VT Decommit

I saw that last night too.  If you go to his twitter feed, he posted it himself on twitter so it must be true. 

Based on past threads in this forum, to this outsider there seems to be a continued story regarding VT and their recruiting efforts. It's a wonderful field/stadium, there are continued improvements to the indoor workout facilities, VT plays in a top conference, and oh by the way, it's a top notch university.Yeah, it's cold in Feb and Mar, but that's the same for B1G, Ivy, and other VA schools.

 

Yes, they lost Coach K, but that was for the right reason.

The young man's "decommit" is his business and for his reasons.  It is his right, and I don't see anything wrong with his actions.  I see this as a totally separate issue from the VT program.

 

I've been following VT baseball for some time now.  They're doing all the right things, making the right investments but it is going to take some time to build a winner.  I hope the new AD allows the program to continue to develop and grow.  it took former Head Coach Hughes a long while to finally get some "organizational roots" and program momentum before VT hosted a regional in 2013.  

 

joemktg - it's cold everywhere! 

 

 

Hey, we saw 40 here in Ohio yesterday......shorts, convertibles and motorcyles.....40 is like mid-summer here compared to what it's been like the past month

Not in Columbia, SC!

I know nothing of this player, nor of his situation with VT, so don't try to read anything into this.

 

But I do think this shows what many of us have long suspected -- that the further and further we move the committing time table up, the more and more you're going to see of people changing their minds.  It just stands to reason that the more you ask less mature players to make decisions, the more often they will come to regret them -- and sometimes the program comes to regret it as well.  Plus, there's just more time to think things over, more time to see how academic performance and playing performance records pile up, etc. 

 

I certainly don't advocate for this but I have to say I am not at all surprised.

 

I remain OK with early commitments when everyone knows their minds, but I do think many players are jumping before they are really ready and that is not the right way to go about your business.

Excellent post Midlo, I agree.

VT beating UVA 2-1 today (against their ace) might help the program get some momentum....just saying.

I was "watching" the VT/UVA play by play online on one tab while watching keewartson's game on another tab.

 

But, did you see when Jack Roberts came out to relieve Kirby, while Mac Caples was at bat?  A good 'ol JRHS reunion there! 

This really bothers me.  Gavin came on this past year and became one of the best prospects in the entire country, we have him ranked very high. VaTech, to their credit was the first high level program to recognize this extremely talented player and they did an outstanding job of getting him to commit. The son of a very respected member of HSBBW was involved in that process. I'm sure this hurts, but they will recover.

 

What bothers me the most is wondering how much PG indirectly played a part in all of this.  Those rankings, that some seem to think carry no weight, seem to make players very well known.  We have seen it over and over.  Gavin Lux exploded in our rankings, deservedly so, moving way up after October of 2014. At that point in time, I would think that every high level college program, every MLB club, and many advisor/agents in the country knew everything about him.  But VaTech was the first of those programs to recognize just how talented this kid is. And they should have been rewarded for that.

 

Blame the kid? No

College fault?  No

Outside Influence? Probably

Fault in the system? Definitely

 

Strange this would happen so soon after we just discussed it in another thread. Sometimes the player gets hurt.  Sometimes the college gets hurt.  Some times advisors get involved.  Lots of outside influence and these young kids get pulled in many directions. Not always for the right reasons.

 

This is an example of the real world of recruiting.  This is what recruiters spend endless hours doing.  That is why it is so surprising to hear about sending recruiting emails to college coaches. They already know who they want and it is impossible to get all of the ones they want.  Not saying the email introductions and putting together personal websites never work, but I think people need to know those are not likely to turn out well. At least, not if the target is a high level DI.

 

Not sure what the answer is, but maybe they should just get rid of verbal commitments.  Instead of the early signing (LOI) date each November, maybe there is no early signing date.  No verbal, no signing date, a player commits he signs the LOI.  I think that would get rid of a lot of the early commitment Issues.  It's a different game when that commitment is the LOI rather than a verbal.  Both the college and the players would think twice before making that commitment. They would both be at risk if a mistake was made.

 

I'm sure there are reasons for things being done the way it is.  However, it does create some problems.

