Ran across this over on FB. What do you think of the new changes?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
How are kids supposed to decide on committing to a program without seeing all the facilities? I suppose that is the point, trying to slow early commits.
I was going to say — isn't that the point?
Thanks for sharing. Interesting. So, I'm hopeful this helps the recruit and his parents make more informed decisions. There is a lot of market and peer pressure to verbally commit....I've seen it up close. We'll see if these rules or guidelines help with (possibly) the first & biggest decision this young man will make at a ripe old age of 16.
It takes a lot of discipline and self-awareness to say "no" at 16 and wait for something better to come around.
Good luck!
I’m not optimistic that this change will benefit the early recruit. There will still be pressure to commit, but with less information. If my freshman has interest from Florida, Vandy and UNC… he’s going to want to commit. Now his only direct contact with those programs will be on the phone and electronic?
So right now is the time to go on unofficial visits if you have a sophomore or freshman wanting to takes a look at schools up close is my assumption. What is the date that is considered next school year start? We are putting the brakes on a bit, hoping to just make HS and travel a good experience. It was crazy starting to have conversations with my 15 yr old on where he thinks that he would want to go to college. It also may have been putting a little more game pressure on him thinking he had to perform great every moment of every game. An attempt to try to be on radar by sophomore year or sooner. We had a discussion about these rules last night. I think the summer after Sophomore year would be more fitting for unofficial visits. By then Reality may have started to set in on what kind of school you should even be looking at. I can see it also making kids wait to commit. Which means kids that would be out of the recruiting pool naturally because of being an early commit, will now be mixed in with the rest. Definitely going to be bidding wars, and LOTS of pressure on our young ball players.
Why are athletes being treated differently from students looking at the academic/social side of a campus?
We began visiting campus's by eighth grade. Not for baseball - but to begin to get the kids a familiarity with college campuses in general. As the years passed, both kids would occasionally even walk into various academic departments and find professors and engage (happened, for example, before junior year, at Davidson, UNC, Princeton, Dartmouth, Hopkins) which would inevitably lead to a tour of the department. By 10th grade, S would drop in to the baseball coaches office (transcript in hand); he would be treated pretty much the same as a random academic department drop-in (I.e., a tour if time was right).
So, why is it fine for my engineering inclined daughter to hunt down the head of the engineering department during 10th grade spring break and discuss admissions and facilities, but not fine for my baseball inclined son to do the same thing for baseball?
I have mixed feelings about this. I think you will see attendance at Camps go through the roof though.
I think it would have made more sense to make the start of unofficial visits the end of sophomore school year so you could have that summer. Now by waiting until the start of the junior year, kids may have to miss school....or football practices if they are playing football also. I guess this doesn't stop kids from visiting the school, and if the baseball field happens to be "unlocked" I'm sure they are free to just "walk in and take a look around" 
you just won't get a guided tour. Why didn't they just do it the easy way. Schools can't offer....and kids can't commit until the start of their sophomore year?
I don’t think the rule change is going to help recruits or deter early commitments. Coaches will find a way to work around the rule like they do with all the other rules. Now kids will have to pay for a camp to see athletic facilities?
I don't like it. It is hard enough to make decisions on where you might fit, but even harder if you can't see the program. It is hard logistically and financially to do all of your visits in a short period of time. We've done several and I still think my son has a hard time knowing if a school seems right and we have a lot more to see. That said, I think they have been beneficial. My son is a 2020, so does this mean that he would be able to meet with coaches during visits most of next year?
baseballhs posted:I don't like it. It is hard enough to make decisions on where you might fit, but even harder if you can't see the program. It is hard logistically and financially to do all of your visits in a short period of time. We've done several and I still think my son has a hard time knowing if a school seems right and we have a lot more to see. That said, I think they have been beneficial. My son is a 2020, so does this mean that he would be able to meet with coaches during visits most of next year?
According to the rule, he can after the start of junior year.....which I'm thinking that they will mean when school starts in the fall. As I said earlier, why not make it the end of their sophomore year....so they could visit this summer. College coaches are practicing in the fall....it's a very busy time for them...seems like it would make more sense to allow the visits over the summer....kids don't miss school and coaches/teams aren't practicing.
Agree, sophomore season makes sense. Now colleges will make a ton of money on camps. Might be the logic in some ways. I also believe that you should be able to pop in and at least see what the school has to offer, whether it may academic or athletic that should not matter.
MidAtlanticDad posted:I’m not optimistic that this change will benefit the early recruit. There will still be pressure to commit, but with less information. If my freshman has interest from Florida, Vandy and UNC… he’s going to want to commit. Now his only direct contact with those programs will be on the phone and electronic?
bullet34 posted:So right now is the time to go on unofficial visits if you have a sophomore or freshman wanting to takes a look at schools up close is my assumption. What is the date that is considered next school year start? We are putting the brakes on a bit, hoping to just make HS and travel a good experience. It was crazy starting to have conversations with my 15 yr old on where he thinks that he would want to go to college. It also may have been putting a little more game pressure on him thinking he had to perform great every moment of every game. An attempt to try to be on radar by sophomore year or sooner. We had a discussion about these rules last night. I think the summer after Sophomore year would be more fitting for unofficial visits. By then Reality may have started to set in on what kind of school you should even be looking at. I can see it also making kids wait to commit. Which means kids that would be out of the recruiting pool naturally because of being an early commit, will now be mixed in with the rest. Definitely going to be bidding wars, and LOTS of pressure on our young ball players.
I agree with both of these lines of thinking, but let me add different possible angle. The bidding war for the younger kids (mainly talking 2021s) is likely to start now and run until the changes take affect in a few months. I've already personally seen a big upswing in 2021 commits in this region over the past 6 months. Factor in that there is likely to be a bit of panic by both coaches and players to get a verbal commit locked down before the changes this fall.
My fear is that the coaches, who have never had a downside to offering early verbals, will make as many verbal commits as they can before the change (and maybe this trend will continue after). They will do this knowing that they are going to cut a bunch of players right before signing. But they don't make the cuts until right before signing date which is still fall Senior year. They have made many more verbal commits than they need so they make the cuts and still have full rosters. Therefore, all the good quality players who don't commit early lose out unless they developed into a flat out stud who nobody would pass up.
It also says recruiting conversations cannot take place at camps or clinics until Sept. 1 junior year.
baseballhs posted:It also says recruiting conversations cannot take place at camps or clinics until Sept. 1 junior year.
And how exactly are they going to police that!?
I am guessing all of the invites to stay after the camp and tour the facilities will be gone .
I'm guessing that you will have 2/3/4 camps a year. Camps that are "open" to everyone, but only the select few actually are in attendance, and then all kids get the full dog and pony show. Regular camps get the normal treatment.
I could see this summer be a madhouse for the incoming Sophs and Freshman.
Looks like schools may have to spend a lot more money on recruiting. Right now almost all visits are "unofficial" which is a great deal for the schools, because you have to pay. Official visits are now mostly just a victory lap or a perk that happen long after you've committed, and in many cases, after you've signed the LOI. Under this rule, you can't talk to a coach until Sept 1, of Junior year, which is also when you can go on a paid "official" visit.
downside for the schools- it's going to cost a lot more money.
upside for the kids- you are going to know if they are really interested because they'll pay for a visit. If they don't pay, you can bet you are not a priority.
baseballhs posted:I am guessing all of the invites to stay after the camp and tour the facilities will be gone .
