Is it now the norm for Coaches to over-recruit knowing they will cut players?

rynoattack posted:

cabbagedad posted:

CaCO, one of my sons went the JC route the first three years (one redshirt), two different California JC's.  Each of the three years, there were no fewer than 85 players that showed up .... So, over those three years, he experienced nearly 200 of his friends/teammates getting cut in the fall.  

......

I couldn't imagine having to spend 3 years at a JC, but some do as you have stated above.  It would be  a complete waste in most cases, money wise, time wise, academic development wise.  Depending on what school you transfer to after, you will have issues with credits transferring.  Ryan has credits that are not transferring, so his 2 years of schooling aren't really 2 years.  ...

I hear ya, Ryno, but it wasn't a COMPLETE waste of time.  For him, an injury late fall of freshman year and being too stubborn to give up on the game caused the extra JC year.  After a long path (I'll spare those who have heard the story ), he is a semester away from his bachelors in the major he truly belongs and is looking into a masters program.  Meanwhile, he successfully completed his college playing career, is now gaining college coaching experience and will have a relatively manageable student loan debt when he is done.

The incentive of baseball, even with all of the detours, kept him on track and in college long enough to find himself as an adult outside of playing the game.

"  Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."

I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site.  To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate.  One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point.  The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.

We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams.  One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.

The key is making a good decision. If a program is high on a player and giving him a lot of attention chances he’s not going to get cut. When a player doesn’t receive money the program doesn’t have any skin in the game. Cutting this kid is no loss. Reaching for the dream program that wasn’t really after the player is a risk. Usually players getting cut freshman year were out on a limb in the first place. The key is to recognize the situation and make another choice.

Ever see kids get one D1 offer and several D2 or D3 offers? There’s a message when this happens. Did several colleges make a mistake or did one? If the D1 didn’t offer any athletic money there’s no risk on their end. See the red flags when going through recruiting. Ignore the unicorns and rainbows. Walk ons who become MLBers really beat the odds. Usually things (injuries) have to luckily fall into place on top of being ready for the opportunity.

As several have noted, the college game is about performance. When we first started looking at the possibility of our son playing baseball after high school, I got caught up in the fear factor of my son getting cut after finding a home. I kept reading and focusing on posts that talked about "Go where you're loved." Good recruiters will make every player feel loved. That is their job. It still comes down to performance. Don't get me wrong...I still think it is important for both player and parents to do their homework. There are definitely programs and/or coaches with a track record of taking the over-recruiting thing to another level.

You also should be aware of how many years the HC has left on contract and previous season W-L records.  Know of a D1 school down south where the HC released a number of players which included a family friend who was redshirt freshman. I was told, and later confirmed, that HC was in final year of contract so pressure was on. He released players and brought in a number of JUCO transfers.

I say all this but it comes down to your son's goals and making sure that he is going into any situation with eyes wide open.

infielddad posted:

"  Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."

I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site.  To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate.  One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point.  The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.

We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams.  One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.

adbono:  No self-respecting D1 baseball program would want any of those incomplete players from Trinity, Texas Lutheran or Southwestern.

Mid-Eastern and Southwestern Conferences:  Hold my beer.

(Just kidding, adbono. :-)

infielddad posted:

"  Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."

I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site.  To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate.  One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point.  The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.

We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams.  One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.

Exactly, and then there is the question of the player's role on a team.  Would you rather be a starter on a great team like Trinity, attending a great school like Trinity, or be a guy who gets 10 PA's or 2 innings per year at a mediocre school in a lower tier conference?

"You also should be aware of how many years the HC has left on contract and previous season W-L records.  Know of a D1 school down south where the HC released a number of players which included a family friend who was redshirt freshman. I was told, and later confirmed, that HC was in final year of contract so pressure was on. He released players and brought in a number of JUCO transfers."

Coach, while I agree with your point, I think its importance  can be confusing because the same risks exist on the front end of a contract.  The recent situation at Alabama is a good illustration.  A past at UNLV is the most well known and egregious example.

A new coach coming to an under-performing  program, especially at the D1 or Power 5, needs to "win."  Far too many times, they have the tacit approval of the AD to get their own players and to get "rid" of those of the coaching staff which was not "winning.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

infielddad posted:

"  Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters.  Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."

I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site.  To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate.  One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point.  The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.