 

 

This is probably the only solution to stop or slow down the "Decommits".  Allow NLI's to be signed anytime and get rid of the Verbals.  I would think the number of early commits (prior to Junior Season) would slow to a trickle.  Yes, the super talented studs would still get their offers and sign their NLI early, but I think the Coaches\Schools would wait a bit longer to make an offer to a lot of kids. 

Great and thoughtful posts by both  PG and Goin-yard, and  PG's idea of allowing early LOI signings is a potential solution, but here are my thoughts on how it may well play out, and they lead me to the conclusion that (and believe me, I don't like this phrase) "it is what it is"...that is, the system has had years and years to play out and...well...here we are.

 

I don't think you can "get rid of" the verbal commitment, by definition.  It just a private, personal, non binding "decision" by two parties that happens to be made public.  So, how do you stop it?

 

I like the the concept of earlier LOIs, and that would certainly have both sides think long and hard before entering into the LOIs.  But, would the NCAA face even more scrutiny (would the Gov't...ugh...intervene) if they were suggest entering into legally binding agreements with atheletes at such a young age?

 

But, even if a player and a school were allowed to sign an LOI much earlier, logic suggests that the following sequence would play  out, and we'd be right back where we are...which is why I suggest "it is what it is":

a. the player and the school have a very high degreee of mutual interest early in the process, but

b. one or the other, or both, is not quite there in terms of a legal, binding commitment, so the LOI is not yet in play, but

c. there is enough interest that they would each be willing to enter into a less formal commitment (a verbal)...and

d. somewhere, somehow, someone would start to post and track these verbals publicly (just like we do now), and

e. we end up back where we started, only that the ability to sign an LOI comes earlier than it does now.

 

I'm just a dad who knows the game a little and understands the process..it is not my profession...so, I am sure there are flaws in my argument.  But, I guess what I am suggesting is that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and nothing is perfect.  Individuals (both coaches and athletes) have to be aware, responsible and accountable for their actions and deal with the consequences.  The "market forces" have played out here for many years and other than taking the far reaching step of intruding on people's individual civil liberties (e.g., a player cannot call a coach or a player and a coach cannot meet and discuss with one another their mutual interest in what the other has to offer), is there really a cure or perfect system....or should we just let it be?  If we do let it be, that certainly doesn't mean we stop debating it on forums like this...or stop exposing those who blatantly abuse it...or preparing the next generation of families re: the pros and the cons.  I hate the phrase, but do you agree that "it is what it is"?  I welcome critiques or disagreements.

Watershed-post by PG Staff.

 

To isolate one variable for change, i.e., the LOI signing at anytime, ignores the impact of that change on other variables, e.g., change in recruiting patterns, change in showcase/tournament schedule and/or business model, etc. This is a systemic issue, and a binding LOI at anytime is one of those impactful variables mucks it up for everything else. Point: you have to consider and/or change all the other variables so that the transition is smooth and logical. You want to screw with the primal forces of nature? Consider all the variables, not just one.

 

Let's assume PG Staff is right, that the system is faulty, and one of the variables that may be impacting the system is the influence of outsiders. Want to break that influence? Adopt and modify basketball's one and done rule to a two and done rule. No HS draft. No one from the global market is drafted before their HS grad year + 2 years. Now add to that a fully binding LOI where the school is on the hook for a two year scholarship and a guaranteed spot on the roster. Here's what happens:

1) Schools are far more circumspect about their evaluations, as are players.

2) The recruiting season extends beyond the junior year for the major D1 programs.

3) Advisors go away: they're not going to chase dollars until the players are at the collegiate level, and even then, the college becomes the de facto advisor.

4) D1 baseball becomes more competitive and entertaining (and with those media contracts, they need it).

5) MLB draft has more data from which to work, thus higher probability of success.

 

Good for the school: the aggregate level of play goes up. Good for the player: they receive guarantees for two years (and if the NCAA gets their stuff together, pay for play). Good for MLB: they receive a better pool of players from which to choose while mitigating risk.

 

Essentially, both parties (player and school) need to be far more circumspect about their decision: there's more skin in the game from both.