For sure. But, they can use parts of the facilities for meetings or various instruction. The bad part is, the coaches won’t be able to pick and choose. It will have to be all participants or none. Unfortunately, the NCAA is getting more and more like our government. Often good intentions, but idiotic outcomes.
This new rule may make the recruiting process less of a gamble for both school and student/athlete.
From an academic standpoint, most students do not know standardized test scores until middle of their junior year of high school. Yes there may be an exception, but typically after taking the test at least a couple of times junior year the realistic score will then be determined. This may deter the students and schools from recruiting kids that may not be able to even get admitted. Not sure why a kid may commit to Duke…Vandy..etc. in 9th grade only to find out they can qualify academically.
From an athletic standpoint, typically a player is in the 9th grade will not even have begun to reach their potential baseball skills or even worse, they have reached max potential and have been passed by other. HC/RC can’t possibly know until they see some playing experience in more advanced ages (16-17) against other quality high school and travel caliber play. We can all agree that “projection” is the key evaluation component that most HC/RC use but what about seeing the “player” over a period of time rather than rely purely on size, hype or other criteria used by the HC/RC.
The disadvantage to kids is that if you are interested in 5 schools, how likely can you fit in a visit to all of them after Sept.1 of your junior year? Why don't they just say that a school cannot present a scholarship offer until that date?
There will also be ways around this. They can still set up special tours of facilities for recruits and just not have them meet the coaches.
Goosegg posted:Why are athletes being treated differently from students looking at the academic/social side of a campus?
We began visiting campus's by eighth grade. Not for baseball - but to begin to get the kids a familiarity with college campuses in general. As the years passed, both kids would occasionally even walk into various academic departments and find professors and engage (happened, for example, before junior year, at Davidson, UNC, Princeton, Dartmouth, Hopkins) which would inevitably lead to a tour of the department. By 10th grade, S would drop in to the baseball coaches office (transcript in hand); he would be treated pretty much the same as a random academic department drop-in (I.e., a tour if time was right).
So, why is it fine for my engineering inclined daughter to hunt down the head of the engineering department during 10th grade spring break and discuss admissions and facilities, but not fine for my baseball inclined son to do the same thing for baseball?
I agree, but why can't I pay tuition for the kid of a good friend who can't afford it? I mean, if he's studying engineering I can, but if he's playing a sport I can't. Lots of NCAA rules have unintended (negative) consequences for kids, but that doesn't seem to stop them.
NCAA
A row of fools on a row of stools. They did nothing to help the recruit. They did nothing to help their constituency (themselves). Just seeded more confusion by changing the process and instituting more rules. Nice road trip to miss first couple of weeks of school coming up start of Jr year for some.
This may help the 2020 recruit, being able to take an official visit start of Jr year. My guess is they will realize this error and close that loophole.
Tweet from RC at Yale addressing rule change:
Advice for high school recruits per new NCAA legislation. Yes, official visits can now take place your junior year. But unless rules have changed, you will need to have taken the SAT/ACT prior to your visit. Summer/ fall testing dates now all the more important- plan accordingly https://t.co/NuJSPnl4Ds
(I guess this is an example of unintended consequences.)
Breaking news:
Just heard from multiple sources that the rule goes into effect next Wednesday (4/25).
What?!? We have to UVs planned for May.
I had read that was when they were going to vote to finalize it. Are you saying the rules were going to affect then?
pabaseballdad posted:Looks like schools may have to spend a lot more money on recruiting. Right now almost all visits are "unofficial" which is a great deal for the schools, because you have to pay. Official visits are now mostly just a victory lap or a perk that happen long after you've committed, and in many cases, after you've signed the LOI. Under this rule, you can't talk to a coach until Sept 1, of Junior year, which is also when you can go on a paid "official" visit.
downside for the schools- it's going to cost a lot more money.
upside for the kids- you are going to know if they are really interested because they'll pay for a visit. If they don't pay, you can bet you are not a priority.
I was thinking the same thing, PABaseballDad. Right now the UVs don't cost the program too much -- just three or four hours of the coach's time, and zero dollars out of pocket -- and they can help them gauge the recruit's interest. But the calculus will change when the school is paying real dollars for the visit.
baseballhs posted:I had read that was when they were going to vote to finalize it. Are you saying the rules were going to affect then?
So, head of travel told us that he confirmed 4/25 as the “go live” date for the new rule.
My son has UV’s set up for tomorrow and 5/5. As it was explained to me, we can get tickets and tour tomorrow with baseball coaches w/o issue.
We have not heard from the school about the May 5th UV but, according to travel coach, we would have to get our own tickets and can NOT talk to the baseball coaches during that visit.
I don’t know how kids will get to build a relationship with coaches before their junior year. I would have understood if they moved the ability to offer and commit back but not sure how this solution is better.
This will greatly reduce camps and clinics because one of the main reasons for going was to have time on campus with coaches. I was told that the interpretation is that no coach can have individual time with a player even for instruction because of the perception.
I think it will also reduce coaches being at 14U and maybe some 15U tournaments. I understand both sides but I think it will take less pressure off kids having to make these life changing decisions early. But September 1 will be a nightmare for kids and high schools. Those kids that are highly sought after will get bombarded at 12:01 on September 1.
Goosegg posted:Why are athletes being treated differently from students looking at the academic/social side of a campus?
We began visiting campus's by eighth grade. Not for baseball - but to begin to get the kids a familiarity with college campuses in general. As the years passed, both kids would occasionally even walk into various academic departments and find professors and engage (happened, for example, before junior year, at Davidson, UNC, Princeton, Dartmouth, Hopkins) which would inevitably lead to a tour of the department. By 10th grade, S would drop in to the baseball coaches office (transcript in hand); he would be treated pretty much the same as a random academic department drop-in (I.e., a tour if time was right).
So, why is it fine for my engineering inclined daughter to hunt down the head of the engineering department during 10th grade spring break and discuss admissions and facilities, but not fine for my baseball inclined son to do the same thing for baseball?
I agree. But your daughter isnt being pressured to verbal for engineering.
Making the date 6/1 instread of 9/1 would have been better. It would have provided kids the ability to make summer visits and not miss school.
hshuler posted:I don’t know how kids will get to build a relationship with coaches before their junior year. I would have understood if they moved the ability to offer and commit back but not sure how this solution is better.
I think that's the whole idea Shu. Coaches have junior year to get to know the player but probably watch way before anyone realizes coach is watching, that's how it used to be. I think it also gives the coaches a break. I have never been a fan of recruits verballing too early, not 100% sure about these new rules, but I understand from a coaches perspective how it might be beneficial to everyone. I think it also gives some less physically mature players a chance to mature and a chance where sometimes these days it's hard for many to have that edge over the premium recruits.
FWIW, DK met Sully his junior year, although pressed for a year to committ, it didn't happen until senior summer. This also gave him a chance to not get injured from pitching too much (and we know it happens) and stay healthy.