We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams.  One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.

adbono:  No self-respecting D1 baseball program would want any of those incomplete players from Trinity, Texas Lutheran or Southwestern.

Mid-Eastern and Southwestern Conferences:  Hold my beer.

(Just kidding, adbono. :-)

You are right (sort of).  If you replace "self-respecting" with competitive you would be correct - even though your response was tongue in cheek. Since you named some schools I will do the same.  Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure.  Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD.  They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play.  So we are back to the point of finding the right fit.  Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns.

There have been a lot of good comments in this thread, and I just want to point out one minor differentiation to "go where you are loved" or "where they have a plan for you". I think it should be "go where you think you can compete" [for a spot on the roster] 

The D"X" does not matter IMO, what matters [in the baseball part of the decision] is can the player be competitive within the level of play of the program. Get this decision right, together with academic fit, location, cost, etc, and then the player has the best chance of success. 

It is all about reducing risk, and in college baseball there are lots of risks, if you can reduce the risk in all of these elements then the student/athlete gives himself the best chance of success.   

Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going? 

"Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."

Nope, don't agree with this at all.  To be completely upfront, our son played at Trinity, was a 2 year All-Star in the NECBL, was drafted and also offered numerous opportunities to transfer, including to very top D2's in FLA and other now Power 5 programs.  I also know the coaching staff the pretty well.

As an illustration, when the coaches scout the Stanford Camp or the AZ Fall Classic, they are looking for players with D1 skills but who might be considered, for a number of reasons, the #2-3 guy on a D1 board. For Trinity, that D1 board comparison would be Ivy's etc. One of the main reasons is strength, not ability.

They follow those kids through the NLI signing period and then they start recruiting those who were the #2s and #3's on the D1 boards who didn't get an NLI, for whatever reason.  To give you a vivid illustration, a top freshman in the 2017 Big West season (and in the regional and Super-Regional) had deposited at Trinity.  He had very little D1 interest and the Trinity coaches loved him. He was seen in a scout team game in June by the Big West team and that option opened.

When the margin between the D1 and top D3 is strength or explosiveness rather than talent, that margin gets narrowed quickly in college when the talented kid gets into a great strength and conditioning baseball specific program.  Those kids are not uni-corns.  Trinity sent 2 rising sophomores to play on the top team in the Alaska league last Summer and each performed at the highest levels while starting nearly every game.

PS-I watched the 3 game UTD/TU series in 2016.  Highly entertaining, for sure.  Trinity swept. To be clear, I am not saying a roster of a D3 1-9 competes for innings at a D1 program in the 150 range. I am saying more than one guy in the top 5 of a top D3 (especially after one year of baseball specific strength training) will challenge for plenty of innings at the D1 level (again outside the Power 5 and that next tier.)

Since the MLB draft is comprised of High School, JUCO, NAIA, D3, D2, AND D1players...wouldn't it be safe to say you can find D1 talent on the rosters in all cases?

CaCO3Girl posted:

Since the MLB draft is comprised of High School, JUCO, NAIA, D3, D2, AND D1players...wouldn't it be safe to say you can find D1 talent on the rosters in all cases?

http://www.d3baseball.com/nota...2017-players-drafted

infielddad posted:

"Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."

Nope, don't agree with this at all.  To be completely upfront, our son played at Trinity, was a 2 year All-Star in the NECBL, was drafted and also offered numerous opportunities to transfer, including to very top D2's in FLA and other now Power 5 programs.  I also know the coaching staff the pretty well.

As an illustration, when the coaches scout the Stanford Camp or the AZ Fall Classic, they are looking for players with D1 skills but who might be considered, for a number of reasons, the #2-3 guy on a D1 board. For Trinity, that D1 board comparison would be Ivy's etc. One of the main reasons is strength, not ability.

They follow those kids through the NLI signing period and then they start recruiting those who were the #2s and #3's on the D1 boards who didn't get an NLI, for whatever reason.  To give you a vivid illustration, a top freshman in the 2017 Big West season (and in the regional and Super-Regional) had deposited at Trinity.  He had very little D1 interest and the Trinity coaches loved him. He was seen in a scout team game in June by the Big West team and that option opened.

When the margin between the D1 and top D3 is strength or explosiveness rather than talent, that margin gets narrowed quickly in college when the talented kid gets into a great strength and conditioning baseball specific program.  Those kids are not uni-corns.  Trinity sent 2 rising sophomores to play on the top team in the Alaska league last Summer and each performed at the highest levels while starting nearly every game.

PS-I watched the 3 game UTD/TU series in 2016.  Highly entertaining, for sure.  Trinity swept. To be clear, I am not saying a roster of a D3 1-9 competes for innings at a D1 program in the 150 range. I am saying more than one guy in the top 5 of a top D3 (especially after one year of baseball specific strength training) will challenge for plenty of innings at the D1 level (again outside the Power 5 and that next tier.)

I should have known that I'm arguing with an attorney.  The fact that Trinity swept a series with UTD in 2016 is hardly relevant. Two of those games could have gone the other way.  Both those are top 20 D3 programs and they are very comparable. The fact that 2 Trinity players did well in Alaska one summer doesn't prove anything either.  Top D1 talent isn't in Alaska during the summer - mid level talent is.  You say more than one player on a top D3 can do this or that.  I say a couple might be able to.  That is pretty much the same thing.       

Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .

Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc.   They have done so nearly every Summer.  The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.

Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league.  I never said "Top D1."  In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams. 

I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn.  When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?

Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages.  They are  not isolated to a unicorn.

Elijah posted:

Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going? 

Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Elijah posted:

Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going? 

Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.

First, let me plead ignorant to knowing anything about football recruiting. My question stems from seeing news reports of HS football players changing their minds when they have already verbally committed to another program. Georgia just landed a top QB that was going to Penn State. This is just one recent example of stories I see in football which was why I asked. The common perception by some here is that committing to a program so early does not benefit the player. That makes sense if the verbal means nothing without the official signing. So I am wondering if this could also benefit the player, as well, or if the early signings will lead to kids jumping to other schools after a couple of years being verbally committed to another school?

All this said, I would not encourage my son to take an offer if all the details (that are often written about on this site) did not line up positively. But I do think it would be challenging as a parent. There is much talk about finding the right fit, which as my son gets older makes more sense to me as his personality reveals itself. He would have no clue about college if you asked him about it now. He also will not be receiving an offer anytime soon, so my question is not a personal one. 

Elijah posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Elijah posted:

Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going? 

Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.

First, let me plead ignorant to knowing anything about football recruiting. My question stems from seeing news reports of HS football players changing their minds when they have already verbally committed to another program. Georgia just landed a top QB that was going to Penn State. This is just one recent example of stories I see in football which was why I asked. The common perception by some here is that committing to a program so early does not benefit the player. That makes sense if the verbal means nothing without the official signing. So I am wondering if this could also benefit the player, as well, or if the early signings will lead to kids jumping to other schools after a couple of years being verbally committed to another school?

All this said, I would not encourage my son to take an offer if all the details (that are often written about on this site) did not line up positively. But I do think it would be challenging as a parent. There is much talk about finding the right fit, which as my son gets older makes more sense to me as his personality reveals itself. He would have no clue about college if you asked him about it now. He also will not be receiving an offer anytime soon, so my question is not a personal one. 

I don't know anything about the football side, either. I guess I'm assuming that a kid is only going to change his mind if the new school has made a more attractive offer. So far, I haven't heard of that happening with baseball, but I would probably be naive to assume that it doesn't.

The thing I don't like about football is that kids take visits to other schools AFTER committing to another program.  I'm sorry, but this is just a totally classless thing to do, but you see it all the time.  My son was still talking to a couple schools when he accepted his baseball offer.  I had told him beforehand that if he accepted an offer, he was sticking with it....unless something major such as a coaching change occured.  I can't imagine a college football coach being too thrilled to hear one of his committed guys is still taking visits to other schools.  If it's me, the offer is gone immediately if that would happen, but I guess that's why I'm not a major college football coach

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

infielddad posted:

Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .

Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc.   They have done so nearly every Summer.  The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.

Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league.  I never said "Top D1."  In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams. 

I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn.  When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?

Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages.  They are  not isolated to a unicorn.

There were 1215 players selected in the 2017 MLB draft. 12 were from D3 schools.  That is 1%. There were 75 players selected from the SEC alone. With rare exception, D3 players are on D3 rosters & D1 players are on D1 rosters. So the top 1% of D3 players could play D1 at some level - okay I will buy that.  Maybe "unicorn" was a poor choice of words on my part in the context that it was used. I guess the unicorn would choose to go to Swarthmore if they were good enough to play at North Carolina.  However, I'm on the field enough to know this much - D1 line drives sound different than D3 line drives.  And one of my kids played D3 so I'm not knocking it.  I am around top 25 D1 programs and they play a different game.  And no, I don't have a kid in a D1 program - I'm just stating the facts.  Even the best D3 baseball is not in the same conversation with a mid level D1 - primarily because of the disparity in the pitching.  That doesn't mean that a good D3 couldn't beat a D1 on any given day. They could, because we all know that anything can happen in baseball. 

RJM posted:

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.

My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting. 

My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so. 

adbono posted:

infielddad posted:

Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .

Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc.   They have done so nearly every Summer.  The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.

Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league.  I never said "Top D1."  In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams. 

I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn.  When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?

Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages.  They are  not isolated to a unicorn.

There were 1215 players selected in the 2017 MLB draft. 12 were from D3 schools.  That is 1%. There were 75 players selected from the SEC alone. With rare exception, D3 players are on D3 rosters & D1 players are on D1 rosters. So the top 1% of D3 players could play D1 at some level - okay I will buy that.  Maybe "unicorn" was a poor choice of words on my part in the context that it was used. I guess the unicorn would choose to go to Swarthmore if they were good enough to play at North Carolina.  However, I'm on the field enough to know this much - D1 line drives sound different than D3 line drives.  And one of my kids played D3 so I'm not knocking it.  I am around top 25 D1 programs and they play a different game.  And no, I don't have a kid in a D1 program - I'm just stating the facts.  Even the best D3 baseball is not in the same conversation with a mid level D1 - primarily because of the disparity in the pitching.  That doesn't mean that a good D3 couldn't beat a D1 on any given day. They could, because we all know that anything can happen in baseball. 

Why are you talking about SEC and now top 25 programs, especially in the context of the draft proving something.  More than 99% of the D3 players nationally are not going to be recruited to an SEC or top 25 out of HS (other than a possible exception in Wisconsin/NY etc where D1 options are very limited.) 

I am certainly not and have never compared any D3 player with the SEC, top 25 or even Power 5.  I am not even comparing better D3 players with those competing in the top 150 of D1 baseball.  Where I am completely in disagreement with you is the "unicorn" argument about top D3 players and D1 programs from 150 to 300.  BTW, how many players were drafted from teams 150 to 300? Trinity has more players drafted than a number of D1 programs ranked 200 to 300 if we go back a few years.

All I can tell you is in the NECBL, against Team USA and in Milb against  many  top arms, the line drive off the wood bat of the D3 kid didn't sound any different than the line drive off the bat of the Vanderbilt kid.

Elijah posted:

RJM posted:

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.

My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting. 

My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so. 

Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job.  So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews?  I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Elijah posted:

RJM posted:

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.

My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting. 

My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so. 

Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job.  So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews?  I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.

In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job. 

Elijah posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Elijah posted:

RJM posted:

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.

My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting. 

My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so. 

Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job.  So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews?  I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.

In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job. 

You are talking about after you have been there awhile, I'm talking about job interviews.  Just seems like a classless thing to do.  If your not sure and want to look at another school then don't commit.  Doesn't seem like a difficult concept.

I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature.  Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world.  Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it?  This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Elijah posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Elijah posted:

RJM posted:

It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.

I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.

My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting. 

My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so. 

Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job.  So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews?  I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.

In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job. 

You are talking about after you have been there awhile, I'm talking about job interviews.  Just seems like a classless thing to do.  If your not sure and want to look at another school then don't commit.  Doesn't seem like a difficult concept.

Then you are not talking about what I am asking about. To be clear, I am not advocating giving a college a verbal only to keep looking for a better looking scenario. I am simply wondering what might be the result of kids giving a verbal so early and then having so much time go by. Just so I am clear, do universities have to honor the verbal agreement with an actual signing, or can they back out? 

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

Midwest Mom posted:

I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature.  Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world.  Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it?  This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.

Not the same scenario that I was asking about. One usually does not accept a job and then have 4 to 5 years to report to it. In that time, your employer might find someone else that they like better than you. They look every year for better talent than the year before. But you have stopped looking for other opportunities. You wouldn't do this with a job. So yes, I was talking about things changing, more specifically from a school's perspective and how it would affect the player's future. 

