EARLY COMMITMENTS RAISE CONCERNS - Baseball America Cahill

Interested to hear views on the lacrosse model.  Strikes me as being very difficult to enforce given the camp/showcase/etc ecosystem in youth baseball.  

I loved these two quotes:    

"If we have enough time to evaluate freshmen and eighth graders, we have too much time to recruit," Checketts said.

"College baseball coaches could do a lot better job of dictating their schedule, and we could also focus on coaching our own team and developing players at a better rate than we do now if we weren't so concerned with running off every weekend in the fall," Schlossnagle said. "I think we're starting to create a breed of assistant coach that is all about recruiting and not about coaching and developing young people."

Read more at http://www.baseballamerica.com...#73ryolrBhQFBeYqj.99

Glad they are at least discussing this in the press.  But when I looked into details of lacrosse model, their doesn't appear to be any teeth in it at all.  Makes me wonder about the reality ?  Are they really laying off the younger players? somehow I doubt it.  

Every sport should be adopting the lacrosse model.

“The rules could be changed to follow the lacrosse model and prohibit contact with recruits until Sept. 1 of their junior year.”

But this model needs strict penalties for violation. How about a two year ban being eligible to win the conference title and from post season competition? If this isn’t tough enough throw in a loss of scholarships. How about can’t talk to recruits until October 1? Nothing like a month delay to kill recruiting. 

I guess I wouldn't know firsthand, but I was told a number of times that this trend was begun, in part when John Savage took over the UC Irvine program a year or two before they were playing.  He didn't have a team to coach, so he started recruiting underclassmen and getting 'commitments' to that beautiful campus near the ocean before they ever played a game - and the race was on.  He has continued it, along with many others who joined in, at UCLA.

Not saying he did anything wrong - it was innovative actually - and probably inevitable anyways.

I think, in most cases (like >90%) super early commitments are to the school's advantage, not the player's - they can cut you off if you don't develop the way they thought or they find someone better.  When our younger son was offered before his Junior season (2009), I held off the schools so I could see him pitch at least a few games that year and consult with his HS and travel coaches before letting him commit...which to me, was still too early.

My advice remains to wait as long as you can.  Coaches change, players change...things just change.  

Goin_yard posted:

I loved these two quotes:    

"If we have enough time to evaluate freshmen and eighth graders, we have too much time to recruit," Checketts said.

"College baseball coaches could do a lot better job of dictating their schedule, and we could also focus on coaching our own team and developing players at a better rate than we do now if we weren't so concerned with running off every weekend in the fall," Schlossnagle said. "I think we're starting to create a breed of assistant coach that is all about recruiting and not about coaching and developing young people."

Read more at http://www.baseballamerica.com...#73ryolrBhQFBeYqj.99

As a new D1 assistant coach, son has not been home one weekend since he signed his contract. Because he is not as familiar with 20 and 21s, he is usually the one out on the road.  He actually likes watching young talented players and lucky that he lives within a state where there are lots of showcases and tournaments  and there is lots of talent.  

The difficulty is that the NCAA only allows 3 paid coaches to recruit, so planning who is going to do what or headed where is essential for productivity.  It's easy to understand why assistants work hard to become head coaches.

I agree with the quote by Checketts.  I also believe that it is not the coaches that have created the problem. But when you have tournaments and showcases every weekend summer and fall, if you don't go you can lose out. However, in most cases, it's the top programs who have to be the early birds, even though lots of recruits don't often show up, but the thought is, if we don't get him, someone else will.

No harm no foul on the young player committing early to MSU. He is from Mississippi. More than likely he grew up attending games,  his family has alumni.

Devil's advocate: why bother?...

• Let market forces dictate direction
• Caveat emptor
• Who polices? The NCAA? That's an out of control bureaucracy. 
• It's going to make life more difficult for RCs: their recruiting boards will be similar to draft boards where uncertainty rules.
• It's going to shift the advantage to the player, as they will be able to work offers against one another far more easier given the simultaneous start data.
• Recruitment pre-start date goes under the table, and when things go under the table, stupid stuff occurs.

Under the current "system," the sooner parents realize that they can relax and evaluate schools on their terms, the better it will be for all.

Goin_yard posted:

I loved these two quotes:    

"If we have enough time to evaluate freshmen and eighth graders, we have too much time to recruit," Checketts said.

"College baseball coaches could do a lot better job of dictating their schedule, and we could also focus on coaching our own team and developing players at a better rate than we do now if we weren't so concerned with running off every weekend in the fall," Schlossnagle said. "I think we're starting to create a breed of assistant coach that is all about recruiting and not about coaching and developing young people."

Read more at http://www.baseballamerica.com...#73ryolrBhQFBeYqj.99

Those stood out to me as well.  