Sometimes I don't really understand why players need to visit every school within the next 5 neighboring states, kidding but you get the idea. It just might not make decisions as hard as it is for many.
JMO
From what I understand, I like the new rule. My 2021 was sterling to feel pressure, as some of his travel teammates have been committing. A couple before they even played a game of high school ball. A question I have is how will this impact school camps? He wanted to go to the Oregon camp this summer, because we will be up there anyway to visit family. Can they have the camp as usual, but just not talk about recruiting? A baseball camp where they just talk baseball?
This won't help with pressure. Schools will still see kids at camps or tournaments and contact them. The kids just won't be able to see what the programs have to offer like they did before. Kids will still verbally commit. I don't see how this changes that.
There is no way that recruits having less information about a school, and a school having less information about a recruits is going to make the process better.
NCAA is a governing body created by the schools to serve their interest. And that is just what they are doing.
BTW, it's the same for Softball in the NCAA PR release, with the additional restriction that they are not allowed to call the coaches until Sept 1st of Jr year. Don't be surprised if the rule is expanded when the cabal votes and the new rules are enacted.
Go44dad posted:There is no way that recruits having less information about a school, and a school having less information about a recruits is going to make the process better.
NCAA is a governing body created by the schools to serve their interest. And that is just what they are doing.
BTW, it's the same for Softball in the NCAA PR release, with the additional restriction that they are not allowed to call the coaches until Sept 1st of Jr year. Don't be surprised if the rule is expanded when the cabal votes and the new rules are enacted.
One last vent. Lots of HS to be missed for recruits starting Sept 1st of Junior year.
According to a source that I know 
, as per John McCormack, the new rules go into effect August, 2018.
TPM posted:According to a source that I know
Correct, the official visit portion does go into effect August 1.
The unofficial visit piece goes into effect next Thursday if approved by BoD during next Wednesday’s vote.
According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
TPM posted:According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
Very confusing.
Originally, one recruiting coordinator said everything was immediate with no contact at all until junior year. Another said we have six days to get recruits on campus so yes, there was lots of confusion.
Here’s how it was explained to me:
The unofficial visits for freshmen and sophomores (facilities tours by coaches, coaches leaving tickets and baseball coaches meeting with recruits on campus) stop next week if approved on Wednesday. I’ve been told that it will definitely pass.
No freshmen or sophomores baseball recruits will be on campus after Wednesday. Freshmen/sophomores will still be allowed to call coaches when facilitated by a travel or high school coach. They considered removing all contact until junior year which (I believe) softball did implement.
Interesting side bar, one coach said they voted against new rule because they thought it was all or nothing and didn’t realize that it was three (1. Allowing OV’s for juniors 2. Not allowing UV’s prior to junior year & 3. Forbidding all contact before junior year) separate proposals.
The official visits for juniors go into effect on August 1 although no official visits can happen before Sept 1. I guess the one month grace period is for planning.
Thanks Shu. Maybe by midweek, all will finalized.
TPM posted:Thanks Shu. Maybe by midweek, all will finalized.
No problem. Sounds like there is still lots of confusion but I think you’re right. Things will be more clear next week.
So to clarify. Current 2020s will be able to resume UV on Sept. 1 if they haven’t taken the SAT, or can do OV, only if they have?
baseballhs posted:So to clarify. Current 2020s will be able to resume UV on Sept. 1 if they haven’t taken the SAT, or can do OV, only if they have?
Wait, I thought that SAT/ACT requirement was just Yale (in other words, they're not paying for an OV if they don't know what your SAT/ACT score is). I don't think that is a general requirement.
For 2020s, I think non-local UVs (anything that involves flights or hotels) will decline a lot. Say an out-of-state coach invites you to visit after Sept 1st, but isn't willing to pay for the visit -- would you spend $1000 or more out of pocket for a UV in that scenario?
2019Dad posted:baseballhs posted:So to clarify. Current 2020s will be able to resume UV on Sept. 1 if they haven’t taken the SAT, or can do OV, only if they have?
Wait, I thought that SAT/ACT requirement was just Yale (in other words, they're not paying for an OV if they don't know what your SAT/ACT score is). I don't think that is a general requirement.
For 2020s, I think non-local UVs (anything that involves flights or hotels) will decline a lot. Say an out-of-state coach invites you to visit after Sept 1st, but isn't willing to pay for the visit -- would you spend $1000 or more out of pocket for a UV in that scenario?
Someone mentioned the SAT scores earlier. I hadn't ever really paid attention to the OV rules because it was mostly for kids who had already committed and were meeting the other commits senior year. My son is a 2020 and we are in the middle of everything. We have already done several UV and were planning to do 2 more after playoffs. This really changes the dynamic for summer. I don't think schools are going to pay for a ton of OV for everyone they are recruiting when most of the prospects will not have seen the facilities yet. I also feel like this may lead to them making more offer than normal because they won't really know where the recruit stands. It will work itself out but I think it presents the most issue for the 2020s. That said, if I was willing to pay for the UV before, why wouldn't I now? Also, will there be limits on how many OV they can take?
baseballhs posted:2019Dad posted:baseballhs posted:So to clarify. Current 2020s will be able to resume UV on Sept. 1 if they haven’t taken the SAT, or can do OV, only if they have?
Wait, I thought that SAT/ACT requirement was just Yale (in other words, they're not paying for an OV if they don't know what your SAT/ACT score is). I don't think that is a general requirement.
For 2020s, I think non-local UVs (anything that involves flights or hotels) will decline a lot. Say an out-of-state coach invites you to visit after Sept 1st, but isn't willing to pay for the visit -- would you spend $1000 or more out of pocket for a UV in that scenario?
Someone mentioned the SAT scores earlier. I hadn't ever really paid attention to the OV rules because it was mostly for kids who had already committed and were meeting the other commits senior year. My son is a 2020 and we are in the middle of everything. We have already done several UV and were planning to do 2 more after playoffs. This really changes the dynamic for summer. I don't think schools are going to pay for a ton of OV for everyone they are recruiting when most of the prospects will not have seen the facilities yet. I also feel like this may lead to them making more offer than normal because they won't really know where the recruit stands. It will work itself out but I think it presents the most issue for the 2020s. That said, if I was willing to pay for the UV before, why wouldn't I now? Also, will there be limits on how many OV they can take?
As 2019 said, I don’t think ACT/SAT is required before OV. I think for a school like Yale, they would want to make sure that a kid can qualify before paying for an OV.
Also, I believe each recruit is allowed five OV’s.
Lastly, 2019 brings up another great point. It’s probably not a big deal to take a UV within a couple hundred miles. If it would require a flight, maybe a parent now thinks “if they are really interested, why don’t they foot the bill for it?”
I may be wrong but transcripts and at least one test score is required for Div 1. The recruit has to show that he is eligible threw admissions.
But that was under the old rules, not sure now.
You must have an ACT/SAT test score to take an official visit. It can be an 11 on the ACT, but you can’t take an official without it.
For 2020s who are already in the process of corresponding with particular coaches, talking timeline, etc., does this speed up/slow down/have no effect on offers that might arise from those relationships?
baseballhs posted:That said, if I was willing to pay for the UV before, why wouldn't I now? Also, will there be limits on how many OV they can take?