Just to be clear, if my kid gave a verbal to university, the idea would be not to give it unless he is meaning to honor it. But I also do not think it is a big deal if another school wanted to chime in with, "If things change, we would like to talk to you." Because what if things change, like a coaching change? Happens alot in football. Although I am not even sure if that is allowed. Just learning as I go here. 

Elijah posted:

Midwest Mom posted:

I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature.  Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world.  Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it?  This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.

Not the same scenario that I was asking about. One usually does not accept a job and then have 4 to 5 years to report to it. In that time, your employer might find someone else that they like better than you. They look every year for better talent than the year before. But you have stopped looking for other opportunities. You wouldn't do this with a job. So yes, I was talking about things changing, more specifically from a school's perspective and how it would affect the player's future. 

Just to be clear, if my kid gave a verbal to university, the idea would be not to give it unless he is meaning to honor it. But I also do not think it is a big deal if another school wanted to chime in with, "If things change, we would like to talk to you." Because what if things change, like a coaching change? Happens alot in football. Although I am not even sure if that is allowed. Just learning as I go here. 

Agreed. Which is why committing too early is a huge risk for the player, as others have pointed out. 

Louise posted:

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

 

I propose we make the word, UNICORN, an official term for this site.  It's definition shall be understood thusly: (u-ni-korn), noun. 1.a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.  2. A D-1 caliber player, who can play D-1, has offer(s) to play D-1, but chooses to play D-3.

All those in favor say, "Aye."  

All HSBBWebsters please make note of this new vocabulary word so in the future when someone posts, "My 2020 unicorn is at a crossroads with his recruitment and we are looking for advice  .....................," we won't have to waste time with follow-up questions like, "Wait............your son is a unicorn???????  Is this a real post?????"

Thank you.

I am curious to get the opinions of parents of kids who verbally committed early (frosh/soph)..the thought process behind the decision, the outcome of course and how their kid maintained the focus to be a prospect for the next 2 to 3 years.

All HSBBWebsters please make note of this new vocabulary word so in the future when someone posts, "My 2020 unicorn is at a crossroads with his recruitment and we are looking for advice  .....................," we won't have to waste time with follow-up questions like, "Wait............your son is a unicorn???????  Is this a real post?????"     

Elijah, I have no problem with a kid committing and another school saying hey if things change give us a call.  I have a problem with a kid tweeting I've blessed to continue...blah blah at university X, then next month he's tweeting "had a great time busting University Y today, complete with pictures of him in the locker room wearing a jersey and a name tag for a school that he did NOT commit to just last month. That's what's going on right now, and I agree, pull the offer if a kid is still visiting other schools.

Louise posted:

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

 

Louise - Despite a little "ribbing" from #1 Asst Coach, I hear what you are saying loud and clear.  For my son it was about the education and he ranked a couple offering D3s over offering D1s because of his major.   Baseball was the secondary criteria in evaluating college admission offers.     Let's face it....there are all kinds of situations, perspectives, and thought processes out there.   I think it is fantastic that a lot of these kids get to choose between some really good D1 schools and some really good D3 schools.  If your kid is fortunate to be one of those recruits regardless of which one they select, then I think they are doing a lot of things right at a young age.   As always, JMO

Louise posted:

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

 

If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn.  If he chose Amherst over UC-Riverside he is a smart kid that made a really good decision - but not a unicorn.

Fenway, well said. A lot of comments lately about D1 vs D3. Not all D1s (and D3s) are created equal in terms of baseball and not all education at these same schools are created equal. Depends on a player's baseball ability, academic ability and future goals and ambitions. 

fenwaysouth posted:

Louise posted:

My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore

 

Louise - Despite a little "ribbing" from #1 Asst Coach, I hear what you are saying loud and clear.  For my son it was about the education and he ranked a couple offering D3s over offering D1s because of his major.   Baseball was the secondary criteria in evaluating college admission offers.     Let's face it....there are all kinds of situations, perspectives, and thought processes out there.   I think it is fantastic that a lot of these kids get to choose between some really good D1 schools and some really good D3 schools.  If your kid is fortunate to be one of those recruits regardless of which one they select, then I think they are doing a lot of things right at a young age.   As always, JMO

Couldn't agree more !

Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice.  Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids.   All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever.   My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s.  Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball).  But was still on verge of accepting a very  high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.  

At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that.  So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was.  BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year.   So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?