 

Will this stop early commitments? No, but unless the player is top notch, top 10, blueblood no-miss, a school would need to conduct a deep risk-assessment where the outcome is more often than not a pass or an LOI. Talk about s#$t or get off the pot.

 

If you're going to remove the LOI signing date, then you might as well make the other systemic changes, whatever they may be.

PG,

 

Once upon a time, November was the "early" signing period.  Now it's more like the "standard" signing period and April is the "late" period. 

 

While I am no great fan of much of the NCAA's penchant for Catbert-like rule making, I have to say that the approach of allowing a very young kid a chance to realize he made an immature mistake and possibly correct it while there is still time strikes me as sound. 

 

But I could see maybe moving up the "early" signing period to, say, July.  And then letting what you suggest take hold thereafter.

How big of a problem is this, really?  How many decommits occur each year, as a percentage of total commitments?

 

I don't know, but we have an example here of a high profile one and many people with suggestions as to why and what systemic changes could prevent this in the future.  This is why I'm asking the questions above.  I deal with this on a daily basis as an exec with my company.  I see people want to make sweeping change to a process as a reaction to a single event, and after assessing, we find that the it's occurence is a percent of a percent and hardly worth the time and effort.

 

I certainly appreciate that there are risks inherent in the system that affect both player and school, but to quote an earlier poster, it is what it is and likely doesn't warrant additional rules and regulations.  My 2017 currently has several very good D1 offers to ACC and SEC schools and is talking with several others.  I'm not allowing him to make a verbal at this time.  There's simply too many unknowns at this time. Sure, we're risking losing the offers, but we also risk making the wrong commitment (bad fit, better offers coming, etc) and I certainly don't want buyers remorse or, even worse, backing out of a commitment because we didn't do our homework.  I believe that, in the end, it's up to the parents and coaches to make decisions, offers and commitments based on whatever level of risk they're willing to assume, but I'm not convinced that this is epidemic in college baseball where sweeping changes are necessary or would even solve the problem (however big it may or may not be).

 

I'm just not a fan of another bureaucratic entity imposing further will on me and my family. 

Then you know the difference between an anomaly and a projectable trend. And if the latter, you get out in front of it before you get consumed by it. So the real question has to do not with the current state of the state, but with projections.Is this trending up? What is the data that supports the upward trend? Is this projectable to a market shift?

 

Love it when executives make decisions on the current status, and not projections, especially in the era of the digital enterprise and significant data growth. 

I am with you, the early signing period is now the standard.  But I do not believe that moving it up will take away the issue of committing, but rather create more issues with signing too early, for both the recruit and the program. I would like to see no commitments until a later date in the process. But as suggested above, this really is not as big an issue as those that have signed and called two weeks before and told not to show up, this is bad and should raise more concerns than a committed player who changes his mind BEFORE he signs.

 

I think that a lot of issues created are because recruits have to realize that even though the HC signature is on the LOI your commitment is to the school. This is a slippery slope.  Too many coaches moving around has also created issues.  

 

 

 

 

Love it when people make assumptions.  I completely agree with you.  What you failed to do was answer my questions about how big an issue this is.  Ironically enough, I work in data.  I follow trends and projections.  So if anyone is acting on "current status", it is you getting your feathers ruffled because of a noted decommit at VT.  

 

So I'll ask you the original question I posed.  What percentage of total commits are subsequently decommittting?  Please share.  If it's trending upward, do tell.

I'll take a stab at it.

 

I was going to write something eloquent and smart.  Then it occurred to me...I'm not that smart.  Therefore, I'll keep it simple!!!

 

Years ago there were no "decommit"s.   Today there are.

 

Trend = from the lower left, to the upper right! 

 

 

That line with a positive slope may just reflect the de-commits you hear about. Years ago, we didn't have Twitter or as much college baseball coverage. Plus, you may be paying more attention now. Do we really know the number is going up?

I recall not only committing in the Fall of my senior year, but also signing the NLI in November.  To the extent that early commits also signed...there were absolutely no "decommits".

