Are big schools over-committing?

Yes, there are too many schools 'over-recruiting.'  Not all is their fault really with the uncertainty of pro signings, etc...

 

But still...

 

Interesting you bring this up.  Just this past weekend I was talking with a very high level scout about a freshman player who ended up at a school different than the one he committed/signed when told 2 weeks before school that there was no place for him due to drafted players unexpectedly not signing.  BTW, this scout (actually he's much more than that) said this stuff happens way too often.

 

More perplexing is the kid is pretty good!

 

I'm not totally sure how to protect yourself against this - sometimes I think our boys were just plain lucky?!?!  Understanding what may/may not have happened with prior classes at a particular school could be one thing to stay on top of - but schools in transition (new coaching staff) seems like one of the most likely.

Over recruiting is not anything that suddenly just happened. Its been going on for many years. The problem is that there are some coaches that do know how to recruit better than others and then can manage the issues that come up later. It takes a lot of skill to over recruit on purpose and then have your numbers work. I am not in favor of asking a recruit to not come because current players drafted that they expected to sign did not, that should be totally understood in a discussion before a players draft year. How can one compete for a spot when told not to show up?!

 

However, being in the top 25 means that you most likely have the pick of the litter, and offering early means that you take the top recruits in their class off the market (early).

Seems to me that there are some schools in specific conferences that over recruit, and IMO the Pac12 has a lot (so I have heard).

I am not sure that committing early has anything to do with this, always keep in mind that coaches (just like teams in pro bb) are ALWAYS looking for the best player they can get for a particular position. 

IMO, until there is more publicity about which specific colleges do this, colleges will continue to do it. Also, most of us parents are only doing the recruitment once in their lifetimes. We read and read and search the internet but even with that, I imagine that you cannot find out information until it is too late. Often, you have to know exactly what you are looking for to find it on the internet and if you know what to specifically look for, then you probably already know about the situation.

This website is as good as it gets but you don't often see names named and I perfectly understand why. I am hesitant to talk about some things until my son is completely out of baseball.

RedFishFool - Great points!

One thing about this site - there are a lot of parents of kids at a lot of different schools.  I wonder how many HS parents PM a parent from the school they're considering...or maybe the conference they're considering to see if the other parent has any insights?

 

I don't think many parents or players are going to publicly "out" the most offending schools - too much to lose.  But a PM?  Maybe/maybe not?

 

I don't think too many try.  I think they get the rose colored glasses about a dream school or bury their head in the sand at a time when so much is at stake.  I just don't think very many HS parents take the full advantage they have on that dimension within this site - or even within their own circle of friends.  We had a neighbor commit, sign and play 1 year at a well-known highly offending school - then come back later to say they wish they woulda asked and listened after their son was run off.  It wasn't only bad there - it was way worse than I even had heard...but I didn't hear the real story until a few years later when the dad was ready to spill the beans.

 

Still, we coulda saved them a lot of grief as that kid had other, better choices.  He had pro potential, but never played again after a 2nd year at another big school.

 

My advice?  Ask!!  Ask someone who might have a slight bit of information.  Don't be afraid of the answer, you may decide to do it anyways.  But at least have the information and your eyes wide open!

So even the school with a projected 2017 roster of 55 players (minus normal attrition) is still looking for that "best player at a particular position"?

 

Wow.

 

There are going to be quite a few disappointed ballplayers. 

 

Yes they are looking for the best player (they can get <-key phrase) at each position - and it may point out the difficulty in assessing who numbers 5-15 are on their recruit list.  They're going to take what they can get early and just gonna let the chips fall where they may.

 

Super early commitments are largely to the advantage of the school.  Even some early commitments are.  Its ok, we have a son who may not have been able to get where he wanted any other way - but you gotta know, and I honestly don't think many know, where you are on the totem pole and whether or not you wanna take that risk.

When you say "overcommitted"  does that mean overcommitted to  scholarship players?  Or is that meant to include  recruited walk-ons.  It's one thing to hand out more potential roster spots than you have to give.  You can always cut a walk-on.  It's another thing entirely to hand out more scholarship money than you have to give.  You can only have 27 on scholarship at one time?  So what does over-committing to scholarship athletes actually mean?  Does it mean that when it comes to actually signing some of these early commits, that it isn't going to happen? (Sort of like when a airplane is overbooked, somebody is bound to get bumped, since there are only so many seats)

 

I assume recruited walk-ons are a dime a dozen and frequently show up only to be cut. You could have zillions of those.  That would't exactly be over committing.   Kid from our HS program was a recruited walk on at a mid major, was cut after three days.  

