Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #31 
NCAA momentum is quite the opposite of the original direction suggested in this thread.  Lacrosse has implemented more restricting limits on early contact, effective immediately.  Support among softball coaches is coalescing around a similar approach.

The new D1 lacrosse rules prohibit college lacrosse coaches from communicating with prospective student-athletes until Sept. 1 of their junior year of high school.

http://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/ncaa-passes-new-recruiting-legislation


outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 655
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovsofbal


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


Kinda sorta...all the P5 schools scholarships are guaranteed as long as the player is part of the program. There are still any number of ways the scholarships can be dropped, rescinded etc...but the short version is if your kid signs her NLI which says ACME Univ is offering her 30% athletic money, that is what she will get all 4 years as long as she doesn't quit, get an injury which would preclude her from playing, or violate any number of rules etc...

There are still the normal exit interviews at the end of every season. And anything goes at those things.
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowler
How does that work?


Dunno. I just like anything that discourages early commits.

__________________
Mark H
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,577
Reply with quote  #34 
The real issue is not early commits, but early offers. No offer, no commit.
AtlUmpSteve

Registered:
Posts: 133
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes
NCAA momentum is quite the opposite of the original direction suggested in this thread.  Lacrosse has implemented more restricting limits on early contact, effective immediately.  Support among softball coaches is coalescing around a similar approach.

The new D1 lacrosse rules prohibit college lacrosse coaches from communicating with prospective student-athletes until Sept. 1 of their junior year of high school.

http://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/ncaa-passes-new-recruiting-legislation




Well, of course, that should obviously be the approach the coaches would prefer.  Let me see, do I want rules that would make me (well, my current program, because I can leave at any time and make them suffer the consequences or results) honor anything I really promise at any time, or do I want the "no contact" rules that are relatively unenforceable and unprovable as long as both parties pinky-swear there was no early contact?

As others have said, the contact isn't the issue so much as the "nonbinding because they don't exist and so we don't have to regulate them either" verbal offers.  Seems to me that this lacrosse approach simply adds a new level of secrecy to what will likely continue to happen.

And, it may give even more credibility to those third party contacts, the travel ball coaches and recruiting agencies, that will be in an even stronger position than now to middle-man all those secret arrangements.
BigTenSoftball

Registered:
Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #36 
The proposed legislation for softball originally included language that coaches would not be able to speak to anyone involved with the student-athlete, including travel coaches, prior to the junior year.  That part of the legislation was ultimately not included but is still on the table for the future.
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve


Well, of course, that should obviously be the approach the coaches would prefer.  Let me see, do I want rules that would make me (well, my current program, because I can leave at any time and make them suffer the consequences or results) honor anything I really promise at any time, or do I want the "no contact" rules that are relatively unenforceable and unprovable as long as both parties pinky-swear there was no early contact?

As others have said, the contact isn't the issue so much as the "nonbinding because they don't exist and so we don't have to regulate them either" verbal offers.  Seems to me that this lacrosse approach simply adds a new level of secrecy to what will likely continue to happen.

And, it may give even more credibility to those third party contacts, the travel ball coaches and recruiting agencies, that will be in an even stronger position than now to middle-man all those secret arrangements.


Of course, that'd be a pretty obvious way to try to bypass the spirit and intent of the rule, even if the notion of an agreement between parties that hadn't even spoken to each other was likely, and if this subversion of the rule was a legitimate threat to that intent.  In either case, you'd expect the lax community would be all over it, both complaining, and exploiting.

But none of that is true.  There's no loophole to exploit here, despite what you may want to find.  In fact, for those even slightly inclined to view the new rules this way, in the days after the rule adoption, the national lax governing bodies sent out the following notice of their and the NCAA's interpretation of the new rules:

“Club and high school coaches may NOT be used to circumvent recruiting contact rules. Direct messaging to PSAs through these third parties is NOT permissible. Communication about verbal offers through these third parties is NOT permissible.”

Is this rule perfect?  Probably not.  But it's excellent progress.  Nevertheless, lots of folks will continue to pick their own nits and tout their purportedly superior "fixes."  But I see no real prospects for or momentum behind any other rule or mechanism that has any hope of halting the early recruiting scourge.  And in lax, it's having its intended immediate and largely desirable impact.

Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,577
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes
“Club and high school coaches may NOT be used to circumvent recruiting contact rules. Direct messaging to PSAs through these third parties is NOT permissible. Communication about verbal offers through these third parties is NOT permissible.”

Is this rule perfect?  Probably not.  But it's excellent progress.  Nevertheless, lots of folks will continue to pick their own nits and tout their purportedly superior "fixes."  But I see no real prospects for or momentum behind any other rule or mechanism that has any hope of halting the early recruiting scourge.  And in lax, it's having its intended immediate and largely desirable impact.


I'm not holding my breath to see how this might be enforced, once coaches and other interested parties figure how to game it.

All parties will simply deny there was any contact, whether through third- or fourth-parties. With secret offers and verbals, SAs won't know who else is being recruited by whom. It'll be that much easier to dump a recruit who does not pan out.
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,773
Reply with quote  #39 
I've been reading similar threads to this going back to 2009.  The coaches hate the current environment, but failure to participate while peers do, is suicide.

Agree the solution is to regulate contact.   Sure there will be back channels, but parents will be more aware that nothing can be sure until the formal communication period has commenced.

As a side note, I had wondered over the past five or so years whether the coaches would find that the early verbals (which were published here from 2010 through 2015, then onto another site) would backfire in the form of burnt out freshmen, or freshmen who had failed to progress.   I don't see any evidence of that, and if there were, coaches who had been burnt more than helped would have already taken a step back.   Don't see that step back, so even though coaches don't like it, they haven't been hurt enough by it to call for change.

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,773
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


I'm not holding my breath to see how this might be enforced, once coaches and other interested parties figure how to game it..
 For one, you won't have websites like this one, or others, having lists of verbally committed recruits, by year and by school, stretching out to the 2020 high school graduating class (2020-2021 college softball season) 

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,577
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
 For one, you won't have websites like this one, or others, having lists of verbally committed recruits, by year and by school, stretching out to the 2020 high school graduating class (2020-2021 college softball season) 


You could have recruits still tweeting "I've chosen to go to ________!", with the coach making an Alfred E. Neumann face in response.

[image] 
cash

Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #42 
Early Recruiting is getting out of hand. Travel ball coaches and college coaches think they need a certain player for a certain year. When they commit a player in the 8th grade and when that player develops into a player that is just average then the college coach tries to give an excess to not want to player anymore. Travel ball coaches are at fault for pushing there player to commit early so that their travel ball organization looks good. 
I think travel ball coaches can help monitor the recruiting process as well the college coaches before the power 5 conferences start recruiting 7th or 6th graders....
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,056
Reply with quote  #43 
Young players should be encouraged to take all their visits to all the schools they have any interest in playing for before even thinking about accepting a verbal.................
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa
The real issue is not early commits, but early offers. No offer, no commit.


Really we are both wrong. The problem is the other coaches honoring the early commits but this has been hashed out at length of the past couple of years in other threads.

__________________
Mark H
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


I'm not holding my breath to see how this might be enforced, once coaches and other interested parties figure how to game it.

All parties will simply deny there was any contact, whether through third- or fourth-parties. With secret offers and verbals, SAs won't know who else is being recruited by whom. It'll be that much easier to dump a recruit who does not pan out.


Doesn't matter how they game it. If it's illegal to do, then even when it's done under the table, other coaches will continue to court the player and the last "is that your final answer" will happen on signing day.

__________________
Mark H
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 768
Reply with quote  #46 
Prohibition has never worked in any facet of life anywhere at any time.

I have suggested on the twice annual thread on this topic; and still believe that the only way to really deal with it is to allow formal four year guaranteed offers which are binding on both parties at any age.

Coaches and players alike would get burned often enough that the natural effect would eventually be to pare back recruiting to an age where a lot more is known about the players.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said the government which governs least, governs best.
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg
Prohibition has never worked in any facet of life anywhere at any time.
.


Agreed. Doesn't need to. The only thing that needs to happen is other coaches stop honoring verbals.

__________________
Mark H
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 768
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_H


Agreed. Doesn't need to. The only thing that needs to happen is other coaches stop honoring verbals.


Or Stop making verbal offers
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


Or Stop making verbal offers


So the way to stop making early verbal commits is to stop making early verbal offers. Very insightful. How's that working so far?