 

Your points are very well taken, but I'm looking at a trend of 20 years, not 20 months.

Who are you to anoint me the Big Data guy? You're the Mr. Data Executive. Take your algorithms and do something with them.

RE: 1) To quote Hyman Roth: "This is the business we've chosen."

 

RE: 2) Beg to differ, and I had the evidence that showed who visited the boy's web site, who clicked on his emails, and who clicked from his emails to the web site. Lots of high level D1s...lots. And not necessarily from the recruiting coordinator, but the head coach as well.

Back to solutions.....

 

Money talks and bullshit walks.  I'd like PG Staff's idea of early LOI.   The best way to assure each party gets what they want is to throw some cash down..  I want to see a financial transaction so both parties are committed to each and there is no wriggling off the hook.  If both parties agree to the verbal then a check (deposit) or promisory note is written for $2000 (pick a number) to the school and held in trust.  That assures the recruit a roster spot and the recruit is now committed athletically to that school.  Contract outs would be very few but there would need to be one for academic acceptance.  Just a thought....

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is, once you have regulated voluntary transactions to the point of absurdity, any common-sense solution will complicate the regulatory regime and be unacceptable to the regulating authority.

 

In the case of PGStaff's solution or FenwaySouth's modification to it, the NCAA might not like the fact that they couldn't be sure the NLI's were signed away from the presence of their recruiters. At present, coaches are basically sequestered on campus during the early signing period to prevent them from twisting arms at the kitchen table. I'm not saying this is an important consideration--I'm just pointing it out as an example of how the NCAA's regulatory complexity makes it allergic to clean solutions.

 

 

I'm very comfortable knowing that I'm not qualified enough to have the definitive answer to this issue.  However, I do believe that the answer could be incredibly simple:

 

Do not allow scholarship offers to be made until July of the players Junior/Senior summer.  (Rising senior)

 

This benefits both the program and the player, and certainly levels the playin field.  The program has a better idea of their precise needs, when considering natural attrition, draft, etc.  The player is also closer to the end, more mature, better informed, and also has the benefit of better understanding the various programs' needs.

 

This gets back to shortening the time frame between an offer being made, and paperwork being signed.  This is very simple and should be fairly seamless when one considers that July 1 is when coaches are allowed to "talk" to their recruits off campus.

 

I would just make that the official "offer date", so to speak.

And while we are at it, move up the dates when official visits start.

I don't think that was his point.  The information on the website was most likely not the reason that initial interest was garnered.  He was probably seen somewhere previously, and the looks on the website were a result of that.

 

I can tell you that "cold calling" doesn't work real well with these coaches.  Sometimes it does, but not nearly as well as you would think. 

Some of these replies are silly.

 

No way is anyone going to not allow anyone to make an early verbal commitment.

College baseball has become big business, the more you get your name out there the better it is for your program. The better the prospects you bring in the more money you will get from your boosters and other programs. 

 

Asking a 16yo top prospect to commit  to your program and getting a yes is like money in the bank. Now you have everyone paying attention to your program. The commit now has every scout paying attention to him.  Its free advertising for everyone. There are obviously negatives to the process but I think the positives out way them.  

 

That's how it is and its not going to change unless the NCAA starts to find out violations have occurred, but then I am not sure they care about that either.

 

And to think you had a monopoly on that.

Yea..silly.
I mean do you all really think the ncaa is going to change rules so a few 16 years olds shouldnt committ?

Did you ever think the NCAA would consider paying athletes or giving scholarships that are worth an amount that is greater than tuition, room, and board?

Yes I did.
But that would be something that involves lots of student athletes, not just a few freshman or sophmores who may change their minds.
I am more concerned for the committs who actually sign an NLI and get asked not to come.

Zach Hess now too?  Someone please say it ain't so. 

^^^Well, his commitment is off his PG profile.

 

10 redshirts on the roster?  When keewartson was being recruited that was one of the things we looked at and VT had 1 or 2 at the time.

 

Several players from last year have fallen off the roster (which happens at many schools as well).  I just happen to know those players which makes it feel very weird to me.  

 

Heavy sigh.