 

 

 

This is part of what I'm curious about, sluggerdad. When I see on PG that 20 2015 players have committed a specific school, I assume that most are on scholarship. Then when I see that same school with 11 2016's, I assume ALL are on scholarships. Why else commit?

 

Maybe I'm making  false assumptions.

RFF,

Good post.

 

I don't believe that publicly outing a program is the correct thing to do.  The reason being, is that everyone's experience/expectations are different, and sometimes it does more harm than good repeating situations that we do not personally know all of the details in a public forum.

jp24,

To answer your question, college baseball is a business, for those larger programs winning  well above 500 is the goal along with that trip to Omaha. This is what makes their job a bit easier as well, being successful.  I don't believe that coaches finish recruiting for one particular year until that class sets foot on campus.

 

I am in agreement with justbaseball, there are enough people here that are familiar with college baseball that many can send a private message to asking about a coach, program or the conference. FWIW, before my player committed I inquired with someone who is very well known here, great advice!

 

 

People are scared to challenge the system. This would never be accepted in basketball or football. 

Hopefully you're kidding old school. Far worse in football in particular.

Let's lay out the variables that coaches face and the assumptions they make. 

 

Variables: (how many) (a) injuries (b) academic isues (c) drafted AND signed (d) personal issues (girl friend, family financial or other issues), (e) first semester disaster (repeat a - e), (f) players that don't get drafted (for a whole myriad of reasons) in their draft year, (g) players who leave after successful seasons (e.g. Cal State Fullerton this year) or unsuccessful seasons and (h) other known unknowns.

 

Assumptions: coaches will attach a probability to each variable. The attrition rate of the commits is obviously the key.

 

Sometimes the numbers just line up wrong; sometimes a particular coach is always (or nearly so) over the limit. The trick is determine which is just a "one off" and which seem to happen frequently. Additionally, even in the chronic over-recuiting type coach, there are ways to reduce the roster size to limit early or late; in other words, BEFORE the school year begins (so the kid can either go to CC or another four year NCAA school) or after fall practice (oops, sorry you made all those friends and settled in, but if you want to play ball . . . . ). 

 

Moreover, different classes of schools (private expensive, public cheaper) have different attrition rates, as do different conferences; power programs have different attrition rates then weak ones; coaching philosophies effect attrition rates (e.g., higher level draft prospects sign at different rates from lower/non prospects; some coaches shy away from too many high round prospects, others don't); and coaching changes.

 

So, while over recuitng is a wide spread problem, the real key is determining which specific programs/coaches are chronic over recruiters.

 

In my city, we have two D1 programs. One is what I would consider a chronic over recuiter (there were over 45 kids on the fall roster), the other doesnt. However, the chronic over recruiting college now has a brand new HC, so IMO there isn't enough track record to make a conclusion (although 45 kids on a fall roster is nt a good start).

 

 

 

The top programs are recruiting the top kids.  When that happens these programs know they will lose some of their recruits to the draft.  If they wait until that specific draft takes place they will lose out on the next best players. So whether it is right or wrong, they are simply trying to do what it takes to compete for championships.  These programs lose players every year to the draft, that includes some draft eligible sophomores.

 

Not sure if they have changed it, but the Big10 for one had a rule against over recruiting. Maybe other conferences should do the same thing.  Especially these days when so many  very young kids are being offered. 

 

Even the way it is, some of the colleges that have the highest ranked recruiting classes end up losing several of their recruits.  So often the number one recruiting class ends up with a much lesser recruiting class based on who actually ended up at their school.

 

Just another one of those things that are not in favor of all the future student athletes. It is not likely to change anytime soon. So the rich just keep getting richer while many kids end up being disappointed. It happens because of how important winning is!

I see top football teams with classes or roughly 20 often times less depending on the amount of scholarships they have that year. that is a for a roster of 85 or whatever the number is and they are fully funded. I see top basketball teams bringing in classes between 3 and 6 for the most part and depending on openings.

 

maybe i am missing something but how is that worse?

agree with this.

Schools will continue to over recruit until a rule is put in place to stop them.  I guess the question is, what kind of rule could or should be put in place?  I would like to see all schools forced to post their fall roster with all players that are suiting up for practice.  It doesn't matter if they are on scholarship or a walk-on. This way everyone wold know exactly how many players they will have to compete against if they decide to attend that school. I think this would probably get some kids to rethink their commitment and in the end it may help some of the smaller schools get some better recruits.  This is just one persons thought, so I wonder if anyone else has any ideas that may stop the over recruiting.

