This is about a womens basketball recruit, but I think people here at HSBW will find this interesting reading...what are your thoughts on this?
early courtship ends badly for Duke recruit
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Any college sport that packs a gym (including big time women's college basketball) is a business. The girl should have been asking heself if she was headed for the right place when she wasn't excelling in AAU tournaments. Duke told her a month before NLI's. It's probably when they secured the players who bumped her from prospect status. It's better than the week before. I think it's classy Duke offered to honor the scholarship. But they knew she was likely to look elsewhere rather than accepting.
There's a few red flags on this one...
#1. In many years of coaching basketball, I've yet to find a way to make a player tougher...not a single one. I can take an overly aggressive kid and usually get him to tone it down, but I've never been successful, and Lord knows, I've tried, at making a kid play tougher. Maybe someone else has, but I haven't seen it yet.
The one coach said, "wait until that light goes on", meaning, that one day she'll get it. That day probably never comes.
So, that means that portion is the coaches fault. A good coach knows his/her limitations, and coaching toughness, is usually a personality trait, and not coachable. I've seen coaches egos get in the way of decisions before, and that's definitely what happened with this early offer.
#2. Early commit. There was some discussion earlier this month about early commits. This is exactly the reason that coaches don't stop recruiting based on a verbal. Things change, and you'd like your good name and good intentions to be right there if they do. Shutting the door when things outside your control can change, is a bad move. Honor the verbal, don't burn the bridges.
#3. Getting a kid and their parents to have an objective view of the opportunities available to them is very, very difficult. I was a basketball player. If some highly regarded baseball guy comes up to me and tells me Junior is a top 2 round draft pick and should play at a top tier university, that's where I set my sights. I'm just as vulnerable as the next guy, and I've been down this road before.
There simply is no substitute for good, honest, objective input. Someone you can trust, that won't be your yes man and has no stake in the outcome.
The reality is, that after we hear all the accolades, we generally don't spend much time looking for the guy that's going to bring us back down to earth. That's what makes us vulnerable.
#1. In many years of coaching basketball, I've yet to find a way to make a player tougher...not a single one. I can take an overly aggressive kid and usually get him to tone it down, but I've never been successful, and Lord knows, I've tried, at making a kid play tougher. Maybe someone else has, but I haven't seen it yet.
The one coach said, "wait until that light goes on", meaning, that one day she'll get it. That day probably never comes.
So, that means that portion is the coaches fault. A good coach knows his/her limitations, and coaching toughness, is usually a personality trait, and not coachable. I've seen coaches egos get in the way of decisions before, and that's definitely what happened with this early offer.
#2. Early commit. There was some discussion earlier this month about early commits. This is exactly the reason that coaches don't stop recruiting based on a verbal. Things change, and you'd like your good name and good intentions to be right there if they do. Shutting the door when things outside your control can change, is a bad move. Honor the verbal, don't burn the bridges.
#3. Getting a kid and their parents to have an objective view of the opportunities available to them is very, very difficult. I was a basketball player. If some highly regarded baseball guy comes up to me and tells me Junior is a top 2 round draft pick and should play at a top tier university, that's where I set my sights. I'm just as vulnerable as the next guy, and I've been down this road before.
There simply is no substitute for good, honest, objective input. Someone you can trust, that won't be your yes man and has no stake in the outcome.
The reality is, that after we hear all the accolades, we generally don't spend much time looking for the guy that's going to bring us back down to earth. That's what makes us vulnerable.
I'll make this short since it gets away from baseball. Because girls physically mature far sooner than boys the recruiting starts early. It's very common for a girl to commit before their junior year or early in the year. If they're talented they're playing 18U at fifteen and sixteen years old.
The lesson in this story falls in line with a statement a college baseball dad made to me. His son plays for State. I asked him if the U (more prestigous program) was interested. He said, "Yes, but you should go where they love you back, not just show interest."
The lesson in this story falls in line with a statement a college baseball dad made to me. His son plays for State. I asked him if the U (more prestigous program) was interested. He said, "Yes, but you should go where they love you back, not just show interest."
