An idea that makes too much sense for the NCAA to adopt it...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
" . . . a student-centered model of Division I athletics . . ."
Clearly the proposal will be welcomed at NCAA headquarters with open arms.
Good for them. Snowball's chance in he!! though would be my guess.
MTH posted:An idea that makes too much sense for the NCAA to adopt it...
When the Ivy League schools start offering athletic scholarships, they might be on better ground to protest.
roothog66 posted:When the Ivy League schools start offering athletic scholarships, they might be on better ground to protest.
Perhaps they feel the well being of all student athletes, Ivy or not, is grounds enough.
My point wasn't necessarily to question their motives, but to point out that this would be a better argument from, say, the SEC. The truth is that perceptions matter. Ivy League schools are at a huge disadvantage in the current climate. They can't really know who they can honestly recruit that early and can't offer athletic money, so they operate at a disadvantage to schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Duke - schools that are fishing in the same pond. Not that their position is meant to be self-serving, but certainly couldn't be seen as altruistic.
For some reason I just don't see the Ivy's recruiting the same kids as Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke.....yes, all great learning institutions but if any kid (athlete or not) is being recruited by an Ivy....he'll either go or not based on his desire to go to an Ivy....not his desire to play sports.
A good friend of my son is a sophomore basketball player at an Ivy.....high GPA...high ACT. He was being recruited by a lot of mid-major D1's.....and even a couple what I would call upper level D1's......then he got a call from an Ivy. He decided on the Ivy, even though some other D1's were still in play. My thought is his chance of playing at what is likely the best Ivy with regard to basketball may be lower than it was at some of the mid-majors that recruited him....but the Ivy is the Ivy....and he's looking at his life after basketball (not an NBA prospect).
Buckeye 2015 posted:For some reason I just don't see the Ivy's recruiting the same kids as Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke.....yes, all great learning institutions but if any kid (athlete or not) is being recruited by an Ivy....he'll either go or not based on his desire to go to an Ivy....not his desire to play sports.
A good friend of my son is a sophomore basketball player at an Ivy.....high GPA...high ACT. He was being recruited by a lot of mid-major D1's.....and even a couple what I would call upper level D1's......then he got a call from an Ivy. He decided on the Ivy, even though some other D1's were still in play. My thought is his chance of playing at what is likely the best Ivy with regard to basketball may be lower than it was at some of the mid-majors that recruited him....but the Ivy is the Ivy....and he's looking at his life after basketball (not an NBA prospect).
I'm sure that's true for many, but there's no doubt that a school like Stanford snatches up some high qualifiers who, given another couple of years, may have considered Yale or Harvard. In fact, may have chosen an Ivy over Stanford, but having committed to Stanford as a freshman during a period where the Cardinal could take a chance the academics would remain solid while the Ivies could not, will stick with that choice.
Of course, I'm also aware that this very argument is a good basis for a contention supporting the Ivy position.
roothog66 posted:Not that their position is meant to be self-serving, but certainly couldn't be seen as altruistic.
I'm inclined to disagree. My impression of the Ivys is that they don't care that much about wins and losses. Education is still king, at least for the most part. I just think they feel this would be the best thing for the kids, and they know that the SEC, ACC, etc. sure as heck ain't worried about the kids. But, I understand your point.
MTH posted:roothog66 posted:Not that their position is meant to be self-serving, but certainly couldn't be seen as altruistic.
I'm inclined to disagree. My impression of the Ivys is that they don't care that much about wins and losses. Education is still king, at least for the most part. I just think they feel this would be the best thing for the kids, and they know that the SEC, ACC, etc. sure as heck ain't worried about the kids. But, I understand your point.
I don't want anyone to get me wrong. I think the Ivy position is a valid one. In fact, I agree. My point is that from a view of credibility, the argument of "The current situation is advantageous to me, but it's wrong and I advocate change," is on its face stronger than "The current situation puts me at a disadvantage and I think it's wrong and must change." Both arguments may come from sincerity and be equally correct, but the first can't be questioned on motive. I don't think that means the Ivy League shouldn't make the argument, just that I think it would carry more weight if it came from another source.
MTH posted:roothog66 posted:Not that their position is meant to be self-serving, but certainly couldn't be seen as altruistic.
I'm inclined to disagree. My impression of the Ivys is that they don't care that much about wins and losses. Education is still king, at least for the most part. I just think they feel this would be the best thing for the kids, and they know that the SEC, ACC, etc. sure as heck ain't worried about the kids. But, I understand your point.
I agree MTH....but to put it in a little more context....they do care about wins/losses to comparable teams (ie Patriot League) and mostly among other Ivy teams.
Overall, I think the Ivy League Administration (playing the role of Captain Obvious) has pointed out a problem that everybody but the NCAA is willing to do something about. The NCAA is about making money for itself, College Presidents and the Media. It is a rather simple formula.
roothog66 posted:My point wasn't necessarily to question their motives, but to point out that this would be a better argument from, say, the SEC....
While I get your point, your example of the SEC is about the worst one you could have drummed up.
B1G, Pac12, ACC all would have been better ones.
Buckeye 2015 posted:For some reason I just don't see the Ivy's recruiting the same kids as Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke.....yes, all great learning institutions but if any kid (athlete or not) is being recruited by an Ivy....he'll either go or not based on his desire to go to an Ivy....not his desire to play sports.