It is unrealistic to expect college coaches:  a) to turn away players who may be able to contribute and are willing to "commit" without a scholarship offer, or b) not to attempt some form of yield management to anticipate pre-enrollment losses and avoid leaving scholarship dollars on the table.

 

Some coaches will be more aggressive than others, but I don't know where to draw a line and say a certain level of aggressiveness is okay but any more than that constitutes over-recruiting.

 

What players and parents can do is look at the numbers the way jp24 did and make a realistic assessment of where they stand in a school's recruiting class. 

 

If your son is contemplating a commitment to a school where 50% attrition among first year players is a mathematical necessity, you should have second thoughts unless the size of the scholarship offer and the level of pro interest give you a solid basis for believing your player really is in the top half of the recruiting class.

 

If your son is not going to be one of their top recruits, he might want to look more closely at the 280+ D1 schools that are not in the top 20 and would love to have some of the cream that the top 20 schools skim off and cast aside.

 

Many lesser known D1's sign fewer than ten recruits in the early signing period and don't bring in so many walk-ons that they need to make cuts during fall practice.

 

Many players at the back of the bullpen or the end of the bench at those top schools can be starters at other D1's.

 

Use the market inefficiency to your advantage. Go where you can compete and play.

 

Several observations:

(1) Major football programs over-recruit all the time because they red-shirt a high percentage of each entering class and they award scholarships to some recruited walk-on players. You can take that class of 20-25 and multiply it by a factor of ~4.5. This is what happens when a "commitment" becomes nothing more than a reservation of a spot.

 

(2) The imposition of the strict roster limit at 35 has heightened both the significance and visibility of this issue. Before 2007, room could usually be found for players at the margin. Yes, it led to some large rosters, but the programs that carried large rosters were all out there for everyone to see and be aware of in advance.

 

(3) If you want to know what the competitive process looks like at a program that's of interest to you, by all means, ask. This is the sort of thing that every recruit should be asking current players when they visit. Players will talk about such dimensions as number of players at Fall Practice and why players tend to drop off the roster.

 

(4) It's easy to under-estimate the cumulative effect of the draft on both entering and existing players (particularly at Top 25 programs), health-related issues, academic casualties, disciplinary jettisons, and players who decide after-the-fact that they'd be happier elsewhere; the majority of which are both unknowable in advance and out of the coaches' control. However, they're left to try to estimate the cumulative effect several years before they'll actually experience it.

 

However, what is knowable in advance at Top 25 programs is that coaches get fired quickly if they aren't winning the expected number of games and that a material percentage of each year's class will fall by the wayside without any sort of action on their part. Meanwhile, any coach at a competitive DI program will tell that if they go into a 56-game regular season schedule with much fewer than 35 on the roster, they'll have a tough time competing; in part because some of those whose names appear on the roster at the beginning of the season won't be available at some point later in it.

 

 

My recommendation to recruited players: Know going into the process that competition with other players in the clubhouse will likely be the toughest competition you face in your college career if your goal is a program that genuinely aspires to win championships. If you want real insight into what actually occurs competitively inside a program, make certain that you talk in-depth with existing and/or recent players about that. If, after performing your due diligence, the competitive environment intimidates you, strike the program from your list.

 

Sawpboy...well said!!!

 

I never understood why one would commit to a school that has 18 recruits for the particular year when only 10 kids will be leaving due to graduation, draft or eligibility issues?  I a firm believer that the ego may get you to the school you want but ultimately you will transfer to the school you should be at to get playing time.

 

Prepster mentioned part of it, see his post above.  And then there's the myriad of 'committed' football recruits being cut off at the buzzer when the school gets a commitment from a more talented player - a small fraction of these stories are published annually.  Lastly, 'greyshirting' has become an accepted loophole of institutionalized over-recruiting and its rampant in college football.

