Not baseball, but certainly the trend across all sports and some insight to the fact that it will continue as coaches livelihood depends on it. No new news to this forum, but direct from a coach.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
Iowamom23 posted:Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
All he was thinking was " We'll keep an eye on him, if he doesn't get better. We'll pull the offer".
pabaseballdad posted:Iowamom23 posted:Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
All he was thinking was " We'll keep an eye on him, if he doesn't get better. We'll pull the offer".
It really doesn't matter because he's 6'10" so there will be a bunch of schools willing to take a chance. It's the same as if a kid throws 95mph. He can walk ten straight batters for ten straight games and there would be no shortage of coaches offering scholarships in an effort to "fix" him.
It's totally unfair to judge a kid's performance when he's clearly not close to physical maturity. Tall players - particularly - take a while to get all the parts working in unison.
The fact that 3 D1 coaches all felt the same way - and they are experts in recruiting - should at least give pause to any second guessing.
Goosegg posted:It's totally unfair to judge a kid's performance when he's clearly not close to physical maturity. Tall players - particularly - take a while to get all the parts working in unison.
The fact that 3 D1 coaches all felt the same way - and they are experts in recruiting - should at least give pause to any second guessing.
Isnt that why scouts use projection? A thin 6"3 player gets more credit for peojection than a 5"10 player who already lifts a lot of weight and is strong and thick
Btw I don't think the coaches like early recruiting as projection is always an extra risk but if your competitors do it you have to do it too. I do think they would like a rule against early recruiting as long they are sure everyone complies and no one gets an advantage.
It is basically one started it to get an advantage and then anyone had to follow to not fall behind.
I just think this is a natural extension of the best at 12 still best at 17 conversation we have had many times on here. I think schools are starting to realize that things in fact don't change much especially between say 14 and 17. Again I know people want to pull out the one off remarkable anecdotal stories about the kid who was 3'7" and threw 42mph then just 7 months later was 7'8" throwing 137mph. But the fact is the NORM is things don't change that greatly. I don't think it is a real big risk for schools to be recruiting freshmen and even 8th graders especially at the higher levels.
Iowamom23 posted:Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
You can't teach 6'10"!
Some younger underclassmen are recruited because they already have the skills necessary and would have to go backwards to go unwanted. Other young players are recruited based on projection, which includes much more than just size.
So why do college recruiters take the "risk" of getting a young player to verbally commit? Because, there isn't much risk involved! If the player ends up being what they want, they are rewarded by landing him early. They beat the competition for him. If the player ends up being someone they don't want, he will end up elsewhere.
It's actually the player that has the most risk.
Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
Iowamom23 posted:Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
Goosegg posted:It's totally unfair to judge a kid's performance when he's clearly not close to physical maturity. Tall players - particularly - take a while to get all the parts working in unison.
The fact that 3 D1 coaches all felt the same way - and they are experts in recruiting - should at least give pause to any second guessing.
HS coaches (basketball and baseball) want to win "Tonight's game." College recruiters want to win games in 4-6 years (if they're looking at a 14yo). My 2018 son at 6-7 comes off bench. He's only now beginning to grow into his body and build the athletic confidence for game play.
Two 2017 6-1 kids who start have no hope at college ball, my son as a 2018 6-7 and maybe 6-8 does. Coach just believes he can "win tonight" with the 6-1s. He's fine with letting some college coach win a game 4yrs from now with my son, when the 6-1 guys will be long retired.
Baseball no different.
Photo attached of son as "6th Man" off bench (he's the one with the ball).
Attachments
Images (1)
pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
+1. The NCAA was put on this earth to make money for its itself, Universities, and business partners (media) not to do something because it is the right thing to do for an athlete.
#1 Asst Coach - So you are telling me that is regulation 10' hoop? Holy crap your boy is tall!
NCAA - the most worthless POS organization - Despise just reading the letters.
