Tweet on 2022 decommits

@Danj You mean you’re not Steely Danj?

I majored in Quantitive Methodology only because math was easy. I wanted to be king of the corporate world. At an IBM corporate orientation class I sat in the CEO’s seat when they showed us the boardroom. I declared, “Someday!”

By the time I left IBM and they purchased the two companies that followed (they kept pulling me back) I had my fill of the corporate world. Out of college I wasn’t aware kissing ass was a requirement on top of being successful at your job. I was mistaken when I thought a day with the VP of Sales on how to improve the company could include what we did wrong with possible solutions. I was supposed to kiss ass and tell him everything was fine. After all, we’re Big Blue.

My son chose the same major because it worked for dad. But he went into consulting (Big 4). My daughter thought she wanted to be a forensic scientist.* She got the degree. And went to law school and became a prosecutor.

* She also had minors in criminology and French. She was actually majoring in being Inspector Clouseau.

To me the coaches act rationally within a system that is monumentally screwed up.  If the NCAA required that once a scholarship is accepted by a kid that that money couldn't be used by anyone else for the next 4 years we'd see coaches spend more time evaluating recruits, kids being offered and committing later, and teams spend more effort developing the kids that they get.

(Edited to remove typo)

@K9 posted:

To me the coaches act rationally within a system that is monumentally screwed up.  If the NCAA required that once a scholarship is accepted by a kid that that money couldn't be used by anyone else for the next 4 years we'd see coaches spend more time evaluating recruits, kids being offered and committing later, and teams spend more effort developing the kids that they get.

(Edited to remove typo)

In this era of sports, the schools are the ones making the rules.  The NCAA = the member P5 schools. 

@d-mac posted:

In this era of sports, the schools are the ones making the rules.  The NCAA = the member P5 schools.

In amateur Athletics the schools have always made the rules. And the rules have always been grossly in favor of the schools - at the expense of the athletes. Nothing new at play here. In Texas the governing body for public HS Athletics is the UIL (University Interscholastic League) and they are just as antiquated as the NCAA and equally out of touch with reality when it comes to their decisions.

But for those of you who want the schools held accountable.  No one has answered the other side of it.  Should a player be held accountable also?  If you lock the money for 4 years would you also be willing to lock the kid for 4 years and say they should not be allowed to play at another school once they sign the NLI or even 1 year?

@PitchingFan posted:

But for those of you who want the schools held accountable.  No one has answered the other side of it.  Should a player be held accountable also?  If you lock the money for 4 years would you also be willing to lock the kid for 4 years and say they should not be allowed to play at another school once they sign the NLI or even 1 year?

Sure - if the school has to commit then the kid should too.  How about if you transfer you can't take baseball money anywhere else?  (Unless coach has left.)

@PitchingFan posted:

But for those of you who want the schools held accountable.  No one has answered the other side of it.  Should a player be held accountable also?  If you lock the money for 4 years would you also be willing to lock the kid for 4 years and say they should not be allowed to play at another school once they sign the NLI or even 1 year?

I don't believe accountable is the right thought process. I think there needs to be an out for both sides in some fashion if it just doesn't work out. Whatever issues I may have with some programs and how they treat players for me it ultimately comes down to the time line. In the rush to acquire talent they have started to the clock so early that it is unfair to the player. Think about this way a 17 year can't sign a legally binding contract and needs parental consent to do damn near anything in our country but we expect the athlete to enter a binding 4 year minimum deal? Again somewhere logic has to come into play.

Bottom line is the industry as a whole (D1 sports) tear them up and spit them out and the process is starting at age 14 or so - so the argument you are making is that this is good, the kid should be as responsible as the school and the fact over the last 20 year the process has only gotten worse not better but it is not an issue?