At the risk of coming across like Dwight Schrutt from the Office, I'll take a stab at this:
1. Its girls basketball OK. Watching basketball for years in Chicago I've seen maybe a handful of girls that were worth watching on the court. In Chicago basketball, boys go at it on the court. With girls any time there's contact they want a foul called and the vast majority of them are robots with pigtails. What I'm saying is as a "sport" its not that important.
2. Regarding athletic scholarships, with boys at least you are rewarding the Greek ideal of manhood: "faster, stronger, higher." With girls you are rewarding the ones who have the most male testosterone. Not sure what the benefit to society is for that allocation of resources.
3. Having said all that, and despite her problems, she was in a position to get a FULL RIDE TO DUKE. Hello, what are the tears for? Go. If you don't play a minute in four years you've recieved a FULL RIDE TO DUKE.
Personally, I don't get the victim angle here, and yes you might have been able to read into my post that I think there is a difference between men and women sports.
1. Its girls basketball OK. Watching basketball for years in Chicago I've seen maybe a handful of girls that were worth watching on the court. In Chicago basketball, boys go at it on the court. With girls any time there's contact they want a foul called and the vast majority of them are robots with pigtails. What I'm saying is as a "sport" its not that important.
2. Regarding athletic scholarships, with boys at least you are rewarding the Greek ideal of manhood: "faster, stronger, higher." With girls you are rewarding the ones who have the most male testosterone. Not sure what the benefit to society is for that allocation of resources.
3. Having said all that, and despite her problems, she was in a position to get a FULL RIDE TO DUKE. Hello, what are the tears for? Go. If you don't play a minute in four years you've recieved a FULL RIDE TO DUKE.
Personally, I don't get the victim angle here, and yes you might have been able to read into my post that I think there is a difference between men and women sports.
Ig that is quite a statement.
I know a several girls who got D1 full rides and they are great BKTB players. You could also be proud taking them on a date. They might however call you shorty.
I also know the girl who was MVP in D1 Hockey who would play on any boys hockey team. She also was attractive. One of my friends had a full ride to a D1 in Kansas for fast ball and then switched to s-****r.
They all had the same passion to play their sport. 2 of the females now play in pro leagues. They are all normal ladies.
Ladies get more scholarship money than men and they call it gender equity.
I know a several girls who got D1 full rides and they are great BKTB players. You could also be proud taking them on a date. They might however call you shorty.
I also know the girl who was MVP in D1 Hockey who would play on any boys hockey team. She also was attractive. One of my friends had a full ride to a D1 in Kansas for fast ball and then switched to s-****r.
They all had the same passion to play their sport. 2 of the females now play in pro leagues. They are all normal ladies.
Ladies get more scholarship money than men and they call it gender equity.
It takes a lot more than testosterone to make a great athlete.
As the father of a college female athlete I find your statements ignorant, offensive and worthy of neanderthal thinking. Have you heard of Title IX? Go shave your knuckles and try to walk on your hind legs. If you had your way women would still be in the kitchen waiting on your every command. The most incredible ignorant and offensive comment is to suggest my daughter has the most male testosterone among women. My daughter is 5'10", 150. She's very toned. She looks slim. She has modeled. She will be graduating PBK while playing a sport. She'll be attending law school next year. I can only suggest what you have betweeen your ears. And it stinks. Flies like it.quote:Originally posted by igball:
At the risk of coming across like Dwight Schrutt from the Office, I'll take a stab at this:
1. Its girls basketball OK. Watching basketball for years in Chicago I've seen maybe a handful of girls that were worth watching on the court. In Chicago basketball, boys go at it on the court. With girls any time there's contact they want a foul called and the vast majority of them are robots with pigtails. What I'm saying is as a "sport" its not that important.
2. Regarding athletic scholarships, with boys at least you are rewarding the Greek ideal of manhood: "faster, stronger, higher." With girls you are rewarding the ones who have the most male testosterone. Not sure what the benefit to society is for that allocation of resources.