Just spitballing this, but why hasn't anyone tried the theory that the oral offer, when accepted, has created a binding contract? The coach is acting as an authorized agent of the school and the interaction has the hallmarks of an oral contract. At worst, it would force a coach to add oral terms which would make the offer be clearly understood by parents as essentially illusory.
pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
I do agree with this. The NCAA needs to just stop the joke and deregulate recruiting. As we all know if that RC wants to talk to your kid when he is a freshman he will find a way through travel org. or another way. So all the rules are stupid. Let any coach talk to any kid any time they want - but once that kid makes a verbal and school accepts they should be on the hook no matter what for the scholarship money and a roster spot. That would slow their roll a bit.
2020dad posted:pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
I do agree with this. The NCAA needs to just stop the joke and deregulate recruiting. As we all know if that RC wants to talk to your kid when he is a freshman he will find a way through travel org. or another way. So all the rules are stupid. Let any coach talk to any kid any time they want - but once that kid makes a verbal and school accepts they should be on the hook no matter what for the scholarship money and a roster spot. That would slow their roll a bit.
Yes, and no. Many of these rules weren't to prevent coaches from speaking with players. They were put in place to LIMIT the coaches and keep some sanity for the players. Much of this goes back to when cell phones first came out and billing was per text (sent and received). Some blue chip basketball recruits ended up with a multi-thousand dollar bill because of coaches inundating them with texts around the clock. As is typical, it became over-regulated, but clearly a few coaches can't display any self control, so all suffer.
And they can simply get rid of verbals. If a school makes an offer, they send an NLI with an expiration date. If kid likes the offer, signs and both sides are bound. If not, it expires and school can submit another offer.
Nuke83 posted:2020dad posted:pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
I do agree with this. The NCAA needs to just stop the joke and deregulate recruiting. As we all know if that RC wants to talk to your kid when he is a freshman he will find a way through travel org. or another way. So all the rules are stupid. Let any coach talk to any kid any time they want - but once that kid makes a verbal and school accepts they should be on the hook no matter what for the scholarship money and a roster spot. That would slow their roll a bit.
Yes, and no. Many of these rules weren't to prevent coaches from speaking with players. They were put in place to LIMIT the coaches and keep some sanity for the players. Much of this goes back to when cell phones first came out and billing was per text (sent and received). Some blue chip basketball recruits ended up with a multi-thousand dollar bill because of coaches inundating them with texts around the clock. As is typical, it became over-regulated, but clearly a few coaches can't display any self control, so all suffer.
And they can simply get rid of verbals. If a school makes an offer, they send an NLI with an expiration date. If kid likes the offer, signs and both sides are bound. If not, it expires and school can submit another offer.
This just makes too much sense. I'm betting the schools are against it and that's the reason for the current NLI signing periods.
Iowamom23 posted:Went to a high school basketball game last night that in which one team had a freshman, 6'10", with offers in hand from two or three D1 schools. The coach of one of those D1s was in the house. The kid didn't start, and when he did play, played poorly. He had little to no impact on the game. Now, he has a ton of time to improve, and he's only 14, so he also has plenty of time to grow. But I wondered how that coach felt leaving that game? Was he thinking "good choice" or "wow, that's going to be a lot of work"?
You can't teach 6'10". You can teach a 6'10" player agility and finesse. If you can't you take away his scholarship. There are twelve scholarship players on a D1 basketball team. Typically only eight or nine get measurable playing time. He he doesn't pan out, Next!.
pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
I've said this before. High school athletes should be unapproachable until post sophomore year. Then they should be approachable and eligible to sign NLI's. Let the college make the same commitment the kid is making.
I've been through this with a daughter. Girls have been recruited early for a long time due to early physical maturity. It's not uncommon for softball players to verbal in 8th grade. My daughter was a late bloomer. She verballed in the spring of soph year to an offer made the previous summer. How many fifteen year olds know what they want for lunch much less major in college?