Of the many kids that I deal with and keep an eye on over the past 15 years I do not see it happening to the level that some of you were suggesting. I don’t know that I know of a single kid that the school has taken their scholarship from them. I do know of several that the coach has contacted and said we wanna make sure you understand the situation before you sign your NLI. I know of one catcher that was told he would be redshirt his freshman year and would be the bullpen catcher and they just wanted to make sure that he understood that clearly. But did not pull his money. I am guessing the ones that have their money pulled are probably one percent of all D1 baseball players.  Because I do not think you can consider the kid that feels like he was over recruited or someone was recruited for the same position as him as being in the same category.  That is a kid who just does not feel like they can compete.   I do not even think that you can put the ones in this category that a coach leaves because then they were actually going somewhat for the wrong reason.  I do know of players, probably less than 10%, but decided the school wasn’t right for them, the school recruited a player that they would have to compete against who they felt was better than them, or the coach left which caused them to de-commit. All of that is not on the coach but on the player in my opinion.  
If you’re going to give an exception to the player because the Coach left then you have to give an exception to the team/Coach because the player didn’t progress as was projected.  

@PitchingFan, that may be your experience and, if so, nobody can tell you that it isn’t (tho some may try). However, my experience on this subject is quite different. I know many kids that this has happened to and I have gotten calls for help from some of them. I have heard about countless other cases. Obviously this is a bigger problem now than it used to be before Covid swelled rosters and extra years of eligibility. Since Covid, I would estimate that more like 10% of young scholarship players have had their money taken away so it could be given to an older, more experienced player for no reason other than the older player became available. That 10% is on top of the % that loses (or gets a reduction in) their scholarship money after their first year as normal attrition. So my experience is that it’s happening to a lot of kids - not just a few.

I think we're shying away from the most feasible solution.  To be clear, it's no easy fix by any measure.  But I'd argue that education/information for players and parents is the simplest solution.  Yes, there are LOTS of hurdles standing in the way (like players and parents NOT wanting to be educated on it).  But there are risks inherent with this process that are nearly impossible to mitigate on both the side of the school/coach and the player/family.  Finding a fair solution for both sides that also fits into the massive college baseball machine, to me, is a pipe dream.  There are simply too many moving parts that are impacted in any solution to solve for one side or the other.  I can't stand DC and politicians in general.  I'd love to see it all burn to the ground.  But that's a pipe dream, so the onus is on me to find ways to coexist with it.  I think the same approach works here.

Plus, I am not convinced everyone actually wants to see a solution to the problem.  For those that do their due diligence and actively work to educate themselves, it's important to recognize that they benefit when others do not educate themselves.  Uneducated players and parents rule!  My 2021 is a freshman playing Juco ball.  He came close to D1, but not close enough, so he's going the Juco route.  It'd be disingenuous to say a piece of his future chances of making a D1 roster DOESN'T hinge on some D1 players and their parents making ill-informed decisions.  Selfish?  Maybe.

But here's a great metaphor.  In my HS graduating class, 4 kids went all 4 years with straight A's.  But my buddy Ryan had a higher GPA than the other 3.  Why?  Because he was a genius.  When we were freshmen, everybody took Typing.  But not Ryan.  Because he understood it wasn't an honors class and GPAs were weighted.  So an A in Typing hobbled your GPA.  Just enough that Ryan knew it was his super smart way to #1.  And he understood this 4 years in advance of graduation.  So when he was named valedictorian, take one good guess what happened.  Spoiler alert!  We got to listen to 4 valedictorians speak at graduation.  But we also all knew who the one and only true #1 was.

4 valedictorians is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the world of juice boxes and participation trophies. That mentality teaches kids that they don’t have to compete - and since the world doesn’t work that way it sets them up to fail. As this generation of “celebrated kids” reaches voting age and joins the work force many of them are clueless about how to compete for the things they want in life. Many of them expect their needs to be provided for them by someone else. It plays out every day in entitled attitudes that show up in all walks of life among that age group.

Typing may not be a way to pump your GPA. But keyboarding is certainly a quality skill in the workplace. In a world of computers everyone should take typing/keyboarding.

@adbono posted:

4 valedictorians is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the world of juice boxes and participation trophies. That mentality teaches kids that they don’t have to compete - and since the world doesn’t work that way it sets them up to fail. As this generation of “celebrated kids” reaches voting age and joins the work force many of them are clueless about how to compete for the things they want in life. Many of them expect their needs to be provided for them by someone else. It plays out every day in entitled attitudes that show up in all walks of life among that age group.