Here's my thought process. Under the old rules, the school simply wasn't allowed to pay for a visit for a junior, so the only way for the kid to visit before senior year would be for the parent to foot the bill. You had no choice. Sometimes the school is super interested (offer forthcoming on visit) and sometimes mildly interested, but it can be hard to tease that out under the current rules. Under the new rules, the school can put its money where its mouth is, so to speak, so I think it changes the calculus for the parent. JMO
TPM posted:I may be wrong but transcripts and at least one test score is required for Div 1. The recruit has to show that he is eligible threw admissions.
But that was under the old rules, not sure now.
d-mac posted:You must have an ACT/SAT test score to take an official visit. It can be an 11 on the ACT, but you can’t take an official without it.
Thanks for clarifying!
hshuler posted:TPM posted:According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
Very confusing.
Originally, one recruiting coordinator said everything was immediate with no contact at all until junior year. Another said we have six days to get recruits on campus so yes, there was lots of confusion.
Here’s how it was explained to me:
The unofficial visits for freshmen and sophomores (facilities tours by coaches, coaches leaving tickets and baseball coaches meeting with recruits on campus) stop next week if approved on Wednesday. I’ve been told that it will definitely pass.
No freshmen or sophomores baseball recruits will be on campus after Wednesday. Freshmen/sophomores will still be allowed to call coaches when facilitated by a travel or high school coach. They considered removing all contact until junior year which (I believe) softball did implement.
Interesting side bar, one coach said they voted against new rule because they thought it was all or nothing and didn’t realize that it was three (1. Allowing OV’s for juniors 2. Not allowing UV’s prior to junior year & 3. Forbidding all contact before junior year) separate proposals.
The official visits for juniors go into effect on August 1 although no official visits can happen before Sept 1. I guess the one month grace period is for planning.
Shu,
Interesting that the players will still be allowed to contact the coaches. I assumed that was the reason for the "no 3rd party contact" clause.
Does anyone know how the contact rule changes are after Sept 1 of Junior year? Are coaches allowed to openly contact players via text/phone call throughout Junior and Senior year?
LeftyDadP9 posted:hshuler posted:TPM posted:According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
Very confusing.
Originally, one recruiting coordinator said everything was immediate with no contact at all until junior year. Another said we have six days to get recruits on campus so yes, there was lots of confusion.
Here’s how it was explained to me:
The unofficial visits for freshmen and sophomores (facilities tours by coaches, coaches leaving tickets and baseball coaches meeting with recruits on campus) stop next week if approved on Wednesday. I’ve been told that it will definitely pass.
No freshmen or sophomores baseball recruits will be on campus after Wednesday. Freshmen/sophomores will still be allowed to call coaches when facilitated by a travel or high school coach. They considered removing all contact until junior year which (I believe) softball did implement.
Interesting side bar, one coach said they voted against new rule because they thought it was all or nothing and didn’t realize that it was three (1. Allowing OV’s for juniors 2. Not allowing UV’s prior to junior year & 3. Forbidding all contact before junior year) separate proposals.
The official visits for juniors go into effect on August 1 although no official visits can happen before Sept 1. I guess the one month grace period is for planning.
Shu,
Interesting that the players will still be allowed to contact the coaches. I assumed that was the reason for the "no 3rd party contact" clause.
Does anyone know how the contact rule changes are after Sept 1 of Junior year? Are coaches allowed to openly contact players via text/phone call throughout Junior and Senior year?
From what I was told by one particular RC, the two biggest points of contention for them were the UV rule going to Sept of junior year (they wanted Sept 1 sophomore year) and no contact rule.
The contact rule as far as phone calls/texts have not changed. Players can still call/text coaches but coaches cannot call/text players until Sept 1 of the junior year.
hshuler posted:LeftyDadP9 posted:hshuler posted:TPM posted:According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
Very confusing.
Originally, one recruiting coordinator said everything was immediate with no contact at all until junior year. Another said we have six days to get recruits on campus so yes, there was lots of confusion.
Here’s how it was explained to me:
The unofficial visits for freshmen and sophomores (facilities tours by coaches, coaches leaving tickets and baseball coaches meeting with recruits on campus) stop next week if approved on Wednesday. I’ve been told that it will definitely pass.
No freshmen or sophomores baseball recruits will be on campus after Wednesday. Freshmen/sophomores will still be allowed to call coaches when facilitated by a travel or high school coach. They considered removing all contact until junior year which (I believe) softball did implement.
Interesting side bar, one coach said they voted against new rule because they thought it was all or nothing and didn’t realize that it was three (1. Allowing OV’s for juniors 2. Not allowing UV’s prior to junior year & 3. Forbidding all contact before junior year) separate proposals.
The official visits for juniors go into effect on August 1 although no official visits can happen before Sept 1. I guess the one month grace period is for planning.
Shu,
Interesting that the players will still be allowed to contact the coaches. I assumed that was the reason for the "no 3rd party contact" clause.
Does anyone know how the contact rule changes are after Sept 1 of Junior year? Are coaches allowed to openly contact players via text/phone call throughout Junior and Senior year?From what I was told by one particular RC, the two biggest points of contention for them were the UV rule going to Sept of junior year (they wanted Sept 1 sophomore year) and no contact rule.
The contact rule as far as phone calls/texts have not changed. Players can still call/text coaches but coaches cannot call/text players until Sept 1 of the junior year.
So there is no chance they take away the ability to call? I have told my son to make all his calls in the next couple of days in case.
baseballhs posted:hshuler posted:LeftyDadP9 posted:hshuler posted:TPM posted:According to a new update rules are in effect immediately?
I think this is confusing for everyone but this comes from a compliance office.
Very confusing.
Originally, one recruiting coordinator said everything was immediate with no contact at all until junior year. Another said we have six days to get recruits on campus so yes, there was lots of confusion.
Here’s how it was explained to me:
The unofficial visits for freshmen and sophomores (facilities tours by coaches, coaches leaving tickets and baseball coaches meeting with recruits on campus) stop next week if approved on Wednesday. I’ve been told that it will definitely pass.
No freshmen or sophomores baseball recruits will be on campus after Wednesday. Freshmen/sophomores will still be allowed to call coaches when facilitated by a travel or high school coach. They considered removing all contact until junior year which (I believe) softball did implement.
Interesting side bar, one coach said they voted against new rule because they thought it was all or nothing and didn’t realize that it was three (1. Allowing OV’s for juniors 2. Not allowing UV’s prior to junior year & 3. Forbidding all contact before junior year) separate proposals.
The official visits for juniors go into effect on August 1 although no official visits can happen before Sept 1. I guess the one month grace period is for planning.
Shu,
Interesting that the players will still be allowed to contact the coaches. I assumed that was the reason for the "no 3rd party contact" clause.
Does anyone know how the contact rule changes are after Sept 1 of Junior year? Are coaches allowed to openly contact players via text/phone call throughout Junior and Senior year?From what I was told by one particular RC, the two biggest points of contention for them were the UV rule going to Sept of junior year (they wanted Sept 1 sophomore year) and no contact rule.
The contact rule as far as phone calls/texts have not changed. Players can still call/text coaches but coaches cannot call/text players until Sept 1 of the junior year.