Great discussion and a lot of good points being made.  As a parent of a highly recruited player by several top 25 programs, let me just say, it's a jungle out there.  I did a lot of the same math jp did in the original post and I didn't like the conclusions I was coming to. The numbers, no matter how much you wish they would, just don't add up in the majority of cases.  I don't care how it's justified - be it draft, injuries, grades, whatever, the bottom line is most programs in the top eschelon over-recruit.  When over-recruiting occurs, only one constituency stands to suffer - players.  Sometimes over-recruiting comes not only in the form of too many bodies for the roster, but in over-promising the rare scholarship dollar.  Large percentage deals can become minumum 25% deals (or guaranteed walk on spots), and who is left holding the bag - players and families.  You set your finances and make decisions based on what you think it will cost to attend, and shun other competitive offers, only to find out the money you were offered and committed to isn't there.   Our collective unwillingness to "name names" for fear of reprucussion against our sons almost ensures that the worst offenders will continue with the practice for the forseeable future.  Unless school AD's or conferences step in and do something, it is unlikely to change.  Let's just hope the NCAA doesn't make an attempt to fix it, that's the only sure way to find a new way to make it worse.

Let’s face it…the top 25 is big business. The HC will recruit many players to see who he can use to put food on his table. If the HC does not produce then he will be out of a job.  The remainder of the 200+ programs still have success and experience post season tournaments whether their conference or NCAA.   While my 2015 was looking for an opportunity and speaking to HC and RC, I was in the background speaking to former players. The once common advice I got from them is….go where you can play!  After getting over the rush of signing with a big time program reality then sets in.  You may be the #1 rated player at your position for you state school but chances are they bring in the #1 player in the country.

JABMK,

 

I'm wondering if, in the course of your son's recruitment, did anyone ask about the numbers? How did the coaches justify them? (Of course, if you can answer without naming names!)

The D1 that my son committed and went to last year approached it in this matter.  They recruited preferred walk-ons and promises, etc.  Two days before the season started last year, they called in 6 kids and told them to try again next year.  This year, they started the spring with 43 kids and let 8 go the day before the opener.  Our family has learned the hard way that some coaches word isn't worth a piece of pig poop.  The other thing we learned when he transferred is that money is the only true indicator of how much they truly want you there.  I will pm any information to anyone that has specific questions to try and help your kid stay out of what we had to go through.  Not going to hang the school out to dry but we found out this has been the norm for a few years. 

We did ask about their recruiting numbers. Never got a direct answer. Don’t think there is an answer.  Every HC/RC has their own reason for what they do and have developed recruiting reputations.  But asking questions will probably indirectly give you information that can be inferred. 

 

Researching the interested schools one can see their roster breakdown from prior years and if every year you see 7-8 players not on current roster from prior year, then you know how they recruit.  If you really have nothing better to do, you can go and see the college commitments from 2 years ago in your state. Compare the names to see if they are still on that school’s roster! 

At a top 25 program, numerous players will go pro after their junior seasons.  The total figures in the original post cover four class years, that is, they assume all players would remain through their senior years.  But for the programs you're looking at, this is not true.

 

When you add to that the numerous other reasons why guys will be lost to attrition over the many years that will pass between now, when those 2016's are high school juniors, and the time when those 2016's would be collegiate seniors (i.e., in 2020), I would have no concern at all with a program with numbers in the mid-40's. 

 

Think about all the ways guys can leave programs' pipelines over the time from HS junior season to college senior season :

 

• Drafted out of HS, never show up on campus
• Fail to qualify with the NCAA or to pass admissions, end up somewhere else
• Opt out, head to JuCo to enhance year-to-year draft options
• Behavior problems that derail career
• Injuries
• Start school, struggle academically and lose eligibility
• Start school, not happy at program, transfer
• Start school, discover that the work load is heavy and baseball as a job is not what you thought it would be, quit
• Drafted after sophomore year if 21 or older
• Drafted after junior year
• Graduate early (due to AP credits or whatever) and give up senior season
• And probably several other things that can happen that just don't come to mind at the moment

 

Numbers in the mid-50's would make me wonder.  But then, I am aware that many programs have a history of cutting guys after seasons in which they didn't, in the opinion of the head coach, earn their jerseys.  I would hazard to guess that the 53-55 numbers are for programs like those.  Kids are always determined to go to "the best" programs and they always go in assuming that they will win out in the end because to them, failure is going to be someone else's problem.  Of course, that cannot be true for everybody, so sometimes it helps to have someone you trust give you a reality check before you commit.

Midlo - I completely agree. I wouldn't say the schools that have 44 and 45 players projected for 2017 are over-committing. They're sure to lose most of their excess, one way or another.

 

55 and 53 seemed high -- but given these schools' very impressive winning traditions, I suspect you're right that they are quick to axe non-performers.