But I also think that is what we are talking about here @adbono.  We are having people complain about the system but the the majority of the ones who complain about the system, coaches, are the ones who did not do their homework.  This is a juice box and participation trophy problem, IMO.  I reckon that is why I do not feel as compassionate toward them as some of you.  We did our homework in every situation and I have three sons 10 years apart.  Each with a different recruiting process.  My youngest son did not choose Florida or LSU because they had a lot of LHP's on their roster and recruits.  He chose Tennessee because at the time they only had 2 LHP's that would be there when he came in.  Plus they were willing to let him try to be a two-way player and had proven it in the past at their other schools.  We were worried about length of stay at some schools by coaches and their records so we were afraid they might get fired.  We did the research and I reckon I do not feel sorry for parents and players who would make such a big decision without doing their due diligence.  I also did not let my 14-17 year olds make this decision on their own.  I gave them information and advice which is what I believe is my role as a parent.  I'm not a "it's your journey" guy when it comes to big decisions for my kids.  I believe my role as a parent is to hep them learn and put expectations out there for them.  To help them when they were younger make small decisions so that when the big decisions came they were capable.  I'm tired of parents saying what their child is owed or they are owed.  You are not owed anything.  You reap what you sow and if you sow weak information you get weak decisions.  I also don't buy the we were lied to thing because your research will tell you the facts no matter what they say.  If their words don't line up with their past then it is probably a lie.

I have two friends that their kids were recruited by the same school that will say they were lied to.  One was a catcher who was told he would be redshirted the freshman year and be the bullpen guy.  They were still paying the scholarship and he would gain experience.  Theirs is still today that he was told he would be able to compete for a position.  He had TJ surgery senior year of HS and coaches did not feel he was ready to throw every day and wanted him for the long haul.  Plus I'm sure they were a little pissed because they asked him not to catch and pitch the same day and he did it regularly in HS and travel.  So who was wrong?  He decided to go to another D1 who, surprise surprise surprise, redshirted him his freshman year.  The other was a two-way guy who was told he would be able to compete as a hitter and pitcher.  He rarely put in the work as a hitter after practice and he gave up a HR and a ground rule double every inning in the fall.  17 of them.  But there's was the coaches lied to him because he was redshirt his freshman year.  Mine is in both situations, the coaches did what they said but the players did not hold up their end.

Re participation trophies …

It’s more on the parents and how they react to participation trophies. They didn’t mean anything to me.

My oldest (daughter) was not a fierce competitor in her preteens. She valued all her trophies. She kept them on a shelf in her room. At eleven she started playing ASA tournament softball. The competitiveness amped up. The participation trophies started disappearing as her teams won trophies and medals.

At eight my son deposited his first participation trophy in the trash on the way out of the building. If he didn’t win he didn’t want memories of the experience.

They had two different personalities. My daughter never practiced away from the team until she was fourteen. My son wanted to know every bounce on his LL field. But, athletically, academically and professionally they both ended up in the same place.

Ironically the personalities shifted. My son is now the visibly more mellow of the two at 28. At 33 my daughter is intense. I thought I worked hard until I saw her work habits.

@adbono posted:

@PitchingFan, that may be your experience and, if so, nobody can tell you that it isn’t (tho some may try). However, my experience on this subject is quite different. I know many kids that this has happened to and I have gotten calls for help from some of them. I have heard about countless other cases. Obviously this is a bigger problem now than it used to be before Covid swelled rosters and extra years of eligibility. Since Covid, I would estimate that more like 10% of young scholarship players have had their money taken away so it could be given to an older, more experienced player for no reason other than the older player became available. That 10% is on top of the % that loses (or gets a reduction in) their scholarship money after their first year as normal attrition. So my experience is that it’s happening to a lot of kids - not just a few.

I know of two that were dropped a few weeks ago.  One is headed to JUCO and the other isn't sure what he is going to do.  This was before signing day.  Usually, most of the kids we know of who get dropped have it happen after the draft.   