Unfortunately too many D1 college athletes don't have any idea what they want for a major until they are forced to select one junior year. What if (the sport) doesn't work out for them past college? It won't for a solid majority.
fenwaysouth posted:pabaseballdad posted:Agreed. The player has all of the risk. The NCAA won't do a thing. They should but they won't.
+1. The NCAA was put on this earth to make money for its itself, Universities, and business partners (media) not to do something because it is the right thing to do for an athlete.
#1 Asst Coach - So you are telling me that is regulation 10' hoop? Holy crap your boy is tall!
The NCAA is like the Mafia. They extort money from college sports for protection. There are a lot of college athletes who need protection from the NCAA.
My proposed NCAA regulation ...
If a program is placed on probation the coach can't leave for greener pastures. He has to stay and deal with the probation. If he's fired he's just SOL, unemployed and unpaid until the probabtion expires. After a couple of coaches get teams placed on probation, get fired, are unpaid and are out of work a lot of recruiting BS will subside. Or is this solution too simple and fair to all parties?
thanks for sharing that. it's a terrible situation for the kid, and I'm glad it made it into the press. This happens a lot in baseball- and it flies under the radar- all you here is that a kid "decommitted" many times it's the school that pushed him to decommit or outright told him that they no longer have a spot.
We are in an area here in western pa where we don't have a large number of D1 level baseball players, yet even with the small number I can think of several kids this has happened to in the last few years. Unfortunately I don't see anything changing. I just hope that people go into this process with their eyes wide open and understand the situation.
The NCAA either can't or won't do anything to change this. In fact, I think they are currently considering rule changes that make things even more in favor of the schools, and less for the students- i.e. the likely move to do away with the 25% minimum scholarship. yet no talk of a change on the 11.7 limit. and likely they'll keep the transfer rules in place- one year sit if you transfer.
I can see both sides of this. If the kid can commit before 10th grade then he doesn't have to chase the colleges, he doesn't have to send out videos and invites and attend 5 showcases to get his name out there and he may be able to have a semi-normal high school life.
On the flip side, if you don't progress like they thought you would they can pull the plug on the offer and you don't have your name out there for anyone else to be interested. Might be better to wait until you are closer to the level they THINK you will be at.
wow what a sad article. Happens all the time I suppose. Makes you think. Wait a little longer maybe and keep getting free tickets to games!
The worst thing any young player who has committed early could do is avoid showing off what he can do. Not only because that commitment isn't the LOI and things could change, but recruiters want to see their commits compete against highest level competition and all players need to develop.
We do some showcases where most all the players have already made a commitment. Many early commits are also thinking about early draft status. And the best players simply love being around others considered the best players. Committing early and thinking you have accomplished your mission... Is a recipe for disaster! IMO
"UConn fired Diaco in late December and hired Edsall"
In addition to what PG said, this is happens fairly frequently. New coaches often clean house - not only with incoming HS players, but players who are already on campus.
Moral to this story:
When committing to a program with a HC whose record after two years (2014 and 2015) at helm is 8-17, I would not stray too far from other schools who showed interest. I would try to keep the lines of communication open............somehow. Especially after the early October 41-3 trouncing they took from ECU.
Someone in the kid's camp should have seen the HC firing coming by end of November and the reality of HC's 11-26 record was official. There should have been a back-up plan ready to go. Kid's HS coach may have been the one to keep another option at least warm for as long as possible. I understand the kid had every right to ASS-U-ME the new HC would be a stand-up guy and honor offers/commitments from outgoing HC. But that is a risk in any sport.
Seems like everyone was "whistling by the graveyard" here. Right or wrong, what new coach did, bottom line is gotta see the train wreck before it happens. 17-year olds don't think that way but adults in the kid's corner should have.
Goosegg posted:"UConn fired Diaco in late December and hired Edsall"
In addition to what PG said, this is happens fairly frequently. New coaches often clean house - not only with incoming HS players, but players who are already on campus.