 

Would you expect the school with 20 2015-commits to bring all those not drafted onboard, even if it meant cutting non-performers already on the team?

 

And one monkey wrench: The new NCAA Rule that Big 5 schools must honor scholarships for 4 years starting in 2015 seems likely to change some coach's calculus.

 

 

ncaa.org - Jan. 18, 2015:

Guaranteed scholarship discussion generates discussion

Prohibiting schools from cutting a student’s scholarship for athletics reasons generated the most conversation, particularly from the athletes. They fell on both sides of the issue.

 

Madison Stein, a softball player from the University of Kansas, argued against the measure.

 

“I can personally say the success of my team heavily relies on scholarships to reward the girls that are doing well. The girls that have to be let go, it’s for the betterment of the program,” she said. “This proposal binds a coach’s hands.”

 

Nandi Mehta, a women’s soccer player at Northwestern University, took the opposite position.

 

“If you decide to take away a scholarship based on athletics performance, you are punishing a student-athlete based on athletics performance. How is a scholarship any different than a salary, and how is a student-athlete any different from a professional athlete?” she asked. “I don’t think this is a road we want to go down.”

 

The measure was successful, and the policy will take effect for aid agreements that begin in the 2015-16 academic year.

 

 

Any kid that thinks failure is an option is going to fail.  Truth is there are many young players that believe their accomplishment is simply in being recruited by a top baseball program. They have reached their goal and are satisfied. Then there are the special kids that don't even consider there is a chance for failure.

 

College coaches have a very good idea who can or can't play and have a positiver impact on their program.  They even have an idea of which freshman are most likely to play right away.  But anyone that has ever been involved in baseball understands that mistakes are made.

 

It's kind of a dog eat dog world.  There is a lot at stake! You coach a top program and lots of extremely talented kids want to play for that program.  If the top 20 kids want in, do you take only the top 10 and allow your biggest competitors to get the next 10?  Maybe that is the way it should be, but most will want all 20 of the top kids and sort it out later, knowing there is a very good chance that most of that top 20 will never end up on campus.

 

You can't blame the coaches.  It's up to the player and his parents to decide what they want. Those looking for the sure thing, should think small! Those that truly feel they are among the best, think big! Right about now there are several thousands of HS and college players hoping they get drafted this June. The majority of those players will not be drafted. Who do we blame when that happens?

 

Sometimes life is not fair. When your not prepared or uneducated, life becomes unfair more often.

 

We try to keep track of recruiting. The top recruiters always want to be listed as having the best class. After all, that is their job.  These guys are extremely competitive! But we keep track to benifit the players more than anything. So that the players know what is going on. Some pay attention, others don't, and some simply don't care. Every year there will be many young men disappointed by what happened. That is kind of sad, but I don't think it will ever change.

One more thing in the interest of questions to ask a recruiter.

 

When I would hear a kid or a parent asking about guaranteed roster spots or even a possible starting position... it automatically caused me to think less of that player.  I could have been wrong, but that is a question that cannot be answered honestly. And it sends out a red flag of sorts regarding the confidence level of that player.

 

So I would recommend acting like you belong in that program and don't need any guarantees other than what is being offered. TIFWIW

 

I often read on this site where someone has a guaranteed roster spot at an excellent program. My question would be... is that in writing?  Because if it isn't there are no guarantees. Maybe there are coaches that would actually do that, I just don't know any of them.

There's a tremendous amount of truth and realism in this post.

Prepster, i agree with you there is a lot of truth. all the more reason I hold the schools to blame not the coaches - the AD's the Presidents and the NCAA in general is about as corrupt of a group you will find anywhere (outside of the building trade unions)

Put the big 5 in a super conference, stop the charade of calling them amateurs and students and let them do whatever they damn well please. I would recommend giving them a hard number of scholarships and have that info public…that way if you are dumb enough to think you got offered some small % but that you will get an equal chances you at least had the chance to know the real numbers in advance. Example something along the lines of - the new super conference now gets 30 baseball scholarships guaranteed for 4 years (money won’t be an issue with the top 50 schools so the 11.7 is dead) and a max roster of 42 players…and they offer you 25% and show a full roster or more based on the available scholarship total for the year...how are you feeling and how interested would you really be good old whatever U?

 

The rest of schools will then be  able to get to some semblance of normalcy and the kids and made an informed choice on what they want for a college experience.

 

JP,

 

I would expect someone with 20 recruits in the current HS senior class to have that be an unusual occurrence, perhaps occasioned by rapid turnover resulting from a coaching change, or perhaps because they anticipate several pro signings out of that class. 

 

I know UNC had 6 HS draftees sign from each of back-to-back recruiting classes some years back and having multiple signs is not at all unusual for them.  Some schools try hard to ensure they don't tie up money on guys expected to sign, others figure they'll go for the best no matter what and sort things out later.  Both approaches can work well when well managed, and UNC has certainly had its share of success.

 

I also recall Maryland changing coaches some years back, cutting loose a ton of guys, and then bringing in those kinds of numbers in the next class.  The then-new coach has since moved on, but I couldn't help but notice that Maryland is receiving a lot of pre-season notice, at a level that hasn't occurred within the years I've been paying attention to such things.  So apparently the long-term impact of the cathartic roster makeover was a successful jump start towards a climb up the ladder.

 

There are also sometimes special circumstances.  At VMI, for example, a sizeable portion of each year's freshman class bails out in the fall of each year just because of the impact of the whole "Rat Line" thing.  That's part and parcel of the VMI experience, not related to who's running the baseball program, but the baseball program has to deal with that, too.  So sometimes you'll see VMI with more freshman recruits than some other places, because they know they'll lose some guys for non-baseball reasons.

 

I guess that leads to the conclusion that while large class sizes merit asking questions, the reasons aren't necessarily going to be nefarious, so keep an open mind while seeking the answers to the questions.

PGStaff: I'm not sure what prompted this comment: "Any kid that thinks failure is an option is going to fail."

 

To be clear ... my interest in this stuff has absolutely nothing to do with my son. Zip, zero, nada. Like most people here, as my son prepares to move to the next level, I get interested in learning about things I just don't know that much about. Heck, this time next year I might be asking crazy questions about the draft

 

 Any kid that thinks failure is an option is going to fail.  Truth is there are many young players that believe their accomplishment is simply in being recruited by a top baseball program. They have reached their goal and are satisfied. Then there are the special kids that don't even consider there is a chance for failure.

I agree with these comments.

You can't blame the coaches. 

I don't entirely agree with this one.  At least not in all cases.  There are most certainly some out there 'selling' something they can't deliver and they know it.  At some point, even a coach with all that pressure to win has to look at himself in the mirror and behave as a decent human being.  Some, simply are not.

 

All of the blame cannot be placed on the parents/players.  They get to do it once...making them very susceptible to shenanigans.

 

My 2016 was very interested in playing for a certain D1 powerhouse. Last spring I compared their 2014 roster with PG’s list of commitments to this school for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

 

PG listed 45 players committed for those 3 years.

          26 were on their 35 man roster for 2014

            4 signed with MLB out of HS

          15 transferred out or I don't know what happened to them.

Thats some pretty good 'digging' for data.  Not sure what to make of it, but taken at face value, possibly demonstrates the risks(?) of early commitments.

Most of what would be considered over recruiting is done by many of the most successful programs.  The programs that are on many wish lists of the top players. 

 

From the colleges perspective, it is a formula that seems to work.

 

Bottom line... Recruiting favors the college.  Yes, they know what they're doing, while the player and his parents might be new to everything.  But the information is out there for anyone to research.  Doesn't take a veteran to do the research.

 

i really don't believe many recruiting coordinators or head coaches purposely lie to potential recruits. They just can't afford to recruit 8 top players and have 7 go early in the draft and stay successful.  It is a tough balancing act!  Your #1 ranked recruiting class for next year might not even be #100 when classes start.

 

That is why this site can be so helpful.  Many people here have been through all of this.  All different experiences with different outcomes.  Best always to know how things work.  In the end it all comes down to your decision.  It is not up to the coach, it is up to you! Just like everything else, there are a lot of mistakes made by both sides.  But guess who gets hurt the most by those mistakes?

The athletes and their families - every time. 

 

I guess whether or not they "lie" is a matter of semantics.  The coaches certainly know they are overcommitted.  They further know that if the cards fall a certain way, and if most or every player shows up on campus, that there is no way possible that they can honor the commitments made to players and their families.  Whether or not that is interpreted as a lie is up for debate.  The one thing I know is that if a man looks me in the eye, agrees to a deal, and shakes my hand, then doesn't follow through, I interpret that as less than truthful.  I think this problem only gets considerably worse with the significant shift in the past year or two to the younger player "commitment."