3. Having said all that, and despite her problems, she was in a position to get a FULL RIDE TO DUKE. Hello, what are the tears for? Go. If you don't play a minute in four years you've recieved a FULL RIDE TO DUKE.
Personally, I don't get the victim angle here, and yes you might have been able to read into my post that I think there is a difference between men and women sports.
This is Heather Mitts of Team USA S0ccer. She's one of those women with excessive testosterone.
Here's another tragic case of excessive testosterone in women... Jenny Finch.
Here's another tragic case of excessive testosterone in women... Jenny Finch.
quote:This is Heather Mitts of Team USA S0ccer. She's one of those women with excessive testosterone.
I'm not yet convinced. Please post some more pictures.....
quote:I'm not yet convinced. Please post some more pictures.....
MEN, MEN, MEN
Here's another female athlete with too much testosterone, Ayla Moore of Boston College basketball. She was on American Idol. She has sung the national anthem at Celtics games.
You go, RJM! I'm with you all the way on this one. I've watched some women's college s****r lately and have been impressed by the drive and athleticism. Oddly, I haven't seen much testosterone either.
As an ardent follower of ladies hoops here (Univ of Hartford, UCONN) I totally disagree with ig---see many of these young ladies out of uniform and they are just like any other young lady on campus , other than their height of course.
Where to start??? I only hope my son dates some of the womens s****r players @ his school. Many are very beautiful and smart (they are also ranked #2 in the nation for D1 s****r). They are amazing athletes, students, and people. Igball- hopefully you are not as stupid as you sound!
quote:Originally posted by fanofgame:quote:I'm not yet convinced. Please post some more pictures.....
MEN, MEN, MEN
All in the interest of scientific research and Title IX
I'm personally offended by these pictures...hhhuummm...yes sir...I am.
However, my dog Tippy is okay with them...and... he would like to know if Heather owns a sweet smelling poodle with a fluffy and puffie hair-do? Maybe with a pink little bow? Anybody?
However, my dog Tippy is okay with them...and... he would like to know if Heather owns a sweet smelling poodle with a fluffy and puffie hair-do? Maybe with a pink little bow? Anybody?
Interesting take igball. I have two boys who are athletes, one is going to college for baseball and the other is a two sport athlete and has lettered in wrestling on the varsity team the last two years as a junior higher and plays for the high school baseball team. I also have a girl who is a two sport athlete. So I've seen both angles.
My daughter is fiercely competitive and is good at both sports and is more driven than her older brother to play in college. Hardly a robot and still very feminine. She learns the same lessons as my boys do from sports. Although, I'm always reticent to imply that baseball is a sport--it's a game. In fact my wrestler, who loves baseball, says it always takes a month or two of sitting on the couch watching TV and eating potato chips to get back into baseball shape after wrestling season
. But I digress.
Like with boys, sports give her a positive outlet. Help keep her in shape and out of trouble. They build confidence,teach competitiveness, and team work. They teach her how to fight through failure and work hard to succeed, and develop mental toughness. Girls who play sports tend to be much more confident in life as well.
I'm not saying that women's basketball is the same as men's. They are simply not capable of doing the same things as men. However, it is still entertaining, and they do more than play like robots. They play the game much more like it was originally meant to be played. . .and, uhm. . .at least they play a sport (ha ha).
My daughter is fiercely competitive and is good at both sports and is more driven than her older brother to play in college. Hardly a robot and still very feminine. She learns the same lessons as my boys do from sports. Although, I'm always reticent to imply that baseball is a sport--it's a game. In fact my wrestler, who loves baseball, says it always takes a month or two of sitting on the couch watching TV and eating potato chips to get back into baseball shape after wrestling season
. But I digress. Like with boys, sports give her a positive outlet. Help keep her in shape and out of trouble. They build confidence,teach competitiveness, and team work. They teach her how to fight through failure and work hard to succeed, and develop mental toughness. Girls who play sports tend to be much more confident in life as well.