If true, it's weird indeed, as keewart noted. Zach's talent continues to skyrocket, and the VT connections make it a no-brainer.

 

Something's amiss...

I don't see ZH reaching any campus.  After his performance in the PG National games sitting 92-94 with his frame, he will probably be a first or second round draft pick in June.

He was even better at the PG AA game. Solid citizen. Dad is one of a kind.

 

Having said that, you still want that D1 commitment (or JUCO) in your back pocket.

I think that this is his business and there are probably two sides to the story.

 

If he has said he wants to go pro, and its out, in all fairness, give up your commitment to someone else who really wants to play for that program. I am not into kids taking commitments with no intentions to ever attend.  This is why I dislike these early studs committing, but it works for both sides, good PR for program and helps the player in his draft slot.

 

For crissake, most of the comments on this damn board has to do with somebody else's business with multidimensional sides to every story!

Once again, these things bother me.  I actually got a call from a coach of one of the nations top programs asking me about this pItcher.  My first response was, why is he decommitting?  Coach said he probably felt he could go anywhere now. Personally I thought he would have reached all his goals at VATech.  But no matter what, I hope he does great wherever he ends up. I know I will be pulling for him.

 

In our business we always favor the player in these situations.  I'm sure he is doing what he thinks is in his best interest.  But those two players VTech lost both played in our All American Game.  Both are potential high draft picks either next year or later out of college.  What a big loss for that program that recruited them in the first place.  Great job of recruiting with nothing to show for it.  It's sort of a rich get richer thing... One school striving to reach the top... Losing players they recruited to those at the top.

 

I don't hold it against the players and can't hold it against the college they end up at.  However, this was devastating to VATech.  Sure, it is one thing to lose your top recruits to the draft, but it hurts even more losing them before the draft. Who do you blame?

 

Can't blame the players, they are doing what they think is best.

Can't blame the college they end up at. These are impact players at any college.

Can't blame VATech they did their job and got two of the best players in the nation to commit, yet they are the only one to get hurt.

 

Maybe there is something wrong with the system!

 

I mentioned in another thread that I wish there was a way that LOI's were signed during early recruitment.  It won't happen, but it sure would solve many of the issues for both the colleges and the recruits.  Colleges would be less likely to take as many chances on younger players.  But when they see one they are really sold on, we sign a letter, no verbal.  Many players would benefit, because they will know that the college offer is really there.

 

It won't solve all the issues.  Whenever that college coach tells a player he is not wanted,  most players will get a release and look elsewhere.  It would just cause colleges to think twice before making lots of offers and cleaning things up later.  It would also make recruits think twice before committing, knowing they might have a difficult time if they change their mind.

 

Don't know why I bring all that up, it ain't going to happen!  And it ain't going to stop!

Was at a showcase game yesterday talking to a mom of one of my son's teammates.  Her son committed to a Top 10 program when he was 15 years old.  I was curious what other schools were recruiting him at the time he committed to the Top 10 school.  Chiefly, I was most curious as to how his home state universities let him slip away and go to neighboring state university?  Mom said, when son had offer in hand of school in neighboring state,  and before he committed to it, son went and visited his local state university (ACC) and a major program in the SEC.  Not so much to use any leverage but just to see some other schools to compare to.  Mom said both the ACC school and the SEC school were VERY interested in her son, and both said they would love to have him come and play at their schools but due to his age (15, at the time) he was just too young for them to offer him at that time. 

 

Not sure if they had a policy or it was just their philosophy, or simply a case by case basis, but they were not going to offer him due to his youth.  And wished him well with the school that had offered.  Sounds to me like both these schools stuck to their guns and passed only out of principal.  This kid is the real deal.  Will be drafted out of HS.  Either school would have taken him down the road I bet, but they felt he was just too young.

PGStaff,

 

I agree.  This is the cost of doing business at that high level of baseball in the most competitive conferences.  It is an extremely fine line for a college coach knowing the talent in front of him could be a home run to his program or the recruit could end up as a high draft pick and opt for professional baseball out of high school.  