This happened to the older brother of one of my son's friends. Power 5 scholarship (before they were locked in for 4 years) went from 50% under the prior coach to 25% under the new coach in the first year, to 0% under the new coach in his second year.
A kid from my LL team verballed early to Wake. After the verbal he kept getting better. A new coach came to Wake and told the verbals they could walk away if the want. He ended up at Florida. Talk about positive luck!
PA2020Lefty posted:
If his other options were Monmouth and Rhode Island the kid may have overreached verballing with UConn. It doesn't make the situation right. But he may have struggled to get on the field. UConn plays in the AAC. It's not power five. But there are some good (ranked) teams in the conference. His two other options were subdivision D1's. It looks like the kid didn't get good advice. Everyone got caught up in the glitz of FBS football.
Goosegg posted:Just spitballing this, but why hasn't anyone tried the theory that the oral offer, when accepted, has created a binding contract? The coach is acting as an authorized agent of the school and the interaction has the hallmarks of an oral contract. At worst, it would force a coach to add oral terms which would make the offer be clearly understood by parents as essentially illusory.
Because you cannot enter a binding contract with someone under 18. Any such contract would be voidable.
That UConn story is horrible! I'm sure that this type of thing happens in baseball too, but football is a sport that doesn't offer any summer travel ball circuits to continue to hone your skills and find tougher competition levels like baseball can offer. My son recently verballed as a sophomore and he plans on continuing the summer circuit against the best comp in the best events so that he can reach his potential. We have 2 more summers to get to NLI day and have no delusions this is a done deal. What it has done was increased the inquiries from national travel teams affiliated with MLB area scouts...anyone have advice on how to look at these invites? We already have a solid summer plan but is there merit in fielding these inquiries?
roothog66 posted:Goosegg posted:Just spitballing this, but why hasn't anyone tried the theory that the oral offer, when accepted, has created a binding contract? The coach is acting as an authorized agent of the school and the interaction has the hallmarks of an oral contract. At worst, it would force a coach to add oral terms which would make the offer be clearly understood by parents as essentially illusory.
Because you cannot enter a binding contract with someone under 18. Any such contract would be voidable.
The more I thought about it, though, the more you have point, because such a contract is only voidable by the incapacitated party - the minor. So, if a coach comes to terms with a 16yo, it is enforceable unless voided by actions of the minor. However, the law is a bit different involving inter-organizational (here, the NCAA) commitments. I'll take a look when I get the time to see if I can find any case law on the subject.
roothog66 posted:roothog66 posted:Goosegg posted:Just spitballing this, but why hasn't anyone tried the theory that the oral offer, when accepted, has created a binding contract? The coach is acting as an authorized agent of the school and the interaction has the hallmarks of an oral contract. At worst, it would force a coach to add oral terms which would make the offer be clearly understood by parents as essentially illusory.
Because you cannot enter a binding contract with someone under 18. Any such contract would be voidable.
The more I thought about it, though, the more you have point, because such a contract is only voidable by the incapacitated party - the minor. So, if a coach comes to terms with a 16yo, it is enforceable unless voided by actions of the minor. However, the law is a bit different involving inter-organizational (here, the NCAA) commitments. I'll take a look when I get the time to see if I can find any case law on the subject.
Disregarding the NCAA entirely, because I really don't know enough about their rules to form an opinion:
Yes, a contract is voidable by the minor, unless he/she ratifies the agreement after reaching 18. However, I think I recall that the statute of frauds would keep a verbal agreement from being enforceable if its over a year?
Disclaimer: The information in this post (“Post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in your state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. Essentially, know this: I am not your lawyer. 