I'm not saying that women's basketball is the same as men's. They are simply not capable of doing the same things as men. However, it is still entertaining, and they do more than play like robots. They play the game much more like it was originally meant to be played. . .and, uhm. . .at least they play a sport (ha ha).
and oh yeah. . .Now that I've done my part for women's lib. . .Title IX is rediculous!! Although I'll be happy to take advantage of it if my daughter does decide to play in college. (Ha ha)
It's nice to see there are two ignorant posters in the thread. You probably don't understand Title IX. By saying Title IX is rediculous you're saying men and boys are superior to women and girls and deserve more. Title IX is far more wide reaching than collegiate sports. Educate yourself and you'll be less ignorant.quote:Originally posted by Jones fan:
and oh yeah. . .Now that I've done my part for women's lib. . .Title IX is rediculous!! Although I'll be happy to take advantage of it if my daughter does decide to play in college. (Ha ha)
I know a little about Title IX
It is a wonderful example of the proverb, The road to he11 is paved with good intentions.
It is a wonderful example of the proverb, The road to he11 is paved with good intentions.
Many laws are not perfect. But a lot of the negatives regarding Title IX are misrepresentations. The bottom line is educational institutions receive state and federal funding. Boys are not more entitled to that funding than girls.quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
I know a little about Title IX
It is a wonderful example of the proverb, The road to he11 is paved with good intentions.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
The bottom line is ... Boys are not more entitled to that funding than girls.
A very good intention, worthy indeed of legislation...however, in many cases, totally absurd in its implementation.
I also agree that the legislation is needed but it would be nice if men were treated equally. The obvious inequity is the amount of scholarship awarded.
My son's college had an alumni who wanted to donate some big improvements to the ball park. Several hundred thousands of dollars. He couldn't do it unless he did the same for the womens ball park. It never happened.
Is this truly gender equal ?
My son's college had an alumni who wanted to donate some big improvements to the ball park. Several hundred thousands of dollars. He couldn't do it unless he did the same for the womens ball park. It never happened.
Is this truly gender equal ?
BHD makes a good point. I have a son and a Daughter. So I look at this from both sides. At a local high school money want to be donated from a private citizen to a boy's program. However person back away because of Title IX concerns.
If it is tax payer money, then it should go into a general pot and be spent equally. However, it is private donor, they should be able to donate the money for any specific program they want.
If it is tax payer money, then it should go into a general pot and be spent equally. However, it is private donor, they should be able to donate the money for any specific program they want.
Across the board in the athletic department there is equal money provided for men's and women's sports including scholarships. The one exclusion is football. Football is allowed to spend additional money due to the cost of equipment.quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I also agree that the legislation is needed but it would be nice if men were treated equally. The obvious inequity is the amount of scholarship awarded.
My son's college had an alumni who wanted to donate some big improvements to the ball park. Several hundred thousands of dollars. He couldn't do it unless he did the same for the womens ball park. It never happened.
Is this truly gender equal ?
This is true. But I've seen it happen both ways at our high school. I've also seen two sports work together to get it done.quote:Originally posted by dad43:
BHD makes a good point. I have a son and a Daughter. So I look at this from both sides. At a local high school money want to be donated from a private citizen to a boy's program. However person back away because of Title IX concerns.
If it is tax payer money, then it should go into a general pot and be spent equally. However, it is private donor, they should be able to donate the money for any specific program they want.
50% of the population is entitled to 50% of the spending in sports. Is there really an arguement otherwise?
Some schools have more men than women and spend proportionately more on men; and vice versa. Football is the elephant in the room which distorts everything. This despite the fact that only in the top 50 programs is football a money maker.
Take away the football scholly’s, and all the talk about a disproportionate number of scholarships going to women disappears. The cause of the absurdly low number of baseball scholly’s is football. Baseball should be carping at the football programs (especially the programs that lose money – lots of money), not Title IX requirements.
Some schools have more men than women and spend proportionately more on men; and vice versa. Football is the elephant in the room which distorts everything. This despite the fact that only in the top 50 programs is football a money maker.
