NCAA to ban early offers?

I started a similiar thread in the VA Forum based on what I read online.....Posts varied in opinion...Am interested to see how it is discussed here.....like most things has pros and cons....but I think the player has the most to lose in this verabl committments becasue they stop looking and the school does not....JMO

quote:

Originally posted by vhs_02_2012:
I started a similiar thread in the VA Forum based on what I read online.....Posts varied in opinion...Am interested to see how it is discussed here.....like most things has pros and cons....but I think the player has the most to lose in this verabl committments becasue they stop looking and the school does not....JMO

I think it will be a good thing, if it is enforced across the board. The early offers in some sports are pure madness. Agree with you totally. Students should keep all options open through the process.

Maybe 5U travel won't be needed after all.

The July 1 date, post junior HS season, will really make that summer travel season sizzle. I see on the VA board that a few people are in favor of moving that date back to Jan 1 just prior to the junior HS season. Wouldn't that be one heck of a distraction for players and coaches alike preparing for the school season. I don't have a problem with early signings although I do believe it will lead to a disintergration of the process and a devalueing(?) of committments. Kinda like football where players make a commitment to play for a specific college but still have two or more campus visits lined up with other schools. In my book that's not a commitment.

I think the move has merit but I would like to see a date more in line of July 1 after their sophmore HS season. That confines the recruiting to rising juniors and above and let's the freshman and sophemores just worry about playing the game of baseball without the pressure of the recruiting contacts.

And won't they still be able to recruit for 'commitments only' without offers being made in spite of the new rule should it happen the way it's outlined?

I doubt that this rule, if approved, will stop the practice of early offers. It's easy to construct conversations that will strongly imply what will be offered. Or the offer could be made indirectly through a high school or travel coach. The recruiting coordinator of a school which effectively never makes early offers told me that they oppose the rule becaused they expect it to be ineffective.

However, the rule probably would stop the practice of younger recruits disclosing that they have made a committment to a school. Perhaps the absence of the "Committment" lists will make it less likely that a player would commit early in an effort to "keep up with the Joneses".

I agree with everything 3Finger said.

It will cause havoc in the recuiting world. If you think people are feeling pressure now just wait if this becomes the practice. I hope people realize that it will not put pressure on the players that are being offered early now. They will know what offers that will be extended in the future. The stress and pressure will be on those players that will have to wait for the others to be offered. Its going to push decisions back and it will cause some schools to make a mad dash at later dates.

Again we will have to wait and see what happens. But there are always consequences of every new rule change. There will be some good come out of it and there will be some consequences as well. I can just imagine those D2 and D3 coaches as well as some mid major D1's thinking about the changes they will have to make if this does in fact take place. Many more Sr's will go into their sr year of HS baseball waiting to see where they fall into all of this.

Yes 3finger there will be early "off the table" offers taking place. The problem will be no one will be aware of them outside those programs. So while State U is waiting on certain players they will not be offering other players. They will have to wait and it trickles down on the waiting.

I am not saying I am against this in many ways I think its a good idea. I am just trying to express that in some ways early verbals assist those that do not get them.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove
However, the rule probably would stop the practice of younger recruits disclosing that they have made a committment to a school. Perhaps the absence of the "Committment" lists will make it less likely that a player would commit early in an effort to "keep up with the Joneses".

If this would be the effect of the rule change, then I think there is value in it. The problem with early commitments seems to be one of perception as much as reality. Not a large percentage of kids are doing it, but because a few are, everyone else thinks they have missed the boat if they do not. Maybe this will help in that regard.

I'm curious about the trickle down implications that Coach May listed. Coach, wouldn't the kids who normally would have committed earlier just verbal in the first few weeks of July after their junior season? That would still leave late summer and fall for the mid-majors, D2s, D3s, etc. Or am I missing something?

When my son was being recruited we met with the head coach at one of the top ten D2 schools in the country. This was right before Christmas of my son's senior season. I asked him if he had pretty much signed his class for that recruiting season, and he started laughing. He said, "Nah, I don't even start recruiting hard until the end of January. It's not until then that kids realize the dream D1 isn't going to happen and they are ready to listen."

Coach May,

Wouldn't it really just return us to the way things used to be, back before we started this current race to get handshake deals at younger and younger ages?

Just 4 years ago, very, very few kids had any kind of offer in hand before Jan. 1 of their junior years. Even now it's a practice affecting only the top tier of players. I think putting a rule in place would be designed more to stop the constant acceleration of the time table -- not really so much to change anything from the way it is now, but to keep it from continuing to change in the direction it's been going.

Yes Midlo it would take us back to where it used to be if it works the way I assume they hope it works. And if thats the case I think its probably a good thing. People will just need to understand that it will slow down the time table not for just the early guys but for everyone. I remember the time when many of my players were not heavily recruited until their sr years or the fall before. The vast majority of the D2 and D3's are always going to wait and see who is available. There are exceptions. It appears most of the parents upset about early verbals are the parents of the kids that are not offered early. Just understand that it will set your time table back as well. And I am not saying that is a bad thing. I hope this post makes sense.

As I stated on the other post....my son is a 2012 early commit and it has been a blessing. He told the colleges that he wanted to make a commitment before he started playing ball his junior year. It had become a full time job for him to visit schools, answer emails, and complete questioneres. We even felt guilty about the amount of time that it was taken up of his travel and high school coach. It was apparent that a choice would have to be made so that my son could become a high school student and focus on current baseball seeason. From the commitment forth he has raised his standards with his academics, baseball conditioning and training, and also just more focused in the direction of his life. For him this early commitment has taken off alot of stress. May not be for everybody, but has worked for him. My question now is.....if this new rule goes into effect does it void his verbal commitment with the University? I know it is not binding anyway, but it is like a gentlemens hand shake and should be upheld.

Of course it will not void your sons verbal. Its an agreement between your son and the coaching staff. Its your word and their word and its only as good as your word and their word. And for the vast majority of baseball folks and college coaches their word is gold. I wouldnt lose one second of sleep over this if I were in your shoes. If they offered your son this early they believe he is an impact player for their program and a player they wanted very badly. Thats not going to change based on a new rule put in after the agreement has been made. Congrats and good luck to your son.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
Of course it will not void your sons verbal. Its an agreement between your son and the coaching staff. Its your word and their word and its only as good as your word and their word. And for the vast majority of baseball folks and college coaches their word is gold. I wouldnt lose one second of sleep over this if I were in your shoes. If they offered your son this early they believe he is an impact player for their program and a player they wanted very badly. Thats not going to change based on a new rule put in after the agreement has been made. Congrats and good luck to your son.

Coach May, thanks for your input. It is a little nerve racking with these verbal commitments. We have heard the same from our son's situation. His coaching staff has tried to make our son comfortable with his situation, and let him know that they really want him.

Take care,
Lefty

Thanks Coach May. You seem to be a good man with very positive and informative post. I have enjoyed reading what you have to say on the subject of baseball. I wish my husband and I had more smarts on the game of baseball and all that comes with it. We kinda got left behind after little league! Things really happen fast once they hit high school. Please keep the knowledge and good advice flowing for all of those parents that are in our shoes! Thanks again and have a great day!

From LA Times Varsity Insider

January 14, 2011 | 7:16 am
The NCAA Division I Legislative Council defeated a proposal that would have prohibited coaches from making verbal offers to recruits before July 1 of their junior year.

It lost because there would be difficulty in monitoring and enforcement.

That means coaches can continue to offer incoming high school freshmen scholarships if they want.

-- Eric Sondheimer