kid failed to develop athletically or even regressed that would not impact the scholarship just as the NCAA does not allow removal aid due to athletic performance.  That's the risk the coach and institution assume by offering a 8th grader.
Prowler

Registered:
Posts: 1,398
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile


My daughter's grant-in-aid (athletic scholarship) had certain stipulations that we/she agreed to.  It clearly stated that felony convictions and academic failure could result in it's removal.  It even stated that injury due to certain high-risk activities (snow skiing included) could also result in it's removal. Clearly if she quit her sport she would not longer receive aid.  All the same would be true for the 13-year-old signee. The scholarship would stipulate that she be able to gain admission to the institution upon graduation.  However, if the kid failed to develop athletically or even regressed that would not impact the scholarship just as the NCAA does not allow removal aid due to athletic performance.  That's the risk the coach and institution assume by offering a 8th grader.


The grant-in-aid is signed when they, well, SIGN with the school, not when they commit. The discussion here was about making commitments binding to the school but not the student-athlete. You can't SIGN them until they are eligible to be signed, during the signing period.

Most scholarships, although schools can now offer 4-year schollies if they choose to do so, are one-year deals. So a kid on a one-year deal who fails to perform can be not renewed at the schools' discretion.

And what if the athlete failed to develop athletically because they decided to only play high school ball and quit participating in travel ball? What if they aren't putting the work in?

If a kid comes to school on a math scholarship (and those aren't offered at age 14 as far as I know) and gets Cs and Ds in their academic work, they can lose their scholarship for failure to perform. Why should it be any different for an athlete?
NCexile

Registered:
Posts: 643
Reply with quote  #27 
Read from the beginning.  I'm advocating for allowing NLI's to be signed AT ANY AGE.  That's the whole point.  Any 'offer' then requires institution to put 'their $$ where their mouth is".  The other 'risks' you identified would be assumed by the institution.  Since institutions would not be likely be willing to assume these risks they would be far less likely to make 'offers'.  The net effect would be that recruiting age would creep to higher, more reasonable level as signing most 13 year olds would simply be to risky.

As for the one-year scholarship, it's still the norm but the trend is to move to 4-year deals.  The NCAA 'discourages' institutions from withdrawing $$ based purely on athletic performance. Of course, schools get around this but it's still the norm NOT to do so.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
Read from the beginning.  I'm advocating for allowing NLI's to be signed AT ANY AGE.  That's the whole point.  Any 'offer' then requires institution to put 'their $$ where their mouth is".  The other 'risks' you identified would be assumed by the institution.  Since institutions would not be likely be willing to assume these risks they would be far less likely to make 'offers'.  The net effect would be that recruiting age would creep to higher, more reasonable level as signing most 13 year olds would simply be to risky.

As for the one-year scholarship, it's still the norm but the trend is to move to 4-year deals.  The NCAA 'discourages' institutions from withdrawing $$ based purely on athletic performance. Of course, schools get around this but it's still the norm NOT to do so.


Again it's a great idea but I still have to ask, how do you get the coaches to propose these changes? There is no incentive for them to place these restrictions on themselves. This proposal would have to come from from the top down.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 1,507
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
Read from the beginning.  I'm advocating for allowing NLI's to be signed AT ANY AGE.  That's the whole point.  Any 'offer' then requires institution to put 'their $$ where their mouth is".  The other 'risks' you identified would be assumed by the institution.  Since institutions would not be likely be willing to assume these risks they would be far less likely to make 'offers'.  The net effect would be that recruiting age would creep to higher, more reasonable level as signing most 13 year olds would simply be to risky.

As for the one-year scholarship, it's still the norm but the trend is to move to 4-year deals.  The NCAA 'discourages' institutions from withdrawing $$ based purely on athletic performance. Of course, schools get around this but it's still the norm NOT to do so.


I thought starting in 2017, was to be the end of the one year deals?
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,629
Reply with quote  #30 
At which age does matter. The younger, the more likely you run into the specter of "the infancy doctrine" which "protects minors from improvident agreements made with potentially predatory adults".

http://alsb.roundtablelive.org/Resources/Documents/NP%202011%20Burke_Grube.pdf

As it is, NLIs are signed by HS seniors generally at age 17 or 18. If 18, they are likely no longer "minors", and if 17, they are at least near-adults (the age of majority varies from state to state). In addition the NLI is signed by a parent, whose ability to sign away the future rights of their children is limited. The action to which the SA is bound, attendance at a specific university for one year in return for an athletic scholarship begins less than a year away. Move that back too far, the greater chance the "agreement" will be invalidated, on the basis that the minor is not able to make such an agreement. Thus, for signing an earlier NLI, say at age 14, for instance, an opt-out, at least, up until a later date for the SA would be required.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.