Article from ABCA Convention Concerning Proposed Changes

I was under the assumtion college coaches could not speak with potential recruits about spots until the summer before their Junior Year now. Didn't that already get adopted? In this article it seems to imply they are just proposing it? Maybe im reading it wrong

I like the idea of unofficial visits beginning Sophomore year. Having to wait until Junior year seems like it would put kids in a spot where they’re rushed to make a decision.  Especially if they want to check out an out of state school. 

I don't think early recruiting is all that much of an issue. There are stories of players who didn't develop properly losing their scholarship and all that. But realistically, most 8th and 9th graders committing to top programs are either being drafted or end up at these programs (even if it doesn't last). Most of the kids you see committing early to Vandy or Florida typically end up there or end up signing for a few million. 

If they really want to end early recruiting, they should say no contact at all before June 1 during/after their sophomore year. Too many loopholes. They can talk but only in regards to camp, or you can call them but they can't call you. You can take official visits sooner, but not too soon. It's nonsense. Make a hard date with a hard ZERO contact clause and see how it works out or get rid of all the rules and let players commit at 13. I think the current setup is silly and I think letting a 14 year old choose a college before they enter HS is ridiculous as well, but for the NCAA to step in a tell families when they can/can't visit colleges and limit who they can/can't talk to is even more ridiculous. 

Just my opinion on the ongoing rule changes to "help the student/athlete" are really to help the coaches manage their schedule and to not have to be seen watching 13/14 year olds play because their rival school is watching them play.  (But they will still watch them play)

PABaseball and GO44Dad are 100% on the money here. None of these rules are really there for the players, they are there for the coaches. Is it silly to watch a 14 year old player? In most cases I would say yes, but if you are competing with top programs for top talent, and those other programs are doing it too...well, it’s gonna happen then. 

Regarding 14 year olds selecting colleges, I know that kids have favorites from a young age, whether they are athletes or not. They may have a family tradition of attending that school, or perhaps live close or its financially advantageous. My son would have jumped on an offer to play at Vandy at age 14 if he had the skills, and I doubt there is a poster on this board who would turn that offer down. But 99.9% of us do t have to worry about that. 

Prepster posted:

In the attached article, Aaron Fitt of DiBaseball.com reports on a couple of topics that are receiving a good bit of current consideration among DI coaches: the transformation of the "volunteer" assistant's position into a third, paid-assistant's position and the prospect of contacting high school sophomores by recruiters.

https://d1baseball.com/news/ab...rly-recruiting-talk/

I definitely don't know the answer, but the assistant coach issue definitely needs to be reviewed.  And frankly, I'm not sure that adding another paid assistant is really a good idea.  As things stand right now, D1 schools can have 2 paid assistants and one unpaid volunteer assistant.  Unpaid means unpaid by the college/university.  Some of these guys get paid pretty substantially out of camp revenues, which, of course, gives the bigger name/money schools a distinct advantage because they typically have more camp revenue.  

I would love to see some numbers regarding how many D1 schools currently have 2 paid assistants.  I'd be willing to bet that it's less than half.  And, oftentimes that 2nd assistant is getting a token sum.  Adding a 3rd paid assistant would benefit the bigger name/money schools, but wouldn't do anything for anybody else. 

Some of the bigger name/money schools have already found ways around the paid 2 paid assistant rule by adding a "Director of Player Development."  As I understand it, these guys break down video of pitchers and hitters and work with the assistant coaches to develop players.  They are basically coaches, just not hands on coaches.  Although, I have heard that at times they are indeed hands on.  These "non-coaches" also scout opposing teams.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  Other schools have guys who do nothing but video work.  

As I understand it, there is no limit on the number of "student assistants" teams can have.  This also benefits the bigger schools because they frequently get guys back on MLB's dime, after their minor/major league careers have ended.  Some bigger schools also have programs that will pay for an ex-players tuition/room/board AFTER his playing eligibility is up, whether he played pro ball or not.