@d-mac posted:

I know of two that were dropped a few weeks ago.  One is headed to JUCO and the other isn't sure what he is going to do.  This was before signing day.  Usually, most of the kids we know of who get dropped have it happen after the draft.   

If the timing of the drops (taking of scholarship money) seems suspect in some cases it’s because it is. I know 2 kids (that I spoke to myself) that had money yanked by the school AFTER the deadline for kids to enter the portal. Why would the school do a kid like that?  Because it’s a low risk business move that may well end up with the kid staying (because he had no options at the 11th hour) and the school gets him for free. You can do your homework until the cows come home and still get caught up in a bad situation. It sounds like Vitello is treating his players well. Among ranked programs he would be in the minority in that regard.

DanJ said that the 4 valedictorians were in HIS graduating class, I assume that means most of ours.  So this is not new.  Go back 15, 20 years on this site, kids were still getting to campus and getting cut after fall ball, maybe not so many decommits because there were no roster or scholarship limits.  Even then, the amount of scholarship tended to relate to what could happen.

You can do your due diligence, can google and end up on HSBBW and learn a lot, sometimes too late.  Or, you can listen to your high school and travel coaches who say that XXX school is a great opportunity for you.  Why would you doubt them, and why would they not help keep you on track?  Maybe they only want to be able to advertise your P5 commitment on their website (never mentioning that you never actually got an inning at that school)?  Nah, that would never happen.

I agree with the post above on parent/player education. Unfortunately, it seems more people lack the knowledge than people who have the knowledge. Besides all the research and info I get from this site, my son talks to his various coaches (travel, HS, hitting, catching, pitching) who occasionally mention the level of competitiveness at the schools he is targeting or are targeting him. Based on that feedback he knows some schools he would have to switch to PO. Others he would likely hit as a freshman. Some schools would let him try both. Unfortunately, a few schools he had to cross off completely because it was just too much of a stretch.

@TerribleBPthrower posted:

Unfortunately, it seems more people lack the knowledge than people who have the knowledge.

That is the unfortunate result, but the core problem is that most people don't actually WANT the knowledge because it doesn't line up with the fantasy, er, uh... the dream.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but so many here seem to push for getting input/evals/advice from coaches.  Travel, high school, individual instructional, etc.  Again, not arguing it's wrong, but it seems to imply that those "coach" sources are largely valid.  That hasn't been my experience.  I see case after case when a coach doesn't 100% level with a player/parent.  They might deal out some actual valuable input, but there always seems to be a bit of "them" in the equation.  More times than not, I see coaches pushing kids to continue shooting for the stars to some degree.  And it always feels like the coach is just hoping and wanting to be associated with a kid's success and/or landing spot.  Like many don't want to poo poo a kid trying to land a D1 spot because, should the unlikely happen, the coach wants to be able to take some credit for it.  For what I call "virtual trophies" those coaches can then display for bragging rights and/or a means to keep selling their product - whatever that is.

In my mind, a good approach is to get as much input as one can from as many sources as possible.  Then take the least warm/fuzzy input you get and focus on that.  Listen hardest to those who give you the least appealing advice.  Because the chances are higher that they're being the most truthful with you.  But it's incredibly difficult because it's common practice by players and parents these days to the write tough stuff off as "haters gonna hate" and "F the naysayers."  Right?  "Don't listen to those who are trying to hold you back!"  But what happens if that person isn't trying to hold you back?  What if the "haters" are actually those who are hoping to see you avoid pain, frustration, etc?

@PitchingFan posted:

We are having people complain about the system but the the majority of the ones who complain about the system, coaches, are the ones who did not do their homework.

Even if you do your homework, the ball is in the coaches court. You can do all the research you want, it doesn't change the fact that coaches can recruit for more scholarships than they have every year. That is my issue. Between players returning for the next year and the incoming recruiting class there may be 13.9 scholarships for 11.7 slots. It basically means somebody who is currently expecting to be part of next years plans is not going to be around. They were recruited, offered money, and turned down other programs to be part of what the coach sold them on. Most of the time - development and opportunity.