 

What is that fine line?  What round is the difference between college and the draft? Most everybody who has been around HSBBWeb knows or has heard of a highly recruited top pick opting for college or the 20th rounder opting to turn pro....you just never know. These are the hard decisions and best guesses these college coaches make with this type of talent, and I can certainly see by the results.....it isn't easy....I'd expect it takes a very experienced recruiter to read people, situations, and their motivations for college or the draft with this level of talent.  JMO.

My thought is if you make a "commitment" as a player....you keep it....it's very simple.  My son committed to the first D! school that offered him.  Before he called the coach, we were fairly sure an offer was coming....though he was still having some contact with some bigger schools.  He said "if they offer, I'm taking it".  We discussed the fact that there is NO WAY he is backing out and he was fine with it.  His comment was "why would I....I want to go there".   The only way I would have allowed him to back out was if 1) there was a coaching change....or 2) he decided to go to a D2 or D3 school...or 3) he quit baseball altogether.  I guess different people have different beliefs.  Hopefully the kids end up happy and do well wherever they end up.

I agree. If you make an agreement stick with it or if you think that you might change your mind dont do it.

JMO

No doubt, that should be the way it works.  Problem is, people change their mind. It can be the player or it can be the college.

 

Not sure how to look at this other than to think about wild situations.  Kid gives the local DIII coach his word he is going to that school.  Now a year later he has improved so much that he is one of the nations top prospects. The biggest and best DI programs in the country are offering him a great big scholarship.  How many would keep their word to the local DIII?

 

We all like to keep our word, we are taught that from day one.    Problem is, sometimes things change.  

Do players actually commit that early to D3 programs?     

 

 

PG has it right - People Change jobs, spouses (till Death do us part), houses, where we live, cars and 1,000 other things every day.  Thinking a 15 year old won't have reasons to change their mind 2 years later seems like a pretty sandy foundation for anything.

 

If you are a big time college coach and don't think that some percentage of these handshakes will not happen then the water coolers must get a pretty good workout. 

 

FWIW - this is a tough break for Va. Tech.  Their baseball status has been also ran mostly forever.  The fact that they are getting looks from these kinds of players could foreshadow a change in fortune if they can actually get some of these kids to Blacksburg.  

 

I will agree with PG Staff....of course a kid who had a chance to move from a D3 to a D1 would likely move.  I didn't mention that scenario because my son originally committed to a D1.  Though that brings up another question.  Why are kids so jumpy to commit so early....especially in PG's scenario.  Why in the world would you commit 2 years out to a D3 if your goal was to play D1?  I really get the feeling some kids just want the prestige of saying "Hey, I committed to play in college"....even if it's not the spot they really want to end up.  Maybe I'm wrong...but it sure seems to happen...not just in baseball....but in basketball and football also.   Take your time...figure out where you want to be and then commit there and be done with it.

I have known one player who just didn't want to mess with the recruiting and feel like it was hanging over him his entire Junior year of high school. There are a lot of texts, emails and phone calls to deal with and committing ended all of that for him. One of the consequences of having kids exclusively deal with the coaches is they take the barrage of contact. The whole thing is a bit screwy. He kept his commitment. The player ended up playing his freshman year and transferring because he didn't like the school environment. Which he likely would not have known till he got there anyway.

A lot of folks are asking why would a person commit so early.  To me it is easy.  There are no guarantees in life, and what if no other offers come?  By not taking the "Bird in Hand", the opportunity may fly by.  I don't have a problem with players changing their mind.  (I must disclose that my son did.)  Coaches change their minds all the time.  They may not prior to the kid arriving on campus, but plenty change their minds after fall practices, first year, second year, etc. 

 

The player should do what is best for him.  If the kid has a change of heart about his commitment, he isn't doing the coach any good by reluctantly honoring his commitment.  If I was coaching a team, I wouldn't want a kid that doesn't want to be there.

To answer the question, Why commit so early?  Here is one reason:

 

My story about the 15 year old who committed to the Top-10 school and the other ACC/SEC schools who passed by saying he was too young for them to also offer, but wished him well.  Mom said son accepted the one offer then because "he wanted it to be over."   As in the recruiting process.  She said he didn't like having to call coaches, and "that whole thing."  He just wanted it all to be over. 