If the goal is competitiveness, I question the addition of a third paid assistant.  Of course, I also favor breaking D1 into 3 subdivisions, so what do I know.  ;-)

 

If you want to "fix" the early recruiting issue, it's simple.   ANY offer to any kid at any age must be IN WRITING!  No more verbal offers that can be rescinded if the kid doesn't develop the way a coach wants/thinks he should.  The offer will include a minimum of ONE YEAR of whatever scholarship money is offered and count against the program's scholly money for the first year.  If the coach wants to pull the offer, he loses that scholarship money...whether the kid comes to his school or not.   The kid who commits is also held to ONE YEAR of committment to the school...UNLESS the head coach is fired or leaves before the start of the player's freshman fall.  If he decommits before then "just because" he loses a year of eligibility if he wants to stay at the D1or D2 level.  If he goes Juco, NAIA or D3, the offer/commitment is gone.    Everyone blames the coaches, but you also have to put some blame on the kid/parents who commit as a freshman when they haven't even played a HS game.   I think some kids/parents just want to "be committed" to a big time program....even if they truly have no idea what that commitment involves or if it's really the school the kid wants to end up at for 4 years of his life.

Buckeye 2015 posted:

If you want to "fix" the early recruiting issue, it's simple.   ANY offer to any kid at any age must be IN WRITING!

I'm on board with this idea, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the coach telling the high school senior who didn't develop... "you can show up, and you'll get your 25% scholarship, but you'll never get any playing time here." Are you lumping that kid in with the "just because" kids? I suppose that would make a 14 year think long and hard about signing an NLI, but doesn't it let the coach off without any repercussion?

MidAtlanticDad posted:
Buckeye 2015 posted:

If you want to "fix" the early recruiting issue, it's simple.   ANY offer to any kid at any age must be IN WRITING!

I'm on board with this idea, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the coach telling the high school senior who didn't develop... "you can show up, and you'll get your 25% scholarship, but you'll never get any playing time here." Are you lumping that kid in with the "just because" kids? I suppose that would make a 14 year think long and hard about signing an NLI, but doesn't it let the coach off without any repercussion?

Nope, in that case, the scholarship money is still there, that's all any "offer" is....money....so the kid is still on the hook for his commitment.  That can happen with a kid who committed the summer before he starts college or a kid who commits as an 8th grader.  You don't delvelop, you won't play.   There are no guarantees of playing time anywhere.  That's one of the things kids/parents need to realize before committing early.   If you're willing to commit to Vandy as a HS sophomore throwing 84....and you're still throwing 84 when you graduate HS, that's on both the kid and the coach who made the offer. The kid didn't develop...that's his problem.....but the  coach who took the chance  should have to hold up his end of the bargain too,  which was "scholarship money".  He never offered "guaranteed playing time"....and if he did, it's the parent's problem for believing that.  The "in writing" part of my idea would solve that.  No coach in his right mind is going to give a "written" offer to a HS freshman and include playing time.  Again, I just don't think that parents of younger kids realize how tough it is to play top level D1 college baseball.  The fast that you're a stud as a 14 year old playing against 14 year olds means NOTHING.  You get to college, you may be an 18 year old playing against 23 years olds.  

As far as letting the coach off with no repercussion, I'm assuming these kids committing at 14 are getting more than 25%.....if not, that's on them for commiting to that with 3+ years of HS and development ahead of them.  If a coach is going to offer 50%+ IN WRITING, he may be a little more hesitant to make offers to 14 year olds...knowing he'll lose that 50% for at least a year if the kid doesn't work out.

Buckeye 2015 posted:
MidAtlanticDad posted:
Buckeye 2015 posted:

If you want to "fix" the early recruiting issue, it's simple.   ANY offer to any kid at any age must be IN WRITING!

I'm on board with this idea, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the coach telling the high school senior who didn't develop... "you can show up, and you'll get your 25% scholarship, but you'll never get any playing time here." Are you lumping that kid in with the "just because" kids? I suppose that would make a 14 year think long and hard about signing an NLI, but doesn't it let the coach off without any repercussion?

