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:
Given that the NCAA web site is notoriously difficult to navigate (and using their search feature often leads you to outdated info), could someone just supply a link to the correct page where the new rules are posted?
Midlo Dad posted:Given that the NCAA web site is notoriously difficult to navigate (and using their search feature often leads you to outdated info), could someone just supply a link to the correct page where the new rules are posted?
I couldn't find it either! You would think something so significant would be highlighted, but nope. Hopefully someone will post a link.
Midlo Dad posted:Given that the NCAA web site is notoriously difficult to navigate (and using their search feature often leads you to outdated info), could someone just supply a link to the correct page where the new rules are posted?
This may be the best you're going to get until the 2018-19 Manual is published in August.
Thanks!
This says starting with the next school year. Does this mean it didn't go into affect immediately? PBR also posted that coaches could no longer have phone conversations, but I don't see that in the rule.
baseballhs posted:This says starting with the next school year. Does this mean it didn't go into affect immediately? PBR also posted that coaches could no longer have phone conversations, but I don't see that in the rule.
It went into effect last Thursday but coaches can still receive phone calls from freshmen/sophomores.
MidAtlanticDad posted:Midlo Dad posted:Given that the NCAA web site is notoriously difficult to navigate (and using their search feature often leads you to outdated info), could someone just supply a link to the correct page where the new rules are posted?
This may be the best you're going to get until the 2018-19 Manual is published in August.
Thanks. I did see this, but expected to see the official "rules" in full format. You may be right that they will not publish them until the manual.
hshuler posted:baseballhs posted:This says starting with the next school year. Does this mean it didn't go into affect immediately? PBR also posted that coaches could no longer have phone conversations, but I don't see that in the rule.
It went into effect last Thursday but coaches can still receive phone calls from freshmen/sophomores.
Just found out that D1 softball coaches decided that they didn't even want to allow the incoming phone calls.
Since these SAEC proposals passed, softball’s request to include incoming telephone calls and off-campus visits were voted on and approved as “noncontroversial legislation.” This means that for softball, all recruiting contact will begin September 1, junior year.