My beef comes from the fact that coaches can essentially cut whoever whenever. That allows them to recruit whoever whenever - they will just trim the fat when it comes time to submit scholarship dollars to the NCAA. It allows them to get lazy. You like a kid but aren't completely sure - take him. Not sure if you're sold on a kid but rival school is also recruiting him - give him an offer, we'll give him a year to see if it works out. What this does is it takes away from development. Instead of working with a kid to become a contributor, you just see who's next in line. If all these kids aren't panning out and are getting cut who's not doing their homework. The parents or the coaches?

If the coaches are good at identifying talent and good with development - why is there so much roster turnover year after year?

^^^100%.  

^^^^^^ THIS 100%%% ^^^^

Same ^^^^^^^!!!!!!

Twice my older son had his % changed.  Total for 4 years stayed the same, but the geography (by year) was adjusted.  It was explained to him that "we've got an opportunity to get this guy if we can give 25% more, and he'll really help us".  The last year's bill was REALLY nice to see come in the mail.     

@PABaseball wrote, “if the coaches are good at identifying talent and good with development - why is there so much roster turnover year after year?”

In terms of identifying talent, how many of you have noticed that the RC on almost every staff is the youngest, most experienced guy?!? How much do you think he really knows? Not as much as you want him to know, I can promise you that! The least qualified coach on the staff is the one that’s out looking at players to recruit - because nobody else wants to do it. Now let’s talk about development of players - or lack thereof. The coaches are going to spend 100% of their time working with the 12 position players and the 10 pitchers that they believe can help win games NOW. They are spending zero time and energy trying to bring along a player that might help in a year or two. That means 18-20 players are pretty much left to their own devices. They often regress from lack of practice reps and absence of game competition. And this leads to many players becoming bitter and ultimately leaving the program.
  So the answer to the above question is, there is so much roster turnover year after year because most coaches are NOT good at identifying talent and put NO effort into developing their players. They expect those things to be done for them by someone who isn’t as high up the food chain as they perceive themselves to be.

@adbono the last thing you'll see me do is defend coaches being lazy/over recruiting/not developing/etc.  It is by no means okay or right.  But if we zoom out for a moment, it's easy to see how things got this way.  And there needs to be lots of finger pointing with the thumbs.  I feel like I am at a group therapy meeting, but I'll throw myself under the bus as an example.  I'm DanJ and I've contributed to the problem.  My son outgrew rec ball at age 6 so he started playing travel ball at age 7 for an 8U team.  By age 9, I was paying $75 so my son could spend 30 minutes with a former D1 pitching coach.  Travel ball from age 7.  Lessons with former D1 players and coaches.  Memberships to indoor baseball facilities so he could workout all year long.  Camps, clinics, $400 baseball bats, you name it.  All to satisfy my kid's insatiable appetite for the game and to satisfy MY insatiable appetite to give him every advantage available.  Believe it or not, my son's experience was typical around here.  There were some parents and players doing far more than we did.  Last February, a buddy of mine with a 2022 put his kid on a plane from Omaha to Fort Myers so he could throw 3.1 total innings over a weekend.

The bottom line is that these college coaches are getting far better players today that are delivered to their doors gift-wrapped in development and experience.  Coaches can have better players today than they did 20 years ago and actually do less work.  Viewed from that angle, it becomes harder to blame them.  We can put coaches on pedestals all we want, but they're still human.  And human nature always looks to do as little work as possible to get acceptable results. 

If I drop both these mowers off gift-wrapped in your driveway, which are you using?

Hi Danj. We are glad you are here. You are in the right place!