As far as letting the coach off with no repercussion, I'm assuming these kids committing at 14 are getting more than 25%.....if not, that's on them for commiting to that with 3+ years of HS and development ahead of them.  If a coach is going to offer 50%+ IN WRITING, he may be a little more hesitant to make offers to 14 year olds...knowing he'll lose that 50% for at least a year if the kid doesn't work out.

I just think that puts most of the risk on the student, and very little on the coach. The coach knows that very few kids who want to play high-level college baseball are going to show up to a school where they aren't wanted, even with a 50% or 75% scholarship. Those guys are all going to go play somewhere else. It wouldn't just happen to the kids who didn't develop, either. It would happen whenever the school finds a guy they like better. Just like now. It might help if they had to limit the scholarship offers to the number of available slots for that class, but there's no way to know what that number will ahead of time. So you're still going to have schools with 15 committed kids for 10 roster spots.

MidAtlanticDad posted:
Buckeye 2015 posted:
MidAtlanticDad posted:
Buckeye 2015 posted:

If you want to "fix" the early recruiting issue, it's simple.   ANY offer to any kid at any age must be IN WRITING!

I'm on board with this idea, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the coach telling the high school senior who didn't develop... "you can show up, and you'll get your 25% scholarship, but you'll never get any playing time here." Are you lumping that kid in with the "just because" kids? I suppose that would make a 14 year think long and hard about signing an NLI, but doesn't it let the coach off without any repercussion?

As far as letting the coach off with no repercussion, I'm assuming these kids committing at 14 are getting more than 25%.....if not, that's on them for commiting to that with 3+ years of HS and development ahead of them.  If a coach is going to offer 50%+ IN WRITING, he may be a little more hesitant to make offers to 14 year olds...knowing he'll lose that 50% for at least a year if the kid doesn't work out.

I just think that puts most of the risk on the student, and very little on the coach. The coach knows that very few kids who want to play high-level college baseball are going to show up to a school where they aren't wanted, even with a 50% or 75% scholarship. Those guys are all going to go play somewhere else. It wouldn't just happen to the kids who didn't develop, either. It would happen whenever the school finds a guy they like better. Just like now. It might help if they had to limit the scholarship offers to the number of available slots for that class, but there's no way to know what that number will ahead of time. So you're still going to have schools with 15 committed kids for 10 roster spots.

That's the thing, with the offer in writing and the coach forced to give up that amount of money for that year's class even if he tells a kid don't come, he can't offer 15 kids for 10 spots.   I get that it could put coaches in a tough spot if a kid gets drafted out of HS and they have to find a replacement last minute, but at least they'd be on the same level of commitment as the kid if they are both being punished for backing out of the offer/commitment.

I think the issue is the contact not the actual offer. If you can't have any contact with a player before June of their second year of HS, you can't offer. No contact thru, email, phone, text, whatever. The way we have it now, there are so many ways around it. If the NCAA really cared about early commits they would just go to PG look up all the 2023 commits, head to these kids instagram/twitter page to confirm and investigate. The no contact route puts all schools on the same playing field. If they don't want to go this route, they need to just stop regulating it completely. The current rules in place make no sense and do not benefit anybody. 

2022OFDad posted:

And if a program lost a recruit to the draft you could allow them to have that offer amount back to offer to another player on their board.

Right....just as they can now.  Most guys who are committed but get drafted out of HS normally have significant offers.   When they decide to go pro, the coach has the option of 1) give that money to another kid to entice him to commit or 2) divide that additional money up among kids already in his program and bring in a walk-on to replace the drafted kid.  Nothing would change for the coach/program with regard to those kids

PABaseball posted:

I think the issue is the contact not the actual offer. If you can't have any contact with a player before June of their second year of HS, you can't offer. No contact thru, email, phone, text, whatever. The way we have it now, there are so many ways around it. If the NCAA really cared about early commits they would just go to PG look up all the 2023 commits, head to these kids instagram/twitter page to confirm and investigate. The no contact route puts all schools on the same playing field. If they don't want to go this route, they need to just stop regulating it completely. The current rules in place make no sense and do not benefit anybody. 

I don't have a problem with coaches contacting kids....in fact, I almost wish they could do it earlier, as the coaches are proposing.  At least that way you know everyone is on the same page.  As it is now, coaches have to go thru the travel coach, HS coach, or who knows who else to let a kid know they are interested....then the kid has to call them.   It's not the contact that is bothering people....it's the fact that coaches can offer an 8th grader with no repercussions if they decide 3 years later that they don't want the kid.   Heck, my son having to grow up and call and talk to a college coach was probably the best thing that ever happened to him.  His first call, I almost had to hold him down and force him to talk to the coach.  2 weeks later he was asking me if it's too soon to call the coach again.   It was unreal how much better he handled conversations with adults, coaches or otherwise, once he started communicating with them on a regular basis. 

PABaseball posted:

I think the issue is the contact not the actual offer. If you can't have any contact with a player before June of their second year of HS, you can't offer. No contact thru, email, phone, text, whatever. The way we have it now, there are so many ways around it. If the NCAA really cared about early commits they would just go to PG look up all the 2023 commits, head to these kids instagram/twitter page to confirm and investigate. The no contact route puts all schools on the same playing field. If they don't want to go this route, they need to just stop regulating it completely. The current rules in place make no sense and do not benefit anybody. 

In 2017 men's and women's lacrosse changed to September 1st of junior year for all contact. Softball adopted that rule this year. I don't have any inside knowledge of those sports, but my impression is that the schools are abiding by the new rules, and there aren't any obvious loopholes.

FriarFred posted:
Buckeye 2015 posted:
FriarFred posted:

Perfect Game lists four 2023 commits already...  2 of them aren't even 14 yet...  

Do these kids have parents? 

Down to 3 now.  Maybe one of the parents is on here and made the kid "decommit"

Lol, I looked them earlier today.   I will say this.....one of them is from a northern snowy state that committed to a southern school that is essentially on the beach.   Looking back on it, if my son would have gotten an offer from a southern school on a beach as a 4 year old, I think I'd have signed the papers for him....right there on the spot    I tried to convince him to "go South"....even if it was only a couple hours because even that short distance can make a 10-15 degree difference on a March home game.   Unfortunately for me, he went an hour the other way....and closer to Lake Erie....which  anyone who lives anywhere close to a good sized like, knows isn't ideal when the winds are coming off the water in March.  It can easily be 10-15 degrees colder at the field than it is when I leave home.

The early commitments are out of hand for sure.  I think it would be an interesting study to track a school's recruits from initial commitment to campus.  I wonder the percentage that make it to campus and then on the roster?   My guess there are a few that de-commit, drafted/sign, or have commitment revoked due to grades, or performance prior to signing but not that many.  Whether they make it on the roster once on campus, that is a different story.  It looks like there are only a few schools that are committing players prior to playing a high school game.. i  see  three  schools account for 30% of all the 2022s that are currently committed (22 of the 72). They obviously know how to handle large recruiting classes and are very competitive programs. So its not hard to understand why young players want to play for these programs.  I can understand why big programs want to secure a "stud" or two early, but it does seem excessive to commit to half of their recruiting class so early.  Want to slow the process down?  probably a good place to start.  

Buckeye 2015 posted:

I don't have a problem with coaches contacting kids....in fact, I almost wish they could do it earlier, as the coaches are proposing.  At least that way you know everyone is on the same page.  As it is now, coaches have to go thru the travel coach, HS coach, or who knows who else to let a kid know they are interested....then the kid has to call them.   It's not the contact that is bothering people....it's the fact that coaches can offer an 8th grader with no repercussions if they decide 3 years later that they don't want the kid.   Heck, my son having to grow up and call and talk to a college coach was probably the best thing that ever happened to him.  His first call, I almost had to hold him down and force him to talk to the coach.  2 weeks later he was asking me if it's too soon to call the coach again.   It was unreal how much better he handled conversations with adults, coaches or otherwise, once he started communicating with them on a regular basis. 