__________________
Mark H
Daddylawman

Registered:
Posts: 205
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_H


Agreed. Doesn't need to. The only thing that needs to happen is other coaches stop honoring verbals.


AMEN Bother Mark...let Walton go after one of Murphy's commits or Hutch go after Candrea's 10th grade pitching commit.  End of early verbals.
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg
Prohibition has never worked in any facet of life anywhere at any time.

I have suggested on the twice annual thread on this topic; and still believe that the only way to really deal with it is to allow formal four year guaranteed offers which are binding on both parties at any age.

Coaches and players alike would get burned often enough that the natural effect would eventually be to pare back recruiting to an age where a lot more is known about the players.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said the government which governs least, governs best.


Yes, anarchy is such a good idea, especially in college softball where one group (the school) holds power, money and authority, the other (the recruit) has neither.  Altruism abounds amidst the unicorns and rainbows of college athletics.

And in your desired world, who or what enforces the "guarantees" and the "binding"?  Rules and governing bodies?  <Gasp!>

Oh, and those aren't Jefferson's words.


olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 768
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes


Yes, anarchy is such a good idea, especially in college softball where one group (the school) holds power, money and authority, the other (the recruit) has neither.  Altruism abounds amidst the unicorns and rainbows of college athletics.

And in your desired world, who or what enforces the "guarantees" and the "binding"?  Rules and governing bodies?  <Gasp!>

Oh, and those aren't Jefferson's words.




Ok, I looked it up.  It seems the words may have originated with Thomas Paine.

The theory is that in the absence of governmental regulation, the people will self regulate.  Quite the opposite of anarchy.  Similar to the concept that competition is good for the consumer.

In practice, if the only contract allowed by the NCAA was a four year guarantee which is binding on both parties, the player could not play elsewhere (no change of mind, no transfers) the terms of the contract would govern.

I believe that what would happen is that there would be bidding war for the most desirable players.  Eventually there would be only 12 players (average of 3 per class) on full scholarship at any given school and none on partials.  That would leave a lot of very good players available to other schools or schools who would offer a better financial package.

If a coach got burdened with irrevocable scholarships with players whom they signed at an early age who did not pan out, they would suffer the consequences and be less likely the more that happened to early recruit.

If the player committed early, they would be stuck with their choice, regardless of changes in circumstance or perception at the school between the time they sign and the time for them to enroll.  the contractual issues really are no different than with a player who is only 17 when they sign a NLI.

It seems to me that it would go a long way toward shifting the balance of power toward the player.

It is just a theory, but I believe that it would prove to be very highly self regulating because it would be in the self interest of the coach to wait and see how a player develops before making an offer.  

Of course, it might not work out per my vision, but could it be much worse than what currently exists?











eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes
The new D1 lacrosse rules prohibit college lacrosse coaches from communicating with prospective student-athletes until Sept. 1 of their junior year of high school.


I'm much more familiar with hockey than softball (or lacrosse), but the big loophole in the similar rule hockey just implemented is that it only prohibits communication initiated by the coach.  It does nothing to prevent a prospective student athlete from contacting a coach.  Indeed, I'm not sure how the NCAA could prevent that from happening.
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
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.


Again, I can only refer to hockey, but there are a couple of Ivy League coaches (some Ivies are real powers in hockey) that are semi-notorious for letting the admissions office do their dirty work when it comes to backing out of verbal commitments.  A kid that didn't develop the way the coach hoped finds that they've been denied admission to the school, while what happened behind the scenes is that the coach goes to bat with admissions to get exceptions for a borderline player they want to keep, while doing nothing for the one they don't.  They can keep getting away with it because the school is one that kids are jumping for the chance to go to, much like Stanford is.
Mark_H

Registered:
Posts: 658
Reply with quote  #55 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore

(some Ivies are real powers in hockey) .


Yeah, that's true. Mildly curious how that came about.

__________________
Mark H
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_H
Yeah, that's true. Mildly curious how that came about.


Some of them, especially Harvard and Cornell, took it more seriously, combined with the fact that there are a lot fewer teams that play hockey, so they didn't get swept aside.  