FWIW, daughters boyfriends son is in 8th grade, on a LX scholarship to a nationally ranked private HS and asked to play in tournaments for 9th, 10th grade.  So coaches are already familiar with him. His recruiting page indicates he is being watched by big D1 programs.

It's insane....JMO.

My post linking the article on Facebook:

But the coaches keep recruiting the 5%'ers and the kids keep committing. I find it interesting that a kid would even have a "dream" school at 14 or 15 years old unless he is raised in a family that bleeds a certain school's colors and has their name on buildings all over campus. A dream school because of a sport? How many of these kids have visited other college campuses before committing? How many know in what subject they want to major? Does the school even have that major? When it comes to baseball, does the style of play fit his game? Will the coach that is recruiting him be there when he finally arrives? Seems to me that some priorities are out of line. I can't imagine missing out on the many visits to college campuses I took prior to settling on my final choice between my junior year and senior year. The journey is something I will never forget and it forged relationships that remain with me to this day. Unfortunately in this day in age, for the ones that are trying to do it the right way, if they find the right school that is the right fight fit socially and academically, it might be too late for the last piece of puzzle. Such a shame.

OskiSD posted:

Interested to hear views on the lacrosse model.  Strikes me as being very difficult to enforce given the camp/showcase/etc ecosystem in youth baseball.  

I don't know the lacrosse recruiting landscape, but at least from a public disclosure point of view, the impact appears to be significant. These are numbers of sophomore and freshman boys who committed as reported to Inside Lacrosse. The rule change was finalized on 6/9/17. (I'm pretty sure there are more kids than this who are announcing their commitments via Twitter.)

Sophomores:
6/9/16 - 11/7/16  60
6/9/17 - 11/7/17  1

Freshmen:
6/9/16 - 11/7/16  26
6/9/17 - 11/7/17  0

https://www.insidelacrosse.com...p;hometown_state=ALL

2019cubdad posted:

My post linking the article on Facebook:

But the coaches keep recruiting the 5%'ers and the kids keep committing. I find it interesting that a kid would even have a "dream" school at 14 or 15 years old unless he is raised in a family that bleeds a certain school's colors and has their name on buildings all over campus. A dream school because of a sport? How many of these kids have visited other college campuses before committing? How many know in what subject they want to major? Does the school even have that major? When it comes to baseball, does the style of play fit his game? Will the coach that is recruiting him be there when he finally arrives? Seems to me that some priorities are out of line. I can't imagine missing out on the many visits to college campuses I took prior to settling on my final choice between my junior year and senior year. The journey is something I will never forget and it forged relationships that remain with me to this day. Unfortunately in this day in age, for the ones that are trying to do it the right way, if they find the right school that is the right fight fit socially and academically, it might be too late for the last piece of puzzle. Such a shame.

I couldn't agree with you more, except for the bolded sentence.  The focus of the article is the top 50... these kids are outliers who more than likely have draft/MLB aspirations and for these kids school major is probably a non-thought.

For the rest of the 4000+ kids that commit by the time they graduate HS, the median commitment date is reached sometime in late summer of the rising senior year, from what I've gleaned from the PG commit data.  IMO, this is just about right.

Smitty28 posted:

2019cubdad posted:

My post linking the article on Facebook:

But the coaches keep recruiting the 5%'ers and the kids keep committing. I find it interesting that a kid would even have a "dream" school at 14 or 15 years old unless he is raised in a family that bleeds a certain school's colors and has their name on buildings all over campus. A dream school because of a sport? How many of these kids have visited other college campuses before committing? How many know in what subject they want to major? Does the school even have that major? When it comes to baseball, does the style of play fit his game? Will the coach that is recruiting him be there when he finally arrives? Seems to me that some priorities are out of line. I can't imagine missing out on the many visits to college campuses I took prior to settling on my final choice between my junior year and senior year. The journey is something I will never forget and it forged relationships that remain with me to this day. Unfortunately in this day in age, for the ones that are trying to do it the right way, if they find the right school that is the right fight fit socially and academically, it might be too late for the last piece of puzzle. Such a shame.

I couldn't agree with you more, except for the bolded sentence.  The focus of the article is the top 50... these kids are outliers who more than likely have draft/MLB aspirations and for these kids school major is probably a non-thought.

For the rest of the 4000+ kids that commit by the time they graduate HS, the median commitment date is reached sometime in late summer of the rising senior year, from what I've gleaned from the PG commit data.  IMO, this is just about right.

You mean just a few months prior to the NLI signing, when the coach actually has a clue if he's staying next year and if HE can use you?  SHOCKER!