I just don’t see the deceit from the coaches and don’t blame the many I know.  Yes.  They give kids a chance who might be fishing in the wrong pond but I also see the kids who succeed above their head.  I’m not real sure it is the best thing to encourage a player to stay after freshman year if he has not done enough to get on the field.  I’m not sure at that point or maybe as this thread started to tell them they will probably never play and encourage them to move on which is in some way admitting the coaches were wrong.  I just do not see the kids that I think should have got a chance being told there is no chance. I see the kids who were reaching up a level being told you tried but you’re not gonna make it. But I’m sure it does happen. I just do not see it in the kids that my sons played with, I’ve coached, and I’ve been around    The kids that I see leaving power five teams after their freshman year of not playing or even after fall or not transferring to other power five teams but transferring down 1, 2 or sometimes three levels to find a place they can play immediately.  But with all of you saying you see it then I reckon I just need to open my eyes more.   I know at least 10 kids at my sons school will be told they are going to be redshirted or something in the next week or two.  But after watching several of them they probably never belong at that level anyway. So I didn’t progress, so I’m reaching, some more preferred walk-ons who were given a shot.  But I also see my son, a fifth year true walk-on guy, and a sixth year guy who probably are playing over where most thought they would.  I’m glad the coach gave them and others a chance to try and prove everyone wrong

As coaches and parents there are times we have more exposure to players than the recruiters pursuing them. There are two players I coached from 13u to 16u. Then I watched them play on the same 17u team as my son for two years. One of them played high school ball against my son.

All sixteen players in their graduating 17u class received P5 offers. One passed for an Ivy. Another ended up at a JuCo for academic reasons.

But two of the players I coached I knew they would not succeed where they chose. Both were great kids. I was pulling for them.

One kid had maxed out his body by the time he finished high school. He was already muscle bound and losing flexibility. One of his high school teammates told my son the kid was injecting. The kid had power. He had a plus arm. But he had poor mechanics and a scatter arm. The kid never got on the field and left after one year. This P5 was his only D1 offer. The recruiting coach was transitioning from D1 head coach to P5 assistant.

With the second player dad spent no dollar unspent on development and how to showcase. Jerry Ford told me this kid was the “real deal.” His ranked program P5 head coach (you know his name) publicly declared the kid could become his best recruit ever. If this kid walked into a room your first visual reaction would be, “That’s a ball player!” Think Josh Hamilton.

I just shook my head. The kid didn’t have the mental makeup to deal with failure. I had my arm around this kid more per season than any kid I ever coached. He put up enormous numbers against lesser pitching and adequate numbers against quality pitching. In high school in our area he was overrated and over heralded. He was handed a starting position at the ranked P5 for three years. He was on the bench by the time conference play started all three season.

How often do travel coaches tell a player their choice is a bad choice? Wouldn’t a travel coach who played P5 ball have a better feel for the player than a recruiting coach? Or do they want to pin a medal on their program’s chest every time one of their players accepts an offer from Big Time Ranked U.

Of the fourteen 17u kids who accepted P5 offers seven moved on to play elsewhere. One of the seven transferred to a non ranked P5. He was successful. But he didn’t like the campus culture and was homesick.

@adbono posted:

The coaches are going to spend 100% of their time working with the 12 position players and the 10 pitchers that they believe can help win games NOW. They are spending zero time and energy trying to bring along a player that might help in a year or two. That means 18-20 players are pretty much left to their own devices.

@PitchingFan posted:

I’m not real sure it is the best thing to encourage a player to stay after freshman year if he has not done enough to get on the field.  I’m not sure at that point or maybe as this thread started to tell them they will probably never play and encourage them to move on which is in some way admitting the coaches were wrong.

The problem is that a baseball team doesn't need 35 players.  Would you join a youth travel team with 35 players?  Of course not.  So the 35 number guarantees that 1/3 will not get on the field, even if they have done everything right.  And so, even if a coach truly only recruits and gives scholarships to 35, he's still going to have unhappy campers.

Given that, why do they bother recruiting more than 35, which guarantees cuts, decommits, etc.?

I understand there is fault on both sides of the issue. I honestly believe the number of guys carried is irrelevant. Whether it’s 35 or 135 it doesn’t make difference on the real issue. It’s the scholarship thing that bothers me. It’s one thing for a coach to say to a kid “come on over and try to make the team”.  Which is essentially what is being said when there is no $$$ being offered. If a kid has a dream to play ball at the next level, and that college lets him compete for a position then more power to them. I hope they understand the uphill battle their about to face, but I wish them the best. However, it becomes real shady when the colleges are basically allowed to offer $$$ that they themselves will end up not having.