So there is no chance they take away the ability to call? I have told my son to make all his calls in the next couple of days in case.
I was told on Saturday and this morning by coaches at two different schools that the ability to call coaches would not change.
Interesting twist: "Lacrosse is already using this model and an NCAA rule interpretation is that messages may not be passed through any third parties in an effort to continue recruiting communications. That would be considered an NCAA rule violation." So it sounds like the freshman or sophomore player can call the college coach, but the college coach can't ask someone (like a travel coach) to ask the player to call.
2019Dad posted:Interesting twist: "Lacrosse is already using this model and an NCAA rule interpretation is that messages may not be passed through any third parties in an effort to continue recruiting communications. That would be considered an NCAA rule violation." So it sounds like the freshman or sophomore player can call the college coach, but the college coach can't ask someone (like a travel coach) to ask the player to call.
I wonder what the new and creative loophole for this will be. Asking in code words?
1. Hey travel ball coach, can you make sure that Timmy, Justin, and Tom have my number, thanks ;-)
2. Is Jared's phone working?
3. I sure hope to see Billy on campus in May.
Oh goodness, this could get interesting!
2019Dad posted:Interesting twist: "Lacrosse is already using this model and an NCAA rule interpretation is that messages may not be passed through any third parties in an effort to continue recruiting communications. That would be considered an NCAA rule violation." So it sounds like the freshman or sophomore player can call the college coach, but the college coach can't ask someone (like a travel coach) to ask the player to call.
So basically, a player can still text a coach saying “I’ll call you Wednesday at 8:30 and if you can’t answer, I’ll try again at 9.”
Third parties are needed to set up the initial call so I guess “technically” players shouldn’t be able to talk with coaches (unless a relationship has been established already) before their junior year going forward, right?
I would guess if they call the travel coach to ask about you, you should attempt a call. Or they send letters about camp with the RC or PCs cell phone number.
I hate this new rule thing. I read an article from volleyball coaches who also expressed concern for the 2020s (who they said would be most negatively effected). She said that many had plane tickets and UV on the schedule and that it didn't seem that there was a lot of consideration for that. At the very least, there should be a grace period.
hshuler posted:2019Dad posted:Interesting twist: "Lacrosse is already using this model and an NCAA rule interpretation is that messages may not be passed through any third parties in an effort to continue recruiting communications. That would be considered an NCAA rule violation." So it sounds like the freshman or sophomore player can call the college coach, but the college coach can't ask someone (like a travel coach) to ask the player to call.
So basically, a player can still text a coach saying “I’ll call you Wednesday at 8:30 and if you can’t answer, I’ll try again at 9.”
Third parties are needed to set up the initial call so I guess “technically” players shouldn’t be able to talk with coaches (unless a relationship has been established already) before their junior year going forward, right?
This is all so confusing, I'm hopeful there will be some specific clarification/guidance when the rule change officially occurs.
What is meant by the phrase "unless a relationship has been established already?" How/when does that prior relationship get established?
baseballhs posted:I hate this new rule thing. I read an article from volleyball coaches who also expressed concern for the 2020s (who they said would be most negatively effected). She said that many had plane tickets and UV on the schedule and that it didn't seem that there was a lot of consideration for that. At the very least, there should be a grace period.
Good point about pre-purchased UV expenses. The immediacy of the change is what seems to be so surprising to both players and coaches. Or maybe not so much for the coaches. I think all of us knew change was coming, but none of us expected it to occur this abruptly. Perhaps the coaches are feeling that way as well and will consider that in the final vote by implementing some sort of grace period. Or even delaying the implementation by 1 academic year to allow parties on both sides to plan and proceed accordingly. It will interesting to see how it plays it officially on Wednesday.
Zia2021 posted:hshuler posted:2019Dad posted:Interesting twist: "Lacrosse is already using this model and an NCAA rule interpretation is that messages may not be passed through any third parties in an effort to continue recruiting communications. That would be considered an NCAA rule violation." So it sounds like the freshman or sophomore player can call the college coach, but the college coach can't ask someone (like a travel coach) to ask the player to call.
So basically, a player can still text a coach saying “I’ll call you Wednesday at 8:30 and if you can’t answer, I’ll try again at 9.”
Third parties are needed to set up the initial call so I guess “technically” players shouldn’t be able to talk with coaches (unless a relationship has been established already) before their junior year going forward, right?
This is all so confusing, I'm hopeful there will be some specific clarification/guidance when the rule change officially occurs.
What is meant by the phrase "unless a relationship has been established already?" How/when does that prior relationship get established?
“Unless a relationship has been established already” are my words. Meaning that if a kid is already talking to coaches, he doesn’t need a third party to facilitate the communication process.
How does a coach now initiate contact with a freshmen or sophomore without the ability to work through a third party?
I wish I had been able to chime in with comments earlier in this discussion, but I was helping our son move last week and didn't have much time to be on my laptop.
Regarding a comment by PABaseballDad and a few others, it makes sense that schools may need to offer more "official visits", however, Division I programs are limited to no more than 25 official visits during a year (Aug. 1 thru July 31).
An interesting note about this new rule that has nothing to do with baseball and shows how well thought out (NOT) this rule was - Division I swimming and diving programs aren't allowed to place phone calls to prospects until July 1 AFTER the junior year of high school, but they are now allowed to offer an official visit during the junior year????
I reached out to a Division I compliance director who is a very good friend of mine who shared the following information that may be of interest to any of you might have already purchased plane tickets to take unofficial visits - it might be possible to at least get reimbursed for any tickets that you purchased:
"The NCAA has indicated that they understand that there are going to be situations where recruits have planned unofficial visits prior to this legislation going into effect. The NCAA is willing to give schools some leeway in the form of a legislative relief waiver if the following can be shown:
- When is the unofficial visit scheduled to occur?
- Provide contemporaneous documentation to demonstrate when the unofficial visit was scheduled (e.g., plane ticket, hotel room).
- Provide documentation to demonstrate actual and necessary expenses incurred by the prospective student-athlete that are not refundable or recoverable if the visit is cancelled.
- Legislative relief waiver requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration provided to when the visit was scheduled.
- For visits where contemporaneous documentation demonstrates the visit was scheduled prior to January 17, 2018, the staff will consider relief to permit the visit to occur.
- For visits where contemporaneous documentation demonstrates the visit was scheduled between January 17 and April 18, 2018, the staff will consider relief to permit reimbursement to the prospective student-athlete for actual and necessary expenses incurred that are not refundable or recoverable.
- Further, staff is providing limited interpretative flexibility to permit institutions to initiate communication with a prospective student-athlete who has previously scheduled an unofficial visit to occur after April 25, 2018; however, communication is limited to educating the prospective student-athlete regarding the new legislation, cancelling the unofficial visit and gathering information related to a potential waiver request."
---------------------
The reason for the notation of the January 17 date is because that is when the official rule change was proposed and when Division I programs were made aware of the possible change to the rules for unofficial visits. I suggest that you contact the coaches or the athletic compliance office at the university that you were planning to visit if this situation exists for your family or someone you know.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:I wish I had been able to chime in with comments earlier in this discussion, but I was helping our son move last week and didn't have much time to be on my laptop.