I've looked at a few D1's locally to me and their recruiting timeline, except the two HUGE ones it's pretty on par with the rising seniors summer.  So there are D1's that just start to commit kids then, not all are chasing after pre-shaving teenagers.

joemktg posted:

Devil's advocate: why bother?...

• Let market forces dictate direction
• Caveat emptor
• Who polices? The NCAA? That's an out of control bureaucracy. 
• It's going to make life more difficult for RCs: their recruiting boards will be similar to draft boards where uncertainty rules.
• It's going to shift the advantage to the player, as they will be able to work offers against one another far more easier given the simultaneous start data.
• Recruitment pre-start date goes under the table, and when things go under the table, stupid stuff occurs.

 

Under the current "system," the sooner parents realize that they can relax and evaluate schools on their terms, the better it will be for all.

I think you're saying less regulation, not more, which I agree with. Here's my three point simplification proposal (I'm open to amendments):

1. No age/grade limit on signing NLI.
2. NLI can be dissolved if both parties agree, but scholarship will still be counted against school's 11.7.
3. Every recruit owns their own Contact List. List is customizable by contact method (e.g. phone, text, email, etc). No school can contact recruit unless recruit has added the school to their list. Recruit can remove schools from list at any time.

We need to understand that this is simply a product of competition.  We  could see this coming several years ago.

It really doesn't pertain to divisions below DI and happens most often at the higher levels of DI.  In most every case it favors the college rather than the player.

Blaze Jordan is a very unusual player.  I doubt he will end up at Mississippi State or any other college.  He is actually talented enough to play DI baseball right now.  Kind if falls in the category of Bryce Harper and Justin Upton at that age.  He doesn't even have his man strength yet and he is one of the top power hitters in HS baseball.  BTW, he also throws 90 mph from the mound.  I think he is not a good example of committing early, because any college coach in the country would want him.

There are other things to consider, some that actually help even the DI playing field.  For the most part it is the top programs in the country that are recruiting these young kids.  Late to the party are many northern schools that are now getting commitments from talented young kids in the north before they are seen by the power schools.  Hopefully they will be able to keep most of those players. 

I see the beginning stages of a trend where northern schools are closing the gap and becoming more competitive with the warm climate power programs.

Odd thing is, we started doing events for younger (underclass) kids years ago.  Back then there might be Army or Navy, but no SEC, ACC or other power conference coaches in attendance.  The only MLB scout you would see would be if a scout happened to have his kid in the event.  What we did see was about 100 agent/advisers looking for young talent to talk to.  Times have changed and now at those same events we see a hundred or more college coaches looking for the next Blaze Jordan.  I don't blame them, in fact I applaud them for working so hard and being so competitive.

So who is to blame, if anyone?  IMO it is the parents more than anyone else.  If a power house program wants a kid to commit in 8th or 9th grade, what does that tell you?  It should tell you they believe that kid will be someone everyone will want when he is a junior or senior in HS.  If they are wrong about that kid, they will adjust accordingly. If they are right which happens a lot, they got what they wanted.  So if you are the parent of a very talented young player and the top colleges want him.  If he progresses as most do, do you think that same college and others will no longer want him... just because he wasn't ready to commit as a freshman?  Doesn't it make sense that the top colleges want the top players?  If needed they seem to always find a way to make room for a top guy. In a perfect world that player they offer as a freshman is the player they want when he is a senior.  They want him!

By not committing early will you be losing a great opportunity?  In most cases it is the junior that counts in the end.  A great freshman who turns out to be an average junior is not what they want.  When they tell you that they expected you to progress much more, that you will never play at their school and you should look elsewhere, think about that early decision you made.  What about that opportunity you were afraid of losing? They (recruiter) made a mistake projecting your son.  Too bad for you, now start over.  However it should be noted that many of these early commitments end up being very successful for both the college and the player. And yes there are also some kids that end up being devastated, as well.

One problem for the player is that no one knows exactly what the program will look like in 4 years.  The draft, eligibility, transfers, coaching changes, and more.  There is just a lot of uncertainty.  And I guess it should be mentioned that players can also decommit if they want. 

Bottom Line... Good or Bad, It is what it is, I don't think it will change very soon.  They can shorten the recruiting time lines, but that just gives the power schools a bigger advantage.  They simply have more people, a bigger network, helping them find players.  Also a big advantage for programs that are in states loaded with talent.

FWIW, here is my suggestion.  If you have a son that is being recruited heavily at a very young age, in other words he is extremely talented... simply tell every recruiter you are very flattered, but you will not be making any decision or commitment before your junior year.  If you are truly what they want, you will be followed closely before making that decision in a couple years.  They don't forget about the players they want the most.  If things change and they are no longer interested everything ends up the way it should.  Player ends up where he belongs and he will be happier.

