https://d1baseball.com/news/re...tes-abca-convention/
Really interesting article about proposed changes to the recruiting calendar (e.g., no UVs until Sept. 1 of sophomore year, but OVs can start Sept. 1 of junior year) and early recruiting.
IMO, Coach McCormack's suggestion is fantastic.
And an interesting take from a D1 coach:
Replies sorted oldest to newest
YEA, Coach McCormack is fantastic! 
Glad to see a coach take this position. This has been my argument to stop the early recruitment. Allow players to sign the NLI when they are offered. This will eliminate the early and over recruiting. Seems very simple to me. Maybe I am missing something. This puts players and family on equal footing with the coach. Now everyone has skin in the game.
2019Dad posted:https://d1baseball.com/news/re...tes-abca-convention/
Really interesting article about proposed changes to the recruiting calendar (e.g., no UVs until Sept. 1 of sophomore year, but OVs can start Sept. 1 of junior year) and early recruiting.
IMO, Coach McCormack's suggestion is fantastic.
And an interesting take from a D1 coach:
these are all good suggestions.
+1
The working group will make positive recommendations. One thing that I noticed, regarding more dead periods in the calender, letting coaches spend less time recruiting. This in turn means less time for players on the field as well as less time for pitchers to be throwing.
My opinion is that the cause of many arm injuries for HS pitchers showing up on campus in the fall, is due to the heavy schedules for recruiting for tournaments, showcases, camps, etc. imposed on HS pitchers.
I admit that I may be too cynical based on all of the negative stories that I hear from athletes and families that I consult with, but I'm concerned that if athletes are allowed to sign a National Letter of Intent in their freshman or sophomore year, that it may just lead to more instances of coaches telling recruits after their senior year that the recruit didn't develop as much as they expected, or are concerned that their "minor" injury will become more serious, and will try to convince them to go to JUCO first, or that they are being released from their NLI when it's too late to get another offer elsewhere (apologies for the run-on sentence!!).
Will be interesting to see how these proposals are received once they are reviewed by NCAA athletic directors and by the student-athlete advisory committees.
I dont think the reasoning behind moving the early signing date is to sign players as freshman or sophomores but rather as juniors and seniors, for the right reasons.
Let's be honest, many coaches offer and sign players to take them off the market so someone else doesnt have a chance to. This basically eliminates top programs having huge commitment classes and 45 players showing up in the fall. As Savage suggested it gives coaches time to evaluate players, this avoids problems that arise later on, from both sides.
its interesting one of our teammates fathers had a long conversation with long time SEC coach this week and he pointed to this rule as a reason they are looking at 2021s and 2022s pretty hard right now before the rule change happens.
So, the proposal is too allow NLI's to be signed earlier. That takes an unenforceable oral commitment to a theoretically enforceable contract (though I don't see how it's enforceable against a party who has only limited legal capacity to sign a contract [a minor]; but that's a different issue).
A signed NLI means that all recuiting stops. As a soph or junior. We all know - from present experiences - that a coach can undo the NLI (theoretical enforcement be damned) and leave the kid in the lurch.
Want to make a coach/school responsible? Every time an NLI is signed, that is PERMANENTLY counted against the 11.7 - regardless of the player actually matriculating. (Perhaps an "injury" exception could be imposed.)
I fail to see how a HS junior (or soph) is better positioned academically, maturity wise, or experienced enough to make a life decision is opposed to that same kid a year older.
Take the risk of early recuiting and place that risk firmly on the school/coach (rather than the kid) and I hypothesize changes would be quick.
What about the player that signs an NLI and changes his mind? What punishment should be imposed. What about the players who sign but tell teams they want to be drafted? This stuff works both ways. Do the coaches have the advantage, yes, if you are from the top ranked conferences and everyone wants to attend your program, but coaches dont need 20 new guys to show up. Lots of players show up in fall and really dont belong there, then it becomes the coach is a bad guy.
Just sayin.....
I dont know Coach Mac that well but I do know that he is one of those coaches who has to compete with lots of instate programs that are really, really good. He also does not over recruit. I think a lot of mid tier programs see mid tier players committing and signing to power programs and then pushed out , now having to find ways to get back to D1 when they could have been playing for a good program with a good scholarship and not have to leave.
Also, I get a feeling that the power programs probably wouldnt mind the process slowing down a bit.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:I admit that I may be too cynical based on all of the negative stories that I hear from athletes and families that I consult with, but I'm concerned that if athletes are allowed to sign a National Letter of Intent in their freshman or sophomore year, that it may just lead to more instances of coaches telling recruits after their senior year that the recruit didn't develop as much as they expected, or are concerned that their "minor" injury will become more serious, and will try to convince them to go to JUCO first, or that they are being released from their NLI when it's too late to get another offer elsewhere (apologies for the run-on sentence!!).
Will be interesting to see how these proposals are received once they are reviewed by NCAA athletic directors and by the student-athlete advisory committees.
Rick,
There was an article in Baseball America (if I remember correctly) earlier this fall that contemplated an upcoming change to the transfer rules, possibly allowing a one time transfer without sitting a year. Yet, in all the information I read on the ABCA and discussions there, no one is mentioning this anymore? Did this idea die on the vine?
TPM posted:What about the player that signs an NLI and changes his mind? What punishment should be imposed. What about the players who sign but tell teams they want to be drafted? This stuff works both ways.
Existing NLI rules should cover that; the SA has to serve one year in residence at the next NLI member institution. Those cases could be an exception to the rule about counting against the school's 11.7.
Unfortunately, there seems to be institutional resistance to sport specific NLI rule changes.
Here is my idea. It just an idea and maybe it can bring up more possible options.
Allow NLI's to be signed September 1st of Junior year. If a school chooses not to honor the NLI then they lose that scholarship for that players Freshman season. If the Player changes his mind and doesn't honor the NLI and then attends another D1 institution, penalize them by making them ineligible for the first 28 games of his true freshman season. I would also place a limit on the number of NLI's that can be broken by a school before they receive some sort of penalty.
And oh by the way, make schools post an official roster prior the the school beginning official team practices. That way everyone can see how many players schools bring on campus every year.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NLI is binding on both parties once signed correct? As I understand it, the school is bound to honor that scholarship amounts listed in the NLI and the student would be a counter regardless if coaches try to run him off for at least a year. I think the gist of the early NLI signing would be that if you want a kid and sign him early, the coach just tied up a percentage of scholly and now has a counter on his future roster so they will be much more selective in who the "sign" early and thus, eliminate some of the early commits that are only detrimental to the kid. Kids and parents would also seriously have to consider is it wise to commit to big State U knowing that if you dont honor NLI, you will lose a year...
PABaseballDad, there is an NCAA Transfer Working Group that has been studying and discussing possible changes to the Division I transfer rules. There hasn't been an actual proposed rule change so far regarding the "sit out" year for a transfer athlete.
There is, however, a proposed rule change that would allow an athlete to simply notify their coach and school in writing that they are planning to transfer rather than being required to obtain permission before they can contact coaches at other schools. If approved, this change isn't set to take effect until August 1, so probably won't change anything for Division I athletes looking to transfer at the end of this school year.
FriarFred, to clarify your understanding, yes the NLI is binding on both parties. However, the athlete's scholarship will only count against the coach's 11.7 limit if he enrolls and attends classes at the college.
If the coach convinces the athlete during the summer before he enrolls that he isn't going to get playing time (for whatever reason) and would be better off going elsewhere, that coach probably feels like "no harm, no foul" as far as he is concerned. Obviously the athlete and family won't feel the same way!!
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:PABaseballDad, there is an NCAA Transfer Working Group that has been studying and discussing possible changes to the Division I transfer rules. There hasn't been an actual proposed rule change so far regarding the "sit out" year for a transfer athlete.
There is, however, a proposed rule change that would allow an athlete to simply notify their coach and school in writing that they are planning to transfer rather than being required to obtain permission before they can contact coaches at other schools. If approved, this change isn't set to take effect until August 1, so probably won't change anything for Division I athletes looking to transfer at the end of this school year.
good, I hope they come up with a reasonable solution- would be nice if they at least addressed the kids that are cut before start of the spring. I just can't fathom why a kid would have to sit out a year, especially a walk on, if he has never accepted any benefit from the school and has never played a game. boggles the mind. -- I feel compelled to say that my son has no intention of transferring (just in case someone is reading this and gets the wrong impression!)
Good discussion.
There are different type of players who are considered walk ons. I don't believe that transfer rule ( no sit) should apply to all.
I also feel that programs that don't use all of their allocated scholarships within certain conferences should have a penalty.
JMO