Take away the football scholly’s, and all the talk about a disproportionate number of scholarships going to women disappears. The cause of the absurdly low number of baseball scholly’s is football. Baseball should be carping at the football programs (especially the programs that lose money – lots of money), not Title IX requirements.
The only reason football is the elephant in the room is because D1 programs have enough scholarships to field four starting teams on both side of the ball. It takes a lot of rides away from other men's sports. In some cases it means the termination of some mens's sports. A few years ago a Title IX amendment was implemented requiring colleges to get approval for removing men's sports over increasing women's sports to achieve equity.
Title IX is an interesting side topic, but back to original article. I for one, feel this kid was led on and led on -- up to the 11th hour. Replace the girl basketball player, with your son and the Duke baseball coach. Now how do you feel? Kinda wish you said yes to UNC, huh?
I doubt there are 50 college football programs that make money. I used to know and it was closer to 10.
Football fills stands compared to BB. If you compare ladies fast ball to BB you will see the women get larger scholarships than men I know at least 5 that have gotten full rides and I don't know 1 BB player that has a full ride. That is out of about 150 BB players..
Football fills stands compared to BB. If you compare ladies fast ball to BB you will see the women get larger scholarships than men I know at least 5 that have gotten full rides and I don't know 1 BB player that has a full ride. That is out of about 150 BB players..
That is my point: football swallows the majority of men's scholarships. And, it loses money -- in most schools lots of money. To make up for football (which men's sports has either implicity or expressly decided to honor with the majority of the available men's scholorships) the other men's sports take less. The women have decided to spread out their scholorships more evenly.
It really isn't as much about title IX; it's about a decision to put more resources (lots more resources) in one specific (men's) sport - at the expense of other (men's) sports.
It really isn't as much about title IX; it's about a decision to put more resources (lots more resources) in one specific (men's) sport - at the expense of other (men's) sports.
It is the NCAA that sets the number of scholarships not the colleges.
My son's college got rid of the men's tennis to provide more money for the BB team. They didn't fund anywhere near the 11.7. BB just isn't as popular as football and BKTB.
My son's college got rid of the men's tennis to provide more money for the BB team. They didn't fund anywhere near the 11.7. BB just isn't as popular as football and BKTB.
Of course the ncaa sets the number in each sport. But the schools are the members of that august and esteemed oranization. The schools collectively decide the various allocations; and they have resousoundingly spoke in favor of football (gee, i wonder how much is tied to NFL influence/money, etc.?) -- at the expense of other men's sports.
I have a little different take on all of this. When a school offers a kid in this case an early offer and wants an early verbal they are expecting that student athlete to honor that verbal. You should expect them to honor their word as well. In this case they did in fact agree to honor their word and not pull the offer. But by calling her and saying what they said they were pressuring her to walk away. Offering a kid early can not work both ways for the school imo. It can but not without consequences in the future for that school. We offer early in the hopes of locking up talented players before someone else can beat us to the punch. We will honor our word. BUT if later we dont think we made a good decision we will call you and tell you its in your best interest and ours if you dont come. Hmmmmmmm......... Do you think this situation will be used against the Duke program in the future by other schools in competition for players with Duke?
This decision by Duke will save Duke from taking a player they dont want. But in the end it will cost them way more imo. And it already has. If you lived around here you would know what I am talking about. They are taking a huge hit in the press and the message boards are burning up with negative press. The word will get out. Dont early verbal to Duke because they might call you and treat you like this young lady was treated.
If you ask for a verbal and you say you will honor your word then do that. In the vast majority of the cases it is honored. By both parties. I am one that believes the school should be held to a higher standard than the athlete. Why? The schools reputation is more important than one student athletes reputation. The long term ramifications of pulling a stunt like this can and will hurt Duke in the future.
If Duke felt they made a mistake then live with it. Wait and see how she stacks up once she is in the program. Honor your word and your committment to the player. Its the least you can do if you are going to expect others to do so. Yes sometimes you miss on a player and later think "What were we thinking?" There are ways to handle this that save your program this type of scenario. And there are ways to handle this that save the player this type of scenario as well.