2019Lefty21 posted:That UConn story is horrible! I'm sure that this type of thing happens in baseball too, but football is a sport that doesn't offer any summer travel ball circuits to continue to hone your skills and find tougher competition levels like baseball can offer. My son recently verballed as a sophomore and he plans on continuing the summer circuit against the best comp in the best events so that he can reach his potential. We have 2 more summers to get to NLI day and have no delusions this is a done deal. What it has done was increased the inquiries from national travel teams affiliated with MLB area scouts...anyone have advice on how to look at these invites? We already have a solid summer plan but is there merit in fielding these inquiries?
There are now summer showcases for high school football players. A friend, a high school coach runs one. They're run like the pro days for college players.
Did a little research. There are two theories under which a suit could be brought. The first would be breach of contract. However, this is tough with oral contracts because you have to first prove there was an agreement and that the agreement was intended to be binding by both parties. A very good argument against that is simply the culture of recruiting. It would be easy to show that such agreements wouldn't have been intended to be binding because that is the nature of athletic recruiting and it's common knowledge, therefore, the kid should have known that the coach didn't intend it to be binding. The closest case I can find involved promises made to students at a Court Reporting Academy in Ohio. The Ohio Appeals Court found promises made during recruiting were indeed intended to be binding. However, the plaintiffs in that case actually enrolled in the Academy so they actually enrolled in the school based on the promises.
The better basis for a suit would be Promissory Estoppel. That would be an agreement in which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. So, here the argument would be that a recruit stopped taking offers based on the promises of the verbal commitment. There has been a case on this. A football recruit, Dan Smith, was offered by the University of Hawaii in 2007. With less than a month left until National Signing Day, June Jones left the U of H and his offer was pulled by the new coach. He sued. Unfortunately for our purposes, the case settled out of court, so we don't have any idea how the court would have ruled.
I think promissory estoppel could be a winning argument. Maybe a better argument in baseball where such offers are respected by other schools than it is in basketball and football where recruiting traditionally continues regardless of offers.
MomLW posted:roothog66 posted:roothog66 posted:Goosegg posted:Just spitballing this, but why hasn't anyone tried the theory that the oral offer, when accepted, has created a binding contract? The coach is acting as an authorized agent of the school and the interaction has the hallmarks of an oral contract. At worst, it would force a coach to add oral terms which would make the offer be clearly understood by parents as essentially illusory.
Because you cannot enter a binding contract with someone under 18. Any such contract would be voidable.
The more I thought about it, though, the more you have point, because such a contract is only voidable by the incapacitated party - the minor. So, if a coach comes to terms with a 16yo, it is enforceable unless voided by actions of the minor. However, the law is a bit different involving inter-organizational (here, the NCAA) commitments. I'll take a look when I get the time to see if I can find any case law on the subject.
Disregarding the NCAA entirely, because I really don't know enough about their rules to form an opinion:
Yes, a contract is voidable by the minor, unless he/she ratifies the agreement after reaching 18. However, I think I recall that the statute of frauds would keep a verbal agreement from being enforceable if its over a year?
Disclaimer: The information in this post (“Post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in your state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. Essentially, know this: I am not your lawyer.
Good point as to breach of contract. The fact pattern would be important. The verbal agreement was really a promise to pay for school and not a promise to play. Thererfore as long as your offer was within a year of the due date for paying tuition you might be in good standing. Your standing would be on more solid footing, though, if a kid actually enrolled in the university despite having the offer pulled. However, promissory estoppel can defeat any Statute of Frauds defenses. The elements of p.e. are different. It mere,y requires a showing that an offer was relied on and that one party acted or refrained from acting in reliance on that offer.
Promissory estoppel would get around the Statue of Frauds. (IMHO)
The other other point (btw, thanks and great analysis on the fly) is loosely analogous to cases under the Uniform Commercial Code which applies only if both parties are merchants and not if only one party is a merchant and the other isn't. I would argue that the player is not aware of the industry norms, and is merely a one time consumer and should not be held to the same standards of knowledge as a coach.
PE is a sounder argument (IMO).
In any event, I Thought I'd throw it out - and thanks for the time!