 

I've heard this before from kids who are in summer before Senior year and I can understand that as they are on year 3 or so of the process.  But summer before sophomore year? Poor kid must have really been getting some interest, I guess.  Such a good player, I wouldn't be surprised!

Most offers are time sensitive, meaning the recruiter will give the player 7-10 days to make a decision and if they pass, the offer never seems to return or has a reduced scholarship amount at a later date. If an athlete has an offer from his dream school, committing is never an issue. 

It has been my experience that most recruiters will ask a coach if the player is ready to receive an offer before they offer (in other words do they think the athlete will commit if they offer), otherwise they will hold off offering, till the timing is right. 

While there are many reasons that a 15-16 year old kid should wait and not commit early, there are some valid reasons for doing it.

 

One of the main reasons has been brought up here... He wants to get it over with!  The very best players end up having a part time job dealing with recruiting.  They see a college they truly like, make a commitment and end much of the recruiting rat race.

 

I have never liked the theory of committing early to insure you have something.  If it is only that one college you committed to that still wants you a couple years later, chances are that same college also no longer wants you.  On the other hand, most often when you are talented enough to be recruited by a top school as a sophomore, there are a ton of schools that will want you.  Including that school that offered you in the first place.

 

My example of a DIII college was more about giving your word, than any actual verbal commitment.  Also tried to explain it was a wild scenario.  Just saying that a kid could easily tell the local coach he is coming to that college, only to find out later he is a top DI prospect.  After all, that is what a verbal commitment is,  just your word that you plan to attend a certain college.  It's also the colleges word they will honor whatever the offer is.

 

Everyone understands the honorable thing is to keep your word.  I think everyone actually plans on keeping their word when they verbally commit.  But things can drastically change in a couple of years.  Once a person realizes that they have made a mistake, should they be forced to continue on with that mistake or try to better their situation? Guess we would all look at that differently.

 

I would like to have seen the pitcher in question, stay at VATech because he is a great kid and I like him.  In my mind VT was an ideal situation for him.  Great coaching, important role immediately, and good pitchers can go anywhere and be a first round pick.  He is what you would say is very uncomfortable to hit against and throws mid 90s. Then again, that 1st round thing might happen anyway for him, no matter where he goes, and I hope it does.  It still speaks highly of the VATech program, being able to recruit these type players, in the first place.  They might end up getting hurt in this case, but it sure looks like they are headed in the right direction.  Problem is, the conference they are in is a real bitch.

My question would be why not?  There is a lot of discussion on here about de-emphasizing the "number" on the back of the D and focusing on education.  I think we can all agree from an educational standpoint there are a lot of benefits with attending a DIII school from a classroom perspective as well as from a playing one. I understand the elite player isn't probably going to do this but for others it could be the right path to take. 

Redsdad,

 

You are correct, but a 15-16 year old committing to a DIII is meaningless.  He doesn't have a good enough academic record yet.  So the offer, if there was one, would be what?  There is no athletic scholarship and there can't be any academic money to offer that early.  Even financial aid situation could change before admission. So the offer has to be pretty much zero.

 

My example was based on someone giving their word more than an actual offer being made and verbally agreed on.  Did that because of the importance people put on giving your word and sticking to it.  I'm not sold on "your word" is everything in every case.  Especially when we all know how many mistakes we make.  That is why we have signed contracts in life.  And I've even made plenty of big mistakes on those that I wish could have been changed.

It seems to me that VT has taken a calculated risk in their recruiting practices. I don’t have time to do all the research but if I recall they signed a good half a dozen kids (top end talent) about a year or even a year and a half ago, several of them in the summer before sophomore year or in September of that year. Also if memory serves me correct I am thinking that quite a few of them were northern kids, I believe I recall at least 4 or 5 that were. It is possible it was more or less but I am pretty sure it was a substantial amount.

 

I believe that the plan was to take as much top end northern talent off the market before the competition had a chance to catch up. Remember 2 years ago Virginia had 2 kids from PA, one from New Jersey and one from NY in the starting lineup in Omaha…I also recall at least one but maybe more kids from PA and NJ on that years Vandy roster.