Regarding a comment by PABaseballDad and a few others, it makes sense that schools may need to offer more "official visits", however, Division I programs are limited to no more than 25 official visits during a year (Aug. 1 thru July 31).
An interesting note about this new rule that has nothing to do with baseball and shows how well thought out (NOT) this rule was - Division I swimming and diving programs aren't allowed to place phone calls to prospects until July 1 AFTER the junior year of high school, but they are now allowed to offer an official visit during the junior year????
I reached out to a Division I compliance director who is a very good friend of mine who shared the following information that may be of interest to any of you might have already purchased plane tickets to take unofficial visits - it might be possible to at least get reimbursed for any tickets that you purchased:
"The NCAA has indicated that they understand that there are going to be situations where recruits have planned unofficial visits prior to this legislation going into effect. The NCAA is willing to give schools some leeway in the form of a legislative relief waiver if the following can be shown:
- When is the unofficial visit scheduled to occur?
- Provide contemporaneous documentation to demonstrate when the unofficial visit was scheduled (e.g., plane ticket, hotel room).
- Provide documentation to demonstrate actual and necessary expenses incurred by the prospective student-athlete that are not refundable or recoverable if the visit is cancelled.
- Legislative relief waiver requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration provided to when the visit was scheduled.
- For visits where contemporaneous documentation demonstrates the visit was scheduled prior to January 17, 2018, the staff will consider relief to permit the visit to occur.
- For visits where contemporaneous documentation demonstrates the visit was scheduled between January 17 and April 18, 2018, the staff will consider relief to permit reimbursement to the prospective student-athlete for actual and necessary expenses incurred that are not refundable or recoverable.
- Further, staff is providing limited interpretative flexibility to permit institutions to initiate communication with a prospective student-athlete who has previously scheduled an unofficial visit to occur after April 25, 2018; however, communication is limited to educating the prospective student-athlete regarding the new legislation, cancelling the unofficial visit and gathering information related to a potential waiver request."
---------------------
The reason for the notation of the January 17 date is because that is when the official rule change was proposed and when Division I programs were made aware of the possible change to the rules for unofficial visits. I suggest that you contact the coaches or the athletic compliance office at the university that you were planning to visit if this situation exists for your family or someone you know.
Thanks for sharing that additional info.
After my son talked to one of his schools tonight they said the way they were going to do it was likely the way a lot of programs would do it. They are going to have a specific tour you sign up for that is geared for athletes and they are going to make offers over the phone.
This works if you are already connected, not sure how they will handle initial contact.
Pasting part of my comment from another thread I started before being alerted to this one. Some of it is still applicable, some has been touched on above. Thanks to every one for a very interesting discussion.
In general these sound like good changes to me, especially if they do effectively prevent verbal offers prior to a player's junior year of high school.
Perhaps a more interesting question, though, is how these rule changes will distort this summer's recruiting season. For my 2019 it won't matter, nor will it for a 2020. But if I'm a coach seriously looking at a 2021 this summer, am I more inclined to make that offer prior to day one of that 2021's sophomore year? The reason being because once the clock ticks to September 1 this year, I won't be able to host that 2021 on campus for an entire year, nor have (or continue) recruiting conversations with him. In other words, my suggestion is that this summer may prove a windfall for 2021 players hoping for offers.
I'm sure the good folks at PG would be able to look through their commitment numbers to see if this actually bears out. I've for a long time wanted to record the dates of the commitments as they are posted on their site, just so we can speak a little more accurately about when most commitments are made (knowing full well PG-listed commitments are not the entire universe of commitments). I'm of the mind that many people on these boards overestimate how early most offers are actually made, but that's another topic altogether.
The other aspect of these rule changes that will be interesting to see play out is in terms of camps, clinics, and showcases. Not this summer, but next summer it would seem that coaches running their camps will have to separate their sophomores from their juniors when they give their canned recruiting spiels. And as to the practical aspect of not talking to sophomores, that indeed will be difficult unless these players are separated altogether. Think about Headfirst and the way the coaches on the field currently are allowed to talk to any player they want. It was helpful for my 2019, last summer a sophomore, to be able to interact with coaches and see that they were just as human as the rest of us. Next summer he wouldn't have that same chance. And will Headfirst have to offer Junior/Senior only clinics and separate out the underclassmen? And how would they get college coaches to come to the underclass camps? Does it mean for coaches a greater emphasis on scouting tournaments and high school games, the latter being terribly inefficient? Would love to hear if I'm whiffing on all this, but has Headfirst just had a certain percentage of their market shorn away?
New rules don't affect football or basketball. "Son we want you to make an unofficial visit for football and while you are here you might as well tour the baseball facilities since you play baseball" loopholes are there for schools willing to bend the rules.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
JeffnNYC posted:Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
Your are wrong. They can bring them in on UV as juniors and then invite their signed recruits later as seniors for OV, as most do now. If they have more than the allotted amount then possibly they have too many signees and that should be a concern for everyone.
The whole idea behind these new proposals was to slow down the process and ensure that coaches weren't offering because they didn't want the competition to have them offering too early when the HS student really wasn't prepared to make a decision.
There are over 300 D1 programs and most really don't offer recruits until their junior year.
TPM posted:JeffnNYC posted:Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
Your are wrong. They can bring them in on UV as juniors and then invite their signed recruits later as seniors for OV, as most do now. If they have more than the allotted amount then possibly they have too many signers and that should be a concern for everyone.
The whole idea behind these new proposals was to slow down the process and ensure that coaches weren't offering because they didn't want the competition to have them offering too early when the HS student really wasn't prepared to make a decision.
There are over 300 D1 programs and most really don't offer recruits until their junior year.
I don’t think much changes at all outside of how they make initial contact. Not sure how that will play. There are still going to be tons of offers and early commits.
Does anyone have the final official wording?
Yes, for which one?
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:Yes, for which one?
I'd like to see the official wording for anything that applies to baseball. There was some questions about how the language would be regarding UV's and who from the campus could talk to a potential recruit. I also heard something about red-shirting, as well as coach communication with intermediaries...so...yeah...everything that could be baseball related.
I had a feeling this might happen. Requesting "anything" or "everything" sounds more appropriate for a paid consultation.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:I had a feeling this might happen. Requesting "anything" or "everything" sounds more appropriate for a paid consultation.
I’m sure between google and all of the emails coming out we can piece it together. I’m confused as to why you offered....
I was willing to help out as I often try to do, but I think you have to agree that Girl's reply was very broad when I asked "which one?"
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:I had a feeling this might happen. Requesting "anything" or "everything" sounds more appropriate for a paid consultation.
Wasn't meaning it like that, I just wanted the final wording. Of course I'd rather just have the baseball relevant stuff but if I must sort through other stuff then i guess I must
TPM posted:JeffnNYC posted:Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
Your are wrong. They can bring them in on UV as juniors and then invite their signed recruits later as seniors for OV, as most do now.