Regarding women's hockey, Harvard and Brown were among the first schools, along with New Hampshire and Providence, that made it a varsity sport.  
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


I'm much more familiar with hockey than softball (or lacrosse), but the big loophole in the similar rule hockey just implemented is that it only prohibits communication initiated by the coach.  It does nothing to prevent a prospective student athlete from contacting a coach.  Indeed, I'm not sure how the NCAA could prevent that from happening.


Read about the new lax rules.  The link is earlier in this thread.  Hockey doesn't have these new contact rules.
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


Ok, I looked it up.  It seems the words may have originated with Thomas Paine.

The theory is that in the absence of governmental regulation, the people will self regulate.  Quite the opposite of anarchy.  Similar to the concept that competition is good for the consumer.

In practice, if the only contract allowed by the NCAA was a four year guarantee which is binding on both parties, the player could not play elsewhere (no change of mind, no transfers) the terms of the contract would govern.

I believe that what would happen is that there would be bidding war for the most desirable players.  Eventually there would be only 12 players (average of 3 per class) on full scholarship at any given school and none on partials.  That would leave a lot of very good players available to other schools or schools who would offer a better financial package.

If a coach got burdened with irrevocable scholarships with players whom they signed at an early age who did not pan out, they would suffer the consequences and be less likely the more that happened to early recruit.

If the player committed early, they would be stuck with their choice, regardless of changes in circumstance or perception at the school between the time they sign and the time for them to enroll.  the contractual issues really are no different than with a player who is only 17 when they sign a NLI.

It seems to me that it would go a long way toward shifting the balance of power toward the player.

It is just a theory, but I believe that it would prove to be very highly self regulating because it would be in the self interest of the coach to wait and see how a player develops before making an offer.  

Of course, it might not work out per my vision, but could it be much worse than what currently exists?




You're not proposing less regulation, you're proposing different regulation.  And you're conflating political and economic theory, and ignoring things on the economic side like antitrust and competition law, which grew out of the recognition that competitors have and will abuse consumers, absent laws and rules.

(Although it would be interesting to see a "self-regulated" softball game.  Who needs umpires?  [rofl])

The new lacrosse contact rules are likely to eventually spread to non-revenue sports.  While other sports have proven to be slower to adopt them, NCAA softball has begun imposing new limits in other areas, such as blowing up the weekday camps that piggybacked on weekend showcase events during the six weeks before Thanksgiving.  And the Ivies, grown impatient with other conferences, imposed their own new limits on the time their athletes can participate in their sports.

So, yes, more regulation, which turns out to be a proven and singularly effective way to control behavior when dealing with groups with different motivations, authority, power, and resources.
Hobbes

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #59 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


Again, I can only refer to hockey, but there are a couple of Ivy League coaches (some Ivies are real powers in hockey) that are semi-notorious for letting the admissions office do their dirty work when it comes to backing out of verbal commitments.  A kid that didn't develop the way the coach hoped finds that they've been denied admission to the school, while what happened behind the scenes is that the coach goes to bat with admissions to get exceptions for a borderline player they want to keep, while doing nothing for the one they don't.  They can keep getting away with it because the school is one that kids are jumping for the chance to go to, much like Stanford is.


If an Ivy coach hasn't stated that they'll support a recruit and then followed it up by securing a Likely Letter during the early fall of senior year, then walk away.  Any recruit who waits to hear from an Ivy admissions committee without having already secured that letter should know, from doing their homework on the Ivy admission process, that they're on extremely thin ice and likely will get no edge because of their sport.

And Ivy coaches don't have unlimited pull with admissions.  Recruits have to fall within each school's API, and each team's average API has to hit a specific level.  It isn't as simple as the coach going to bat for a kid.
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes


If an Ivy coach hasn't stated that they'll support a recruit and then followed it up by securing a Likely Letter during the early fall of senior year, then walk away.  Any recruit who waits to hear from an Ivy admissions committee without having already secured that letter should know, from doing their homework on the Ivy admission process, that they're on extremely thin ice and likely will get no edge because of their sport.

And Ivy coaches don't have unlimited pull with admissions.  Recruits have to fall within each school's API, and each team's average API has to hit a specific level.  It isn't as simple as the coach going to bat for a kid.


Yes to all of this, but one of the points of this thread is that fall of senior year is very late to find yourself once again looking for a program to join.  Most of the teams have filled up their roster with commitments by that point, and you're scrambling around to find a place.  
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: