Yes, it's football, but it's still an interesting story.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Great story... still playing out.
I read this earlier. Good read...
cabbagedad posted:Great story... still playing out.
Agreed! I don't think that committing early is necessarily a bad thing as long as you do your homework and understand ALL of the risks involved.
Personally, I wouldn't let my kid commit as a middle schooler and probably not even as a freshmen. I believe this kid committed w/o ever visiting the school which I wouldn't advise but to each his own.
Any offer based on projection of what the coach THINKS the kid will be like is probably not a good thing to hang your hopes and dreams on. Things change, bodies change, coaches change, interests change...etc.
I think this story shows one of the biggest problems with early commitments - the instability of coaching staffs. Clearly, the kid was still a D1 talent by the time he graduated high school. The problem was that when there was a coaching change, there was also a shift in offensive philosophies. This kid committed five years before he would show up on campus. He's lucky the coaching change came quick enough for him to know where he stood. Think about where he would have been if the offer was yanked by a new coach during the summer before his senior year. Then he misses his whole senior year to an injury and...
I agree with Root, but that's the tip of the iceberg and the staff change issue isn't exclusive to early commits. IMHO, that is more a problem after LOI's are signed.
Honestly, I completely blame the parents in this. They were either totally ignorant to recruiting/coaching longevity, etc., or chose to ignore it. Kiffen had already proven himself a clown. They got caught up in the hype of their kid and allowed him to be exploited. I couldn't believe the stupidity of the parents in this situation. ....until I read the entire story and see that they were building schools, etc., to basically promote and place their kid. Really, really sad.
No idea if this kid had taken the "normal" path of growing into HS before engaging in serious recruitment if his story would be different or not. One thing for sure, there would be no national story about whatever turned out for the kid. It has to suck to have a "whatever happened to" story about you when you're 20.
The advice on this forum is so great and not exclusive to baseball. Much of it you're seeing on the Pomona vs Amherst thread. Where your kids goes to school is where he'll get his education, forge relationships for future business/job opportunities, potentially meet his future spouse, continue to learn about life and baseball. No way anyone can have any clue at the age of 13 where the best place and coaching staff to do this with might be.
In the end, this kid is continuing to pay the price for what his parents allowed him to do.
A kid I know got left out in the cold because he really didn't show much progress after he committed early to a mid-major D1. Kid pitched well in the summer and fall after his freshman season of high school, and followed it up with a strong varsity season as a high school sophomore. Then made the commit.
Didn't grow any taller or put on much weight to his slight frame, and his fastball, which was good for a sophomore, didn't show any improvement in velocity the following year. He didn't sign in the early period in November as the school backed off of him.
By then, he had been off the table for a year and a half and went into his senior season starting over for a place to play. By then, most of the schools he had previously had interest in had already signed their class or no longer had interest in him.
He ended up playing out his senior year and was into June before he landed at a local D2 that he would have never considered two years previously.
Not that anyone is currently recruiting my 8th grader (!) but no way would I let him commit this early if they did. In Baseball I think part of the problem is the Travel Teams/Baseball Academies that push early commitments. They see it as another thing to hype, another poster to put on their wall in their list of commitments. But in most cases it isn't putting the kid in the best position longterm
3and2Fastball posted:Not that anyone is currently recruiting my 8th grader (!) but no way would I let him commit this early if they did. In Baseball I think part of the problem is the Travel Teams/Baseball Academies that push early commitments. They see it as another thing to hype, another poster to put on their wall in their list of commitments. But in most cases it isn't putting the kid in the best position longterm
In all fairness to the Academies, I've never felt like they push kids to commit. They certainly make it possible by making the phone calls and touting their kids to schools, but I've never seen situations where I thought they were pushing kids to commit early. They will almost assuredly take credit for it when they do, though.
A psychologist would have seen a bunch of red flags in this story. And they're not about the coaches and early recruitment. A dad building two high school programs for the son is a huge red flag. Accepting the verbal at thirteen is a huge red flag.
When Kiffen made the offer a sane dad would have responded, "That's very nice. Thank you. But let's see where he is developmentally in three years." Then mumble to himself, "Let's see if you're here in three years."
If a kid is that talented he will still receive an offer in three years. If not, taking himself off the radar screen with a verbal at thirteen is a bad idea.
This whole story screams "My son is going to be the stud I could never be."
This story played out in my backyard. Of course, it's more complicated than one article can cover. I have no respect for Kiffin. The whole thing was a publicity stunt, and he gave no regard for how it might impact the kid. The lesson is to parents... protect your kids from people who are trying to exploit them.
This film obviously has a slant, but does shed more light on this strange story: https://youtu.be/QNVPz9uG6RA
Also... it's still happening. http://usatodayhss.com/2016/al...phenom-jesus-machado
MidAtlanticDad posted:This story played out in my backyard. Of course, it's more complicated than one article can cover. I have no respect for Kiffin. The whole thing was a publicity stunt, and he gave no regard for how it might impact the kid. The lesson is to parents... protect your kids from people who are trying to exploit them.
This film obviously has a slant, but does shed more light on this strange story: https://youtu.be/QNVPz9uG6RA
Also... it's still happening. http://usatodayhss.com/2016/al...phenom-jesus-machado
It is still happening. My son has a fellow freshmen teammate who had five offers before he played his first high school snap and there is also an eighth grade QB at our middle school who has multiple Power 5 offers.
Well, all I can say is parents can control these situations way more than they think. We can all say that its insane for middle school kids to commit - but I also think its not good for HS freshmen...and in most (read the word most, not all) cases for HS sophomores to commit. Too much can change on both sides and in far more dimensions than athletic ability (most obviously, academics).
Still, there is a temptation when the 'USC's' of baseball comes knocking for your HS freshman/sophomore that we as parents think, 'I'd better take this or it won't be there in 6 months.'
I can tell you that in both cases we pushed the dates back farther than the coaches wished. And we did it with honest, open discussion as to why. Academics, maturity and performance were all factors in the push back. It worked out well for both, ultimately the coaches waited. As a parent, you have more in your back pocket than you think. Use it.
My son was fortunate in that he did not get recruited at all until the Summer before his Senior year. I was fortunate enough to find this site during his Junior year (I think).
I don't how I would have handled him getting recruited when he was a freshman, etc. Maybe I would I have been smart enough to ask someone a bunch of questions or started reading a lot but then again, maybe not.
"You don't know what you don't know!"
justbaseball posted:Well, all I can say is parents can control these situations way more than they think. We can all say that its insane for middle school kids to commit - but I also think its not good for HS freshmen...and in most (read the word most, not all) cases for HS sophomores to commit. Too much can change on both sides and in far more dimensions than athletic ability (most obviously, academics).
Still, there is a temptation when the 'USC's' of baseball comes knocking for your HS freshman/sophomore that we as parents think, 'I'd better take this or it won't be there in 6 months.'
I can tell you that in both cases we pushed the dates back farther than the coaches wished. And we did it with honest, open discussion as to why. Academics, maturity and performance were all factors in the push back. It worked out well for both, ultimately the coaches waited. As a parent, you have more in your back pocket than you think. Use it.
Agreed...and obviously, you put a premium on making the right decision.
If I was a highly-regarded QB and Peyton Manning was in the class ahead of me, I would want to wait and not sign wherever he signed. LoL
Kiffin is an a-hole.
I blame the parents -- how do you let your kid "commit" when he doesn't even know what he wants for lunch. Morons.
And where the heck is the NCAA. What a bunch of boobs. Frankly, it's time they put the kibosh on the whole early commit BS. The risk is all the kids. There has to be a better system.
Two local kids both received offers in the summer after their 8th grade football seasons prior to entering high school. Both participated in a Team USA football combine/week of practice/and game. One received a couple of offers and the other received one offer. Both had an offer from an SEC school.
Both continued to accumulate multiple offers, have outstanding careers in hs, and both eventually committed to an ACC school prior to their senior seasons. One of the players kind of got lost in the hype, had a falling out with his dad, transferred high schools, decommitted and restarted the recruiting process, and finally ended up at a local D1 school that just started football recently. The likelihood of him sticking in college is doubtful.
The other had a great career, played football and baseball, graduated early and went to the ACC school as an early enroll in the spring. Time will tell but the early reports from spring practice are positive.
In A Season on the Brink, Feinstein chronicled Bob Knight's trips to see Damon Bailey play as a 8th grader. Knight said that Bailiey was currently better as a 14 year old than any point guard he had at Indiana. That created a lot of conversation at the time. Bailey did play at IU and was a very good player, but not to the level of expectations that were created from the book.
One more: When C.J. Leak originally committed to Wake Forest and coach Jim Caldwell, it was a package deal. Younger brother Chris Leak was also offered a scholly by Caldwell to Wake as a middle schooler.
Things didn't work out at Wake as C.J. blew out a knee as a freshman and eventually transferred to Tennessee. Chris did not end up at Wake Forest, but instead went on to win a lot of games and a National Championship at Florida.
Of course, bringing this back to baseball, there was speculation that Leak would lose his starting job to freshman Tim Tebow. But instead, Tebow would sub in at times and either run the ball or throw the jump pass for a TD. Next week Tebow will showcase his baseball skills.
Golfman25 posted:Kiffin is an a-hole.
I blame the parents -- how do you let your kid "commit" when he doesn't even know what he wants for lunch. Morons.
And where the heck is the NCAA. What a bunch of boobs. Frankly, it's time they put the kibosh on the whole early commit BS. The risk is all the kids. There has to be a better system.
I'm all for keeping the recruiters away from the athletes until September of junior year. Once the talking starts let NLI's be signed junior year.
Stafford posted:A kid I know got left out in the cold because he really didn't show much progress after he committed early to a mid-major D1. Kid pitched well in the summer and fall after his freshman season of high school, and followed it up with a strong varsity season as a high school sophomore. Then made the commit.
Didn't grow any taller or put on much weight to his slight frame, and his fastball, which was good for a sophomore, didn't show any improvement in velocity the following year. He didn't sign in the early period in November as the school backed off of him.
By then, he had been off the table for a year and a half and went into his senior season starting over for a place to play. By then, most of the schools he had previously had interest in had already signed their class or no longer had interest in him.
He ended up playing out his senior year and was into June before he landed at a local D2 that he would have never considered two years previously.
I have a facility full of "cut" kids who didn't get their LOI or got one and were promptly cut after not making the team in the fall because the coach overcommitted kids, coaching staff changed, or whatever other reasons.
The college sports industry sucks in a lot of ways.
MidAtlanticDad posted:This story played out in my backyard. Of course, it's more complicated than one article can cover. I have no respect for Kiffin. The whole thing was a publicity stunt, and he gave no regard for how it might impact the kid. The lesson is to parents... protect your kids from people who are trying to exploit them.
This film obviously has a slant, but does shed more light on this strange story: https://youtu.be/QNVPz9uG6RA
Also... it's still happening. http://usatodayhss.com/2016/al...phenom-jesus-machado
Just found out that the virtual high school that this kid's father started in 2012 has closed down this summer.
Kyle Boddy posted:I have a facility full of "cut" kids who didn't get their LOI or got one and were promptly cut after not making the team in the fall because the coach overcommitted kids, coaching staff changed, or whatever other reasons.
The college sports industry sucks in a lot of ways.
I would encourage everyone to read what Kyle wrote about 5 times, maybe 20. There are theories, there are the experiences of one or two, and then there is big picture perspective. Value the big picture perspective. I do.
13-14 is way too young to project anything. The best baseball player at our Jr High (Freshman) the year before me didn't even make the varsity baseball team in HS and eventually quit the sport. The two best players in my year, ones who were pony/colt studs were just okay HS players. Three of our best basketball players, going into HS, one didn't make varsity and the other two (the tallest, and only black guys) didn't start at the varsity level at the HS in favor of 4 asian starters (who were good enough to get to the championship game). That was back when my Jr High was part of a 3 school feeder program for our powerhouse D2 high school.
Of course the younger they are the more difficult it is to predict the future. Mostly due to physical things, size, strength, injury, ect. But that 13 year old that can hit, run, field and throw better than other 13 year olds will most often become a very good high school player. It doesn't mean that others won't develop and pass him. But we seldom talk about the best 13 year old that is still the best when he is 18 and that happens a lot.
I always seem to hear the stories about the stud 13 year old that got cut in high school. For every one of those stories I could give 10 where the stud 13 year old became the star of his high school team. In fact, I could tell stories where the stud 13 year old ended up playing in the Major Leagues and becoming an All Star.
Point is there is more than one way to look at most things. I will bet on the best 13s to become among the best 14s, the best 14s to become among the best 15s and so on. That is what the recruiters are doing and they will be right much more than they are wrong because they know what they are looking for. The problem is that they can correct things when they are wrong and that often creates a big problem for the player when that happens.
I, too hear all the stories of the studs that don't pan out come high school age. Maybe I've just had unusual experiences, but my experience with several areas of the country have shown me that this is a rare occurrence. A couple of years ago I made a list of what I thought were the top 25 players in the Denver area when our kids were 9u. I just pulled it out again. With one exception (stud who turned into a tennis prodigy and gave up baseball), you could put that list out there right now as the top 25 2018 (and a few 2017's) in the Denver area and not get an argument. My 9u roster were all playing high school varsity by their sophomore year.
Kyle Boddy posted:Stafford posted:A kid I know got left out in the cold because he really didn't show much progress after he committed early to a mid-major D1. Kid pitched well in the summer and fall after his freshman season of high school, and followed it up with a strong varsity season as a high school sophomore. Then made the commit.
Didn't grow any taller or put on much weight to his slight frame, and his fastball, which was good for a sophomore, didn't show any improvement in velocity the following year. He didn't sign in the early period in November as the school backed off of him.
By then, he had been off the table for a year and a half and went into his senior season starting over for a place to play. By then, most of the schools he had previously had interest in had already signed their class or no longer had interest in him.
He ended up playing out his senior year and was into June before he landed at a local D2 that he would have never considered two years previously.
I have a facility full of "cut" kids who didn't get their LOI or got one and were promptly cut after not making the team in the fall because the coach overcommitted kids, coaching staff changed, or whatever other reasons.
The college sports industry sucks in a lot of ways.
It's all stacked in favor of the coaches and programs. The players get the shaft. To me the worst thing is a coach can get a team out on probation, it's his fault and leave. Yet the players are stuck there with penalties which usually include no post season. A more common thing that sucks is the coaching staff changes, the new staff doesn't like an existing player and he has to sit out a year if he transfers.
When you hear about thirteen year olds studs who don't develop further it's typically the early bloomers who stopped growing. Their parents were already thinking college scholarship. But baseball people knew better. Then there are potential studs who lack the work ethic or another sport becomes more important.
If the kid is taller and better than the others at 13, and his parents are normal sized, then you can guess early bloomer. But if the parents and siblings are tall, and good athletes, he will probably be bigger and better throughout high school.
There are some outliers though. A kid in my area was 6'2, 260lbs as a middle school football player. Dad was maybe 5'8" and mom 5'3". Kid grew to be a 6'6" D1 O lineman. It was a head scratcher when he was in middle school, and then he kept getting taller.
A lot of the blame should placed on Clarkson. There are a lot of QB "gurus" out there that use the kids they are training to hype their own brand. Most of them aren't even very good, they just find talented QB's at a young age at their camps and latch on to them. Then it becomes more about hype than substance over the next few years. For every Andrew Luck there are 20 David Sills.
Stafford posted:If the kid is taller and better than the others at 13, and his parents are normal sized, then you can guess early bloomer. But if the parents and siblings are tall, and good athletes, he will probably be bigger and better throughout high school.
There are some outliers though. A kid in my area was 6'2, 260lbs as a middle school football player. Dad was maybe 5'8" and mom 5'3". Kid grew to be a 6'6" D1 O lineman. It was a head scratcher when he was in middle school, and then he kept getting taller.
How big was the mailman?
Yeah, we all snickered about the mailman. That's what everyone said when they saw how small his parents were in comparison. I did see that former NFL defensive back Troy Vincent (6'1" 200lbs) has a son who is big time prospect at Defensive Tackle and is 6'3" 295lbs as a junior in high school.
I make that joke all the time. I'm 5' 11" (when I stretch it a little) and 190 lbs (after losing 60 lbs since February). My wife is 5' 10". Son is over 6' 4" / 235 lbs. When he went to the PG Junior Nationals, I couldn't be there. I made sure to have my 6' 10" father-in-law come down and hang out.
Edit: Whoops. That's 235 lbs, not 135 lbs.
PGStaff posted:Of course the younger they are the more difficult it is to predict the future. Mostly due to physical things, size, strength, injury, ect. But that 13 year old that can hit, run, field and throw better than other 13 year olds will most often become a very good high school player. It doesn't mean that others won't develop and pass him. But we seldom talk about the best 13 year old that is still the best when he is 18 and that happens a lot.
I always seem to hear the stories about the stud 13 year old that got cut in high school. For every one of those stories I could give 10 where the stud 13 year old became the star of his high school team. In fact, I could tell stories where the stud 13 year old ended up playing in the Major Leagues and becoming an All Star.
Point is there is more than one way to look at most things. I will bet on the best 13s to become among the best 14s, the best 14s to become among the best 15s and so on. That is what the recruiters are doing and they will be right much more than they are wrong because they know what they are looking for. The problem is that they can correct things when they are wrong and that often creates a big problem for the player when that happens.
I think what PGStaff posted is generally true. But I think it is more true on the national, or even the regional stage. Those players at 13U and 14U that are studs at that level are generally studs when they get to HS, and maybe even college. When you start talking on more of a local level city, county etc.. That is when you see the kids that are studs at 13 or 14, may be the kids who developed early and may not progress as well as others.
I believe that is why we see the two different perspectives. All of us have stories about the local 13 year old that never progressed. But we do not generally see the kids who are studs at the higher levels.
BishopLeftiesDad posted:PGStaff posted:Of course the younger they are the more difficult it is to predict the future. Mostly due to physical things, size, strength, injury, ect. But that 13 year old that can hit, run, field and throw better than other 13 year olds will most often become a very good high school player. It doesn't mean that others won't develop and pass him. But we seldom talk about the best 13 year old that is still the best when he is 18 and that happens a lot.
I always seem to hear the stories about the stud 13 year old that got cut in high school. For every one of those stories I could give 10 where the stud 13 year old became the star of his high school team. In fact, I could tell stories where the stud 13 year old ended up playing in the Major Leagues and becoming an All Star.
Point is there is more than one way to look at most things. I will bet on the best 13s to become among the best 14s, the best 14s to become among the best 15s and so on. That is what the recruiters are doing and they will be right much more than they are wrong because they know what they are looking for. The problem is that they can correct things when they are wrong and that often creates a big problem for the player when that happens.
I think what PGStaff posted is generally true. But I think it is more true on the national, or even the regional stage. Those players at 13U and 14U that are studs at that level are generally studs when they get to HS, and maybe even college. When you start talking on more of a local level city, county etc.. That is when you see the kids that are studs at 13 or 14, may be the kids who developed early and may not progress as well as others.
I believe that is why we see the two different perspectives. All of us have stories about the local 13 year old that never progressed. But we do not generally see the kids who are studs at the higher levels.
I also wonder if sometimes the stud 13 year old gets overused, because they are so good.
rynoattack posted:BishopLeftiesDad posted:PGStaff posted:Of course the younger they are the more difficult it is to predict the future. Mostly due to physical things, size, strength, injury, ect. But that 13 year old that can hit, run, field and throw better than other 13 year olds will most often become a very good high school player. It doesn't mean that others won't develop and pass him. But we seldom talk about the best 13 year old that is still the best when he is 18 and that happens a lot.
I always seem to hear the stories about the stud 13 year old that got cut in high school. For every one of those stories I could give 10 where the stud 13 year old became the star of his high school team. In fact, I could tell stories where the stud 13 year old ended up playing in the Major Leagues and becoming an All Star.
Point is there is more than one way to look at most things. I will bet on the best 13s to become among the best 14s, the best 14s to become among the best 15s and so on. That is what the recruiters are doing and they will be right much more than they are wrong because they know what they are looking for. The problem is that they can correct things when they are wrong and that often creates a big problem for the player when that happens.
I think what PGStaff posted is generally true. But I think it is more true on the national, or even the regional stage. Those players at 13U and 14U that are studs at that level are generally studs when they get to HS, and maybe even college. When you start talking on more of a local level city, county etc.. That is when you see the kids that are studs at 13 or 14, may be the kids who developed early and may not progress as well as others.
I believe that is why we see the two different perspectives. All of us have stories about the local 13 year old that never progressed. But we do not generally see the kids who are studs at the higher levels.
I also wonder if sometimes the stud 13 year old gets overused, because they are so good.
The folks PG has in mind are pretty rare birds -- what Nassim Taleb calls black swans. But in his business, he is definitely on the look out for the black swan. Indeed, he hunts in locales where black swans are likely to proliferate. That's why he has many tales to tell. But the 13 year old who hits an early puberty switch, say, and is consequently temporarily bigger and stronger than many of the local kids around him is pretty wide spread, and isn't a black swan at all. Eventually, the other kids catch up. And the benefits of early onset of puberty fade.
So both narratives are true and there are no real conflicts between them when each is properly understood.
Actually, I'm nearly 70 years old and even in my home town the vast majority of the best 13 year olds have become among the best high school players. I use the word "among" because some that were way behind at 13 become the best in high school. They pass everyone along the way.
I think the problem might be how we see the best 13 year olds. I've seen the big kid that hits the ball farther and can throw harder at that age. However, I might not think he is one of the best 13 year olds despite the success he might be having at that level. To find the most talented kids at that age you have to see the talent rather than look at the results. See the natural skills rather than those that are created by physical maturity. That would include both big and small, strong and weak players. See the arm action, footwork, hand eye coordination, soft hands, smooth swing, feel for the game, etc. Sometimes the kids that show these natural skills are also the most successful at 13, sometimes they aren't.
I do know of some very talented athletes that stood out at baseball when they were younger, but didn't play baseball in high school. A couple of them ended up playing in the NFL. Tim Dwight and Dedric Ward. Also know a few that ended up in the NBA, Bobby Hansen, Kirk Hinrich, Harrison Barnes. They would all have been outstanding high school baseball players if they wanted to be.
That leads me to another consideration... Even if someone has the ability to be an outstanding high school or above baseball player, there is one most important ingredient.... They have to "want" to be that! That might be the hardest thing to evaluate when they are 13.
roothog66 posted:I make that joke all the time. I'm 5' 11" (when I stretch it a little) and 190 lbs (after losing 60 lbs since February). My wife is 5' 10". Son is over 6' 4" / 235 lbs. When he went to the PG Junior Nationals, I couldn't be there. I made sure to have my 6' 10" father-in-law come down and hang out.
Edit: Whoops. That's 235 lbs, not 135 lbs.
Root, I know you're just joking, but I never get the height projection thing when we're talking about kids going from high school to college. The vast majority of boys are essentially done growing by age 18 (and on average boys grow 1 inch after age 16 . . . yes, I know there are rare exceptions, David Robinson, etc.):
Sure, if I were trying to project a 13 year old I'd look at his parents, but why would anyone need to project a kid who is over 6'4"? Who the heck cares how big his parents are -- they could be 5'4" and it wouldn't make the kid any shorter.
BishopLeftiesDad posted:I think what PGStaff posted is generally true. But I think it is more true on the national, or even the regional stage. Those players at 13U and 14U that are studs at that level are generally studs when they get to HS, and maybe even college. When you start talking on more of a local level city, county etc.. That is when you see the kids that are studs at 13 or 14, may be the kids who developed early and may not progress as well as others.
I believe that is why we see the two different perspectives. All of us have stories about the local 13 year old that never progressed. But we do not generally see the kids who are studs at the higher levels.
Exactly...it is according to how big a pond that we are fishing in. If our perspective is a small town, then many of those studs will not make it. If it is a large city and the team is truly a "best of" that city, then many will make it