 

What I am assuming is they got in a new RC, he was extremely aggressive in his new role, he was obviously very good at it and he had a plan and he was able to pick-up some great talent early. He was smart enough to know he wasn’t going to win a heads up battle for the current class top players so he went to an age where he was the first major University to contact these kids…kind of like puppy love. The problem with getting great talent early is much like being a VC or angel investor things don’t always go the direction you expect.

 

I think this problem is created by the universities, it allowed / ignored by the NCAA and ultimately the schools that are most active in it will get screwed the hardest by it. If the NCAA and the school administrators allow coaches to chase 8^th and 9^th graders and the coaches themselves still feel it is the best way for them to get talent it will continue. The process either has to be eliminated or it has to fail miserably for the Universities, I don’t believe the recruits will ever, in mass numbers, be the ones to say no.

Can see lots of reasons why one would commit early and why one would hold off.  Personal and player specific decision in almost every case.

 

I can only reflect on how it worked for my 2016 son who committed two days before starting his junior year.

 

His offer came from his dream school and nothing has changed about that since he committed.  Team has had lots of success lately so lots of positive buzz around the school.  He did not like the mechanics of the recruiting process.  Emails, phone calls, etc.  He was ready to build a lasting relationship with his future coaches.

 

From a parent's perspective it has allowed us to be much more selective about where he plays and against whom.  No more 4-5 hour trips to play one game at a mid major D1 hoping and wishing that someone likes him there.  We just don't go and his team has plenty of other guys who want and need that opportunity.  Able to shut him down from pitching as no pressure to be in front of college coaches 12 months a year.  The positives in my mind go on and on...  

 

With that said the most stressful part for player and parent was when HC at future school was offered a Power 5 job and ultimately turned it down.  As we sat at the ball fields that week I was glued to Twitter for sure.

Old School,

 

Good thoughts.

 

Before anything will ever be done about it, early recruiting will have to be defined as a problem.  While we can come up with cases that create problems for individuals or the colleges, I'm not sure those that have power see it as an actual problem.

 

As far as VT recruiting early, I see it more like competition.  Many of the top programs in college baseball are doing it.  Programs that don't are at a disadvantage.  How are you going to beat the best when they are out there recruiting the best talent available from 9th graders to seniors?  It's almost like you have to go out and get them early and hope you can keep most of them.

 

Of course, there is current talent and there is development.  Some coaching staffs are so good at development that they don't require the same amount of current talent.  Then again, even those programs want the most possible talent.  These days one of the best ways to secure talent is to do it early. There is risk involved, but the rewards can be great.

As the mom of a HS Sophomore, all this talk about pros vs cons of early commitment makes my head spin. It's not a problem we have to deal with, but it still makes me confused about when is the optimal time to commit and when it is a little late. From everything I'm reading, I think next summer is a very important time (summer before junior year) and verbally committing during junior year or summer before senior year is a pretty good time point. Does that sound about right? Right now, we are just focusing on making sure he is on the right team for next summer to be seen by the coaches he wants to get in front of. After those games, we'll fill in with showcases as needed or wanted.

Yes, that timing is about right / the norm.  You are on the right track.  If something happens sooner, let it happen and play it out.

just went through this with 2017 son- sounds like your going about it the right way.  Don't get in too much of a hurry, just make sure he's going to be playing in front of the schools that he is targeting for next summer.  As far as showcases- we didn't do any, not saying that's the right thing for everyone.  our son was fortunate to play for a coach that promotes the kids, and was able to get our team in to tournaments that coincided with my son's targeted schools.  He went to a couple of camps on those campuses as well- but they knew who he was before he got there thanks to our coach- my opinion is that this was extremely helpful.  PM me if you'd like, I don't have all the answers by a long shot, but was in your shoes a year ago.

kandkfunk-

 

Of all the things in this process to stress promise me you won't stress about when your son commits.  There is not a "right" time.  I think he and you will know when the right time is if you are fortunate enough to get to that point.

 

Son's travel teammates were all over the