Here's my thinking on how it changes coach's decision making in a potentially costlier way:
Prospect A is a top rated catcher who is known to be talking seriously to five different programs heading into the start of his junior year. He's rebuffed offers from lesser programs and now tells the coaches at his top five schools that he's seriously interested but would need an OV before making a decision. Starting September 1 of his junior year, that's now an option that can be put on the table in a way that it couldn't before. Sure, he could take UV's, but since he's a national caliber prospect from a low-income family interested in Miami, Arizona State, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss, there's no way he could afford to make all those UV's. So now if I'm a coach at one of these schools and I really want this kid to be my starting catcher in three years time, I'm going to shell out for a OV to keep myself in the running. Under the current rules, that arms race wasn't an option. If the kid exhausts his five allowed OV's, then one prospect has eaten up part of the budget's of four programs where he won't end up committing.
This is not to suggest this will always be the case, but as the current system stands coaches can very easily budget their OV's to match the number of recruits they plan to bring in for any given class. They are allowed no more than 25 total for any given class if I'm not mistaken, but I doubt very much that any program ever funds 25 OVs from a single class under the current rules. More likely 8-15, at most. The OV is more of a team building device for guys already signed than it is a recruiting tool. Now that changes. Unless I'm missing something about how the new rules will work, this makes the OV a greater part of a coach's arsenal and those schools who can afford it will now be able to 'use' OV's to get the top prospects.
I read somewhere-- I think it was in an article about the new Boise State program --that the average D1 college loses (in other words, costs) about $960,000 a year. It's a complete guess, but lets just say your average official visit for programs like Vanderbilt or Stanford that recruit nationally is about $2000. (Flights, Hotels, Meals, Staff Time, Etc). That means your current budget per year is about $20,000 for 10 OVs. This new rule change will potentially double that to $40,000 a year. It's not going to break the bank, but neither is a five percent increase in costs chump change for coaches dealing with impecunious athletic directors looking to control expense in non-revenue generating sports.
If I'm still wrong, please tell me where my logic train derails.
JeffnNYC posted:TPM posted:JeffnNYC posted:Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
Your are wrong. They can bring them in on UV as juniors and then invite their signed recruits later as seniors for OV, as most do now.
Here's my thinking on how it changes coach's decision making in a potentially costlier way:
Prospect A is a top rated catcher who is known to be talking seriously to five different programs heading into the start of his junior year. He's rebuffed offers from lesser programs and now tells the coaches at his top five schools that he's seriously interested but would need an OV before making a decision. Starting September 1 of his junior year, that's now an option that can be put on the table in a way that it couldn't before. Sure, he could take UV's, but since he's a national caliber prospect from a low-income family interested in Miami, Arizona State, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss, there's no way he could afford to make all those UV's. So now if I'm a coach at one of these schools and I really want this kid to be my starting catcher in three years time, I'm going to shell out for a OV to keep myself in the running. Under the current rules, that arms race wasn't an option. If the kid exhausts his five allowed OV's, then one prospect has eaten up part of the budget's of four programs where he won't end up committing.
This is not to suggest this will always be the case, but as the current system stands coaches can very easily budget their OV's to match the number of recruits they plan to bring in for any given class. They are allowed no more than 25 total for any given class if I'm not mistaken, but I doubt very much that any program ever funds 25 OVs from a single class under the current rules. More likely 8-15, at most. The OV is more of a team building device for guys already signed than it is a recruiting tool. Now that changes. Unless I'm missing something about how the new rules will work, this makes the OV a greater part of a coach's arsenal and those schools who can afford it will now be able to 'use' OV's to get the top prospects.
I read somewhere-- I think it was in an article about the new Boise State program --that the average D1 college loses (in other words, costs) about $960,000 a year. It's a complete guess, but lets just say your average official visit for programs like Vanderbilt or Stanford that recruit nationally is about $2000. (Flights, Hotels, Meals, Staff Time, Etc). That means your current budget per year is about $20,000 for 10 OVs. This new rule change will potentially double that to $40,000 a year. It's not going to break the bank, but neither is a five percent increase in costs chump change for coaches dealing with impecunious athletic directors looking to control expense in non-revenue generating sports.
If I'm still wrong, please tell me where my logic train derails.
Most rosters are filled with state recruits with exceptions to the larger programs who can afford it with rich alumni programs that subsidizes costs.
It doesn't cost 2k. The students transportation is taken care of and hotel accommodations with a preferred vendor is nothing for 2 nights.
Stop trying to figure out logistics you are not familiar with.
Who the heck wants to go to Boise?
JeffnNYC posted:TPM posted:JeffnNYC posted:Tell me if I'm wrong, but coaches don't like this new OV rule because they will end up having to spend more money to bring their recruiting targets to campus during their junior year whereas under the current rules they get the vast majority of their verbal commitments without ever having to pay for a student and their family to officially visit campus?
Your are wrong. They can bring them in on UV as juniors and then invite their signed recruits later as seniors for OV, as most do now.
Here's my thinking on how it changes coach's decision making in a potentially costlier way:
Prospect A is a top rated catcher who is known to be talking seriously to five different programs heading into the start of his junior year. He's rebuffed offers from lesser programs and now tells the coaches at his top five schools that he's seriously interested but would need an OV before making a decision. Starting September 1 of his junior year, that's now an option that can be put on the table in a way that it couldn't before. Sure, he could take UV's, but since he's a national caliber prospect from a low-income family interested in Miami, Arizona State, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss, there's no way he could afford to make all those UV's. So now if I'm a coach at one of these schools and I really want this kid to be my starting catcher in three years time, I'm going to shell out for a OV to keep myself in the running. Under the current rules, that arms race wasn't an option. If the kid exhausts his five allowed OV's, then one prospect has eaten up part of the budget's of four programs where he won't end up committing.
This is not to suggest this will always be the case, but as the current system stands coaches can very easily budget their OV's to match the number of recruits they plan to bring in for any given class. They are allowed no more than 25 total for any given class if I'm not mistaken, but I doubt very much that any program ever funds 25 OVs from a single class under the current rules. More likely 8-15, at most. The OV is more of a team building device for guys already signed than it is a recruiting tool. Now that changes. Unless I'm missing something about how the new rules will work, this makes the OV a greater part of a coach's arsenal and those schools who can afford it will now be able to 'use' OV's to get the top prospects.
I read somewhere-- I think it was in an article about the new Boise State program --that the average D1 college loses (in other words, costs) about $960,000 a year. It's a complete guess, but lets just say your average official visit for programs like Vanderbilt or Stanford that recruit nationally is about $2000. (Flights, Hotels, Meals, Staff Time, Etc). That means your current budget per year is about $20,000 for 10 OVs. This new rule change will potentially double that to $40,000 a year. It's not going to break the bank, but neither is a five percent increase in costs chump change for coaches dealing with impecunious athletic directors looking to control expense in non-revenue generating sports.
If I'm still wrong, please tell me where my logic train derails.
For most of those schools recruits, it is not going to get to junior year. The 2020 and 2021 commits for those types of schools have been making UV for years, and footing the bills, and they still will. It will just be a visit where they don't talk to the coach but still see the facilities. The offers will be made over the phone and the freshman and sophomores will keep committing at a similar rate. This might make a difference for lower tier teams that are really trying to get a kid that might not be sure about them and is willing to wait until junior year to ask for a OV. For the "dream schools" or schools in their state or close by, the kids are still going to make the trips early. That is my prediction.