The roster size is an interesting piece of this. While you would never join a 35-man travel team, I think 35 - give or take - is a number for the college level that every recruit feels they can “beat.”  Recruits and parents will acknowledge that a good third+ of the roster won’t see the field. But in the same breath, they’ll be 100% sure they won’t be one of those. Why? Because Johnny has ALWAYS been near the top of every roster he’s ever been on. So if “all” he has to do is be in the top 50-60% of his college roster? No problem!

Why do coaches bother recruiting more than 35? Because they can. Why are they able to do that? See my previous paragraph.

35 allows for giving the younger players the opportunity to adjust to the jump in competition level; accounts for injuries and mistakes (on either the coaches part about the kids ceiling or the kid’s part about the college fit); and gives the coaches a crapload of pitching. Same reason there is a 40 man in pro ball. Over recruiting can come from multiple places. Expected attrition that doesn’t happen, draft concerns, or flat out greed on the part of the coach. First two are difficult to manage. The last one is unconscionable considering these are the lives of young men they are playing with.

Two 2026’s (8th graders) committed the past two days. PG even had a Instagram live video for one of the announcements. One to LSU and the other to Miami.

Puke emoji on the PG Instagram live for a freaking 8th grader.

Anyone see or get invited to participate in J Rudd's change.org petition to the NCAA to abolish verbal offers and offer a binding NLI regardless of the grade? Great idea...I signed it even tho it won't impact my kid...fingers crossed it might impact my future grandkids in 2050.

Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head to verbally commit or the proverbial shaking of the hands.

I'm kinda committing to you without really committing to you.

It like putting something on layaway or the china cabinet

IMHO

KISS METHOD

Eliminate verbal commits.

Potentially open NLI signing period to start January of players Junior year vs November of Senior year.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head to verbally commit or the proverbial shaking of the hands.

I'm kinda committing to you without really committing to you.

It like putting something on layaway or the china cabinet

IMHO

KISS METHOD

Eliminate verbal commits.

Potentially open NLI signing period to start January of players Junior year vs November of Senior year.

No one is putting a gun to their head but that the way the game is played.  The problem is that it is again, more of an advantage for the coach and less so for the kid.  The unwritten rule is that the kid doesn't reach out to schools anymore and schools don't reach out the him.  The coach just keeps on recruiting and committing and over committing.  A kid we know just became the 25th commit for a year at a P5.  That doesn't even account for transfers.  Someone is going to get the short end of the stick....won't be the school.

@baseballhs posted:

No one is putting a gun to their head but that the way the game is played.  The problem is that is again, more of an advantage for the coach and less so for the kid.  The unwritten rule is that the kid doesn't reach out to schools anymore and schools don't reach out the him.  The coach just keeps on recruiting and committing and over committing.  A kid we know just became the 25th commit for a year at a P5.  That doesn't even account for transfers.  Someone is going to get the short end of the stick....won't be the school.

I am seeing local kids and kids my son plays with committing to these schools that are near the 20 commitment mark or some that are already over that mark. My first thought is that no way these kids are getting money if they are not a blue chip. They have to be getting a preferred walk on opportunity. My second thought is just like baseballhs said, a bunch of these kids will probably be encouraged to find opportunities elsewhere. I also think about who is giving them this advice to go ahead and commit to these schools with a large number of commits already. Someone is either not giving them any advice or feeding them bad advice.

I'm a fan of the idea of making commitments binding, but how do HA schools handle kids who don't qualify? Heck, how do non-HA schools handle it?

One simple solution would be to get rid of the word "commitment."  Stop using it.  The kids have made it extremely clear for years now that they have no clue what the word means; that it largely means nothing to them.  It's mostly a matter of changing the tweets up a little.

I am very excited and blessed to announce that I've told @StateU that my current plan of as today is to eventually play baseball for them.  And go to their classes.  Unless I find something I deem better or StateU's coach finds someone he deems better, there's a decent chance I'll be wearing a StateU jersey for at least one semester. I want to say thank you to my family, friends, and coaches who have supported and coddled me through everything and I hope they'll stand by me when either I or StateU's coach inevitably sees greener pastures. #stateuforlife

Problem solved.