Even more important... Do what you want, because that is all that really counts.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

joemktg posted:

Devil's advocate: why bother?...

• Let market forces dictate direction
• Caveat emptor
• Who polices? The NCAA? That's an out of control bureaucracy. 
• It's going to make life more difficult for RCs: their recruiting boards will be similar to draft boards where uncertainty rules.
• It's going to shift the advantage to the player, as they will be able to work offers against one another far more easier given the simultaneous start data.
• Recruitment pre-start date goes under the table, and when things go under the table, stupid stuff occurs.

 

Under the current "system," the sooner parents realize that they can relax and evaluate schools on their terms, the better it will be for all.

I think you're saying less regulation, not more, which I agree with. Here's my three point simplification proposal (I'm open to amendments):

1. No age/grade limit on signing NLI.
2. NLI can be dissolved if both parties agree, but scholarship will still be counted against school's 11.7.
3. Every recruit owns their own Contact List. List is customizable by contact method (e.g. phone, text, email, etc). No school can contact recruit unless recruit has added the school to their list. Recruit can remove schools from list at any time.

Have to say...not okay with those.  I think all you need is number one.  If they sign the NLI they are on the hook, and if the 8th grader is no longer playing baseball by his senior year oh well he gets a year of college for free :-)

I've heard too many stories about a kid going to a college that wasn't on the list to think #3 is a good idea. 

PGStaff posted:

FWIW, here is my suggestion.  If you have a son that is being recruited heavily at a very young age, in other words he is extremely talented... simply tell every recruiter you are very flattered, but you will not be making any decision or commitment before your junior year.  If you are truly what they want, you will be followed closely before making that decision in a couple years.  They don't forget about the players they want the most.  If things change and they are no longer interested everything ends up the way it should.  Player ends up where he belongs and he will be happier.

 

PGStaff, here's my concern with waiting. I know a freshman who will probably get multiple offers from top programs this school year. He has a "dream school". Let's say he develops into a very solid but average recruit for that school's recruiting class. If he waits until junior year, won't they have already filled their quota of kids like him, and so they won't need him?

Smitty28 posted:

2019cubdad posted:

My post linking the article on Facebook:

But the coaches keep recruiting the 5%'ers and the kids keep committing. I find it interesting that a kid would even have a "dream" school at 14 or 15 years old unless he is raised in a family that bleeds a certain school's colors and has their name on buildings all over campus. A dream school because of a sport? How many of these kids have visited other college campuses before committing? How many know in what subject they want to major? Does the school even have that major? When it comes to baseball, does the style of play fit his game? Will the coach that is recruiting him be there when he finally arrives? Seems to me that some priorities are out of line. I can't imagine missing out on the many visits to college campuses I took prior to settling on my final choice between my junior year and senior year. The journey is something I will never forget and it forged relationships that remain with me to this day. Unfortunately in this day in age, for the ones that are trying to do it the right way, if they find the right school that is the right fight fit socially and academically, it might be too late for the last piece of puzzle. Such a shame.

I couldn't agree with you more, except for the bolded sentence.  The focus of the article is the top 50... these kids are outliers who more than likely have draft/MLB aspirations and for these kids school major is probably a non-thought.

For the rest of the 4000+ kids that commit by the time they graduate HS, the median commitment date is reached sometime in late summer of the rising senior year, from what I've gleaned from the PG commit data.  IMO, this is just about right.

Actually, what he has in bold type is correct, even for the top 50.  When a top 50 is waiting, he WILL begin to see offers fall off the table, or begin to be pressured.  This is not speculation, but first hand knowledge.  Consider a school that has two OF positions on their board with scholarship money to be offered.  They may have half a dozen prospects with priority.  If the top two on their board are non-committal, they will make and commit numbers 3, 4, 5 on their list to ensure they don't end up losing not only 1 & 2, but those 3, 4 & 5 guys.

So it is quite common that the top guys can begin to lose some of the best possible offers or schools on their list as those schools are all trying to secure the overall best class they can sign each year.

And don't think for a minute that your leverage with the MLB draft has nothing to do with their college commitment and scholarship offer.  MLB is competing with the colleges every year, and the signing bonus is their biggest weapon.  Simply put, the better the kid's college deal is, the more an MLB team is going to have to pay for them to forego it.

Rather than completely restricting contact until they are a junior, why not just restrict schools from providing verbal offers prior to the beginning of the athlete's junior year? I am sure there will be coaches/players that try to work around this, but officially everyone is still on the table before the verbal start date and even if a behind-the-scenes deal was made, players can freely change their mind without the stigma of publicly decommiting. Let the coaches communicate with the players, but don't let them make ridiculously early verbal offers.