Just my opinion. In the end its going to hurt Duke basketball a whole lot more by handeling this the way they did instead of having one player on their roster they think couldnt measure up.
This decision by Duke will save Duke from taking a player they dont want. But in the end it will cost them way more imo. And it already has. If you lived around here you would know what I am talking about. They are taking a huge hit in the press and the message boards are burning up with negative press. The word will get out. Dont early verbal to Duke because they might call you and treat you like this young lady was treated.
If you ask for a verbal and you say you will honor your word then do that. In the vast majority of the cases it is honored. By both parties. I am one that believes the school should be held to a higher standard than the athlete. Why? The schools reputation is more important than one student athletes reputation. The long term ramifications of pulling a stunt like this can and will hurt Duke in the future.
If Duke felt they made a mistake then live with it. Wait and see how she stacks up once she is in the program. Honor your word and your committment to the player. Its the least you can do if you are going to expect others to do so. Yes sometimes you miss on a player and later think "What were we thinking?" There are ways to handle this that save your program this type of scenario. And there are ways to handle this that save the player this type of scenario as well.
Just my opinion. In the end its going to hurt Duke basketball a whole lot more by handeling this the way they did instead of having one player on their roster they think couldnt measure up.
CM,
That's interesting. I came to the opposite conclusion. It would have cost Duke almost nothing to bring her in. Women's basketball gets 15 full rides, and Duke has been carrying 12. Somebody is going to sit at the far end of the bench, and Duke could have simply let her be one of those players. That would have been the easy way. If they had done that, a couple of years from now people would be saying that the player had failed the program (didn't work hard enough, became soft, etc.)
Sure, it is damaging to the player, but Duke's mistake (over estimating her potential) was made when the early offer was tendered. Now they are actually doing the honorable thing-- letting her know that her chances of playing time are not good. In women's basketball, like baseball, a player who transfers has to sit out a year. Her reasonable expectation, as an early commit, is that she would see plenty of playing time. Better to tell her that her reasonable expectation was unlikely to pan out, instead of having her wait 2 years to be able to play.
This situation is different from baseball, simply because women basketball players all allowed to be on a full ride. In baseball, non-productive players who have a significant scholarship are in a financial sense a drag on the program, because the program always is short of scholarships.
That's interesting. I came to the opposite conclusion. It would have cost Duke almost nothing to bring her in. Women's basketball gets 15 full rides, and Duke has been carrying 12. Somebody is going to sit at the far end of the bench, and Duke could have simply let her be one of those players. That would have been the easy way. If they had done that, a couple of years from now people would be saying that the player had failed the program (didn't work hard enough, became soft, etc.)
Sure, it is damaging to the player, but Duke's mistake (over estimating her potential) was made when the early offer was tendered. Now they are actually doing the honorable thing-- letting her know that her chances of playing time are not good. In women's basketball, like baseball, a player who transfers has to sit out a year. Her reasonable expectation, as an early commit, is that she would see plenty of playing time. Better to tell her that her reasonable expectation was unlikely to pan out, instead of having her wait 2 years to be able to play.
This situation is different from baseball, simply because women basketball players all allowed to be on a full ride. In baseball, non-productive players who have a significant scholarship are in a financial sense a drag on the program, because the program always is short of scholarships.
What good is an early verbal if the program is not going to honor the committment to the player? Yes they said they would honor the scholley but we all know from the statements made "Dont come here."
What are the coaches saying , the program saying when a talented early verbal decides to change their mind late in the process?
Is every player on their roster an impact player?
I can certainly see where you came to that conclusion. Coaches make mistakes in evaluation of talent and players make mistakes in choosing schools.
Do you think this will be used against Duke in future recruiting wars? What would have hurt more , letting her come and letting her prove she could or could not help the program or doing what they did?
Maybe in their mind they were doing the honorable thing and looking after the players interests. I just dont see it that way. No problem we all see things differently.
What are the coaches saying , the program saying when a talented early verbal decides to change their mind late in the process?
Is every player on their roster an impact player?
I can certainly see where you came to that conclusion. Coaches make mistakes in evaluation of talent and players make mistakes in choosing schools.
Do you think this will be used against Duke in future recruiting wars? What would have hurt more , letting her come and letting her prove she could or could not help the program or doing what they did?
Maybe in their mind they were doing the honorable thing and looking after the players interests. I just dont see it that way. No problem we all see things differently.
CM,
Just so it's clear: I think that this way of handling it will hurt Duke considerably.
Where we disagree is that I think they telling her that she likely won't get to play much is better than not telling her. If they don't tell her, Duke would come out unscathed, but the player would be misled.
Just so it's clear: I think that this way of handling it will hurt Duke considerably.
Where we disagree is that I think they telling her that she likely won't get to play much is better than not telling her. If they don't tell her, Duke would come out unscathed, but the player would be misled.
I can tell you this I have had conversations with college coaches over the last few years where they were not very happy with some early verbals they had asked for and gotten once the player was a sr in hs. The kid didnt progress as they thought he would , the player actually regressed etc etc. Another player came along in that class they believed was now better but they didnt have room , etc etc. In every case they honored the verbal and never tried to run off the player before he arrived. Sometimes it worked out well and the player did very well and sometimes their fears were realized.
But the over riding factor was they didnt want to hurt their reputation with future recruits , future early verbal opportunities and have this used as ammo against them by their competitors. There will be more highy rated girls BB players in NC that Duke will want to recruit. Its going to be used against them you can bet on it. I remember a kid a few years back offered by a local D1 baseball program early. The school had a coaching change and the kid was called in and told "We dont think you can play here you might want to go JUCO and let us take another look at you in a year." The kid signed with another D1 in state school and has been lights out. This D1 got trashed by every HS coach in the state it seemed. Every Travel Coach in the state it seemed. It has taken them quite awhile to overcome this. Several players refused to even go to Jr day at this school. Was it worth it?
When you offer early its a game of risk vs reward. You can not have it both ways. Well you can but then be prepared for the backlash. Every mom and dad that has a hs bb girl being recruited by Duke is going to have this thrown in their face by the other schools competing against Duke for this player. Again is it worth it?
We will just have to wait and see. All I know is if I were a college coach and I told a kid "We want you. We need you. And we will honor our word if you give us your word." There is no way I am going to try and run off a kid before they even step on campus. Even if I later didnt think they could cut it. I am still going to give them a chance to prove they can or can not. Thats the least you can do imo.
You can not have it both ways. If you try to you will pay for it. This is just my opinion and I can certainly understand why others feel the way they do. Maybe they did do the young lady a favor in the long run. The certainly didnt do their program a favor. JMO
But the over riding factor was they didnt want to hurt their reputation with future recruits , future early verbal opportunities and have this used as ammo against them by their competitors. There will be more highy rated girls BB players in NC that Duke will want to recruit. Its going to be used against them you can bet on it. I remember a kid a few years back offered by a local D1 baseball program early. The school had a coaching change and the kid was called in and told "We dont think you can play here you might want to go JUCO and let us take another look at you in a year." The kid signed with another D1 in state school and has been lights out. This D1 got trashed by every HS coach in the state it seemed. Every Travel Coach in the state it seemed. It has taken them quite awhile to overcome this. Several players refused to even go to Jr day at this school. Was it worth it?
When you offer early its a game of risk vs reward. You can not have it both ways. Well you can but then be prepared for the backlash. Every mom and dad that has a hs bb girl being recruited by Duke is going to have this thrown in their face by the other schools competing against Duke for this player. Again is it worth it?
We will just have to wait and see. All I know is if I were a college coach and I told a kid "We want you. We need you. And we will honor our word if you give us your word." There is no way I am going to try and run off a kid before they even step on campus. Even if I later didnt think they could cut it. I am still going to give them a chance to prove they can or can not. Thats the least you can do imo.
You can not have it both ways. If you try to you will pay for it. This is just my opinion and I can certainly understand why others feel the way they do. Maybe they did do the young lady a favor in the long run. The certainly didnt do their program a favor. JMO