I know what you're saying. My argument is that if the NCAA makes it so that coach is not allowed to pick up that phone call from that player, before a certain date, there is no dialogue and no offer extended.  When you set rules saying that the coach is allowed to answer a phone call, but not make a phone call now the travel coach can relay when to call, etc. No communication = no offer. 

GloFisher posted:

The early commitments are out of hand for sure.  I think it would be an interesting study to track a school's recruits from initial commitment to campus.  I wonder the percentage that make it to campus and then on the roster?   My guess there are a few that de-commit, drafted/sign, or have commitment revoked due to grades, or performance prior to signing but not that many.  Whether they make it on the roster once on campus, that is a different story.  It looks like there are only a few schools that are committing players prior to playing a high school game.. i  see  three  schools account for 30% of all the 2022s that are currently committed (22 of the 72). They obviously know how to handle large recruiting classes and are very competitive programs. So its not hard to understand why young players want to play for these programs.  I can understand why big programs want to secure a "stud" or two early, but it does seem excessive to commit to half of their recruiting class so early.  Want to slow the process down?  probably a good place to start.  

Is it getting out of hand though? You said yourself, not that many will have performance issues prior to singing day. If the majority of the kids committing as freshman end up at the schools they commit to, why are early commits a problem? 

MTH posted:
Prepster posted:

In the attached article, Aaron Fitt of DiBaseball.com reports on a couple of topics that are receiving a good bit of current consideration among DI coaches: the transformation of the "volunteer" assistant's position into a third, paid-assistant's position and the prospect of contacting high school sophomores by recruiters.

https://d1baseball.com/news/ab...rly-recruiting-talk/

I definitely don't know the answer, but the assistant coach issue definitely needs to be reviewed.  And frankly, I'm not sure that adding another paid assistant is really a good idea.  As things stand right now, D1 schools can have 2 paid assistants and one unpaid volunteer assistant.  Unpaid means unpaid by the college/university.  Some of these guys get paid pretty substantially out of camp revenues, which, of course, gives the bigger name/money schools a distinct advantage because they typically have more camp revenue.  

I would love to see some numbers regarding how many D1 schools currently have 2 paid assistants.  I'd be willing to bet that it's less than half.  And, oftentimes that 2nd assistant is getting a token sum.  Adding a 3rd paid assistant would benefit the bigger name/money schools, but wouldn't do anything for anybody else. 

Some of the bigger name/money schools have already found ways around the paid 2 paid assistant rule by adding a "Director of Player Development."  As I understand it, these guys break down video of pitchers and hitters and work with the assistant coaches to develop players.  They are basically coaches, just not hands on coaches.  Although, I have heard that at times they are indeed hands on.  These "non-coaches" also scout opposing teams.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  Other schools have guys who do nothing but video work.  

As I understand it, there is no limit on the number of "student assistants" teams can have.  This also benefits the bigger schools because they frequently get guys back on MLB's dime, after their minor/major league careers have ended.  Some bigger schools also have programs that will pay for an ex-players tuition/room/board AFTER his playing eligibility is up, whether he played pro ball or not.

If the goal is competitiveness, I question the addition of a third paid assistant.  Of course, I also favor breaking D1 into 3 subdivisions, so what do I know.  ;-)

 

ABCA is a coaching convention and of course their goal is to steer more money towards baseball coaches. A third coach means more jobs for coaches.

PABASEBALL I guess that's up for debate.  If a school commits 15 players and has 3 verbal commits de-commit, is it a problem?  maybe not.  there are cases where the players are disadvantaged, and cases where Colleges are disadvantaged.  But College baseball has suggested changes to the process so "they" see it as a problem.  If the commitment process can be delayed whereby the end result is less players de-committing, then i'd say that's a win.     

That having been said, i think the proposal by SAEC mentioned in the article goes too far.  Waiting until the summer prior to the player's Junior year is too late.  Contact by coaches in August prior to a player's sophomore year, allow unofficial visits at the same time and official visits Aug prior to Junior year seems reasonable.  

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×