Maybe kids will go on UVs as Frosh and Soph and the coach Face Time's him from his office while the kid walks through the facilities, a sort of "live virtual tour". They still get to talk, get the sales pitch, coach can see the kids reactions, answer questions, make offers, etc. Will this really change what's going on? I kind of doubt it.
My original suggestion was that under this new OV rule, coaches will spend more money on OVs than before, period. We can argue all day about how much more those added costs will be. Indeed my logistics calculations are pulled from the sky (3x $500 RT tickets + 2 hotel nights + meals + transportation to and from the airport for that catcher from San Diego to get to Nashville, or that LHP from Savannah to Palo Alto) and may have been exaggerated for effect. But the fact of the matter still seems to stand. There will be more OVs under this new rule and it will cost D1 baseball programs collectively more. It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense. The vast majority of recruits are local, this clearly won't affect them. But if the new rule makes it easier for a kid from San Diego to go east or a kid from Savannah to go west, the rule change could encourage top programs that don't currently see their recruiting platform as national in scope to become just a little less provincial. That would be an interesting development. But none of the replies to my suggestion has convinced me otherwise: the total number of OVs across the board will only increase, not decrease in the coming years as a result of this rule.
Add this to some of the additional costs imposed on top-tier athletic departments as a result of the recent tax law changes and it would seem to me that administrators won't be happy to see budget requests for any additional baseball-related expenses.
As for Boise baseball, I couldn't agree more. The nearest midweek game will be a 6+ hour bus ride to Utah Valley or Wazzu. That's not the kind of travel demands I'd want for my student-athlete. But for kids from the upper mountain west wanting to stay closer to home to play D1 baseball, I suppose it's a good thing. It makes me think that university is a little bit desperate with regards to it's reputation and doesn't have much in the way to attract out of state students aside from athletics. But I could be wrong.
It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
I've been noticing a trend in the 2020 crowd....they aren't committing as fast as the 2019's, who weren't committing as fast as the 2018's. The word is out to those that want to find it, that it's better to wait to commit until you are sure you could make an immediate impact to the program right now. No chance of them pulling your scholly because you didn't progress like they thought you would.
CaCO3Girl posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
I've been noticing a trend in the 2020 crowd....they aren't committing as fast as the 2019's, who weren't committing as fast as the 2018's. The word is out to those that want to find it, that it's better to wait to commit until you are sure you could make an immediate impact to the program right now. No chance of them pulling your scholly because you didn't progress like they thought you would.
I’m not sure that rings true. If you look at the top ranked kids in 2020, almost all ttop 500 are committed now. There are several pages of 500s with the majority of kids on the page committed. Very few are waiting. Mine hasn’t committed yet but I can tell you he isn’t holding off for a OV. We are going to move forward with visits if he is interested in the school.
2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlanticDad posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlantaDad,
It is against NCAA rules to dress the recruit up in the programs gear.
TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlantaDad,
It is against NCAA rules to dress the recruit up in the programs gear.
Do you know the rule number? I've seen it on several occasions. Most recently it was a freshman baseball recruit at a big-time ACC school. I won't post that one because I know the kid, but I can find a few with a quick search, like this football one:
Recently I saw a pic of DI volleyball recruits at a B10 school posing in uniforms. I believe all had signed an NLI to that school if that matters.
Qhead posted:Recently I saw a pic of DI volleyball recruits at a B10 school posing in uniforms. I believe all had signed an NLI to that school if that matters.
They would have had to purchase unis themselves.
MidAtlanticDad posted:TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlantaDad,
It is against NCAA rules to dress the recruit up in the programs gear.
Do you know the rule number? I've seen it on several occasions. Most recently it was a freshman baseball recruit at a big-time ACC school. I won't post that one because I know the kid, but I can find a few with a quick search, like this football one:
Posing in a uni is has nothing to do with it. You can't give any gift of any kind to a recruit or prospect.
Google works, try it.
TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlantaDad,
It is against NCAA rules to dress the recruit up in the programs gear.
Do you know the rule number? I've seen it on several occasions. Most recently it was a freshman baseball recruit at a big-time ACC school. I won't post that one because I know the kid, but I can find a few with a quick search, like this football one:
Posing in a uni is has nothing to do with it. You can't give any gift of any kind to a recruit or prospect.
Google works, try it.
I don't understand your comment about gifts. My comment was about putting on the uniform and posing for pictures, and you said they can't dress the recruit in the program's gear. I never said anything about gifts.
MidAtlanticDad posted:TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:TPM posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:It will also make highly recruited juniors less willing to make UVs at their own expense.
My question - won't most "highly recruited" juniors already be committed prior to starting their junior year - or do folks think this will delay the decision for the top tier kids into the winter of junior year so they can get in a few OV's? I suspect a kid who commits prior to day 1 of junior year is going to get a single OV invite - to the school they have already committed to.
Some percentage of those highly recruited 9th and 10th graders are not prepared for the full court press put on during an UV. When a big-time SEC/ACC program walks a kid through their outrageous facilities, dresses them up in one of those beautiful college uniforms, then makes a big production out of pictures with the head coach… it takes a pretty level-headed kid to not jump on the first offer. If nothing else, the rule change will prevent that scenario. However, there will still be plenty of 9th and 10th graders who know exactly what they want (baseball-wise at least), and if the right offer comes along they will have no reason to wait.
MidAtlantaDad,
It is against NCAA rules to dress the recruit up in the programs gear.
Do you know the rule number? I've seen it on several occasions. Most recently it was a freshman baseball recruit at a big-time ACC school. I won't post that one because I know the kid, but I can find a few with a quick search, like this football one:
Posing in a uni is has nothing to do with it. You can't give any gift of any kind to a recruit or prospect.
Google works, try it.
I don't understand your comment about gifts. My comment was about putting on the uniform and posing for pictures, and you said they can't dress the recruit in the program's gear. I never said anything about gifts.
Sorry about the confusion on my part.
But really, hasn't things gotten out of control.
I was at a store last week when recruits came in to buy gear. Then back for pics. So my assumption that is what you meant.
But not 100 % about how that works.
DO NOT provide any "extra benefits" to or for a prospect, or the prospect's relatives or friends.
Extra Benefit: An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or an athletics representative to provide a prospect or a student-athlete (or the prospect or student-athlete's relatives or friends) with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. The following are examples of extra benefits:
- Giving cash or loans in any amount.
- Signing or co-signing a note with an outside agency to arrange a loan.
- Employing relatives or friends of a student-athlete.
- Giving gifts of any kind (e.g., birthday, Christmas, Valentine's Day) or free services (e.g., clothing, airline tickets, laundry, car repair, haircuts, meals in restaurants).
- Providing special discounts for goods or services.
- Providing use of an automobile.
- Providing a meal other than in your home on special infrequent occasions (e.g., Thanksgiving, birthday).
- Providing use of your summer home to go water skiing, hunting, etc.
- Providing transportation for any purpose.
- Providing rent-free or reduced-rent housing.
- Providing a benefit connected with on- or off-campus housing (e.g., television set, stereo equipment).
- Providing tickets to an athletic, institutional or community event.
- Providing a guarantee of a bond.
- Providing promise of financial aid for postgraduate education.
- Promising employment after college graduation.