I guess our older son is a good counter-example? Stanford, Duke and 6 out of 8 Ivies. Frankly, I thought the letter from the Brown coach was the single best, most well thought out contact he got in the whole process.
roothog66 posted:When the Ivy League schools start offering athletic scholarships, they might be on better ground to protest.
Eh - I don't really see it that way. But I get the comment. I actually do not believe this is a competitive statement on their part. And I think they've got it right!!
justbaseball posted:roothog66 posted:My point wasn't necessarily to question their motives, but to point out that this would be a better argument from, say, the SEC....
While I get your point, your example of the SEC is about the worst one you could have drummed up.
B1G, Pac12, ACC all would have been better ones.
I just grabbed a Power Conference out of a hat, but I am interested in why you think the other conferences get more of an advantage than the SEC (if that was where you were going).
justbaseball posted:roothog66 posted:When the Ivy League schools start offering athletic scholarships, they might be on better ground to protest.
Eh - I don't really see it that way. But I get the comment. I actually do not believe this is a competitive statement on their part. And I think they've got it right!!
I agree they have it right, but do you not think that if the SEC and/or ACC offered up this statement, it would carry more weight with the NCAA?
roothog66 posted:justbaseball posted:roothog66 posted:When the Ivy League schools start offering athletic scholarships, they might be on better ground to protest.
Eh - I don't really see it that way. But I get the comment. I actually do not believe this is a competitive statement on their part. And I think they've got it right!!
I agree they have it right, but do you not think that if the SEC and/or ACC offered up this statement, it would carry more weight with the NCAA?
It would, but there is no chance that they will. But that doesn't make it illogical for the Ivies to say it. I'm glad they did. Sadly, it won't make any difference.
BTW, are freshmen now 'committing' to Stanford? That would be new - their HC used to be pretty firmly against that type of thing and their admissions would not guarantee any kid admission as a freshman, I am quite sure.
For what its worth, at the recruiting session of the Stanford camp my son attended, Stanford coaches also said the early recruiting was really hurting them as well. They may be able to offer athletic money, but the coach said they are not going to be asking for any commitments before they are certain a player can be admitted, which is after the testing results are in. So he said Junior year would be the earliest they would seek a commitment, while Cal (a hated rival across the Bay) has been getting commitments from Freshman and Sophomores.
And to offer a Southern California perspective to Buckeye's view about Stanford versus an Ivy, there are few of any kids who grow up in California that given the choice between Stanford or an Ivy would choose the Ivy. In fact, many of the non athlete kids in my son's school who have gotten admitted to both have chosen Stanford. While the Ivy schools are truly elite and iconic, for a kid who wants to stay in California with a job after graduation, Stanford is the better choice. Add in the weather difference and campus experience of a Pac 12 sports experience, and the decision is pretty understandable.
You're right about Stanford compared to Vandy, Duke, Cal, etc. They don't compromise as much. Personally, I'd prefer to go in the other direction - ban verbalism but allow LOI's and see how many early decisions are made then. However, in reality, I think the equalizer is going to be when baseball recruiting becomes more like football and basketball where coaches no longer respect the verbal and continue recruiting right up until signing day. That will render verbals pretty meaningless.
It's already starting, I believe. Jut this week, I've seen two tweets from 2019's decommitting and reopening their recruiting.
I agree roothog - if they offered the LOI early, it would largely solve the problem on both ends.
roothog66 posted:justbaseball posted:roothog66 posted:My point wasn't necessarily to question their motives, but to point out that this would be a better argument from, say, the SEC....
While I get your point, your example of the SEC is about the worst one you could have drummed up.
B1G, Pac12, ACC all would have been better ones.
I just grabbed a Power Conference out of a hat, but I am interested in why you think the other conferences get more of an advantage than the SEC (if that was where you were going).
I guess I am saying that my perception is that those 3 conferences (B1G, Pac12 and ACC), slightly more at least, still emphasize academics within their athletic programs to some degree. That doesn't mean I disrespect the SEC or its members, its just that my view is that it is a machine athletically.
justbaseball posted:Buckeye 2015 posted:For some reason I just don't see the Ivy's recruiting the same kids as Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke.....yes, all great learning institutions but if any kid (athlete or not) is being recruited by an Ivy....he'll either go or not based on his desire to go to an Ivy....not his desire to play sports.
I guess our older son is a good counter-example? Stanford, Duke and 6 out of 8 Ivies. Frankly, I thought the letter from the Brown coach was the single best, most well thought out contact he got in the whole process.
My older one must be an exception too. Recruited by two of the three specifically mentioned schools as well as a few Ivy. Has a very high desire to play and baseball is very, very important.
The fact that Early recruiting has been talked about a lot in other sports with NO action taken should tell you all you need to know about EArly recuiting in baseball. If they cant or wont limit it to Upper classmen for big revenue sports why would anyone think they could or would do it for baseball?
Great idea but barring a 180 from the high profile coaches and programs the NCAA most likely will not act.
I really am not sure who is to blame for the early recruiting or how it all got started. It's hard for me to believe any coach really likes it. My son's program is about as high profile as you can get and I've had the coaches tell me how they hate the early recruiting, but they have to do it to keep up. If they don't, others will. The simple solution is one that was mentioned earlier. Sign the LOI when you are offered. That will bind player AND program. The early recruiting would stop immediately for the most part.
My son is a 2020 (9th grade), and the recruiting game IS happening earlier and earlier. I know of more than ten local 2020 kids who are being asked to unofficially visit colleges to "check out the program and facilities", or they are being flat out told "Call me when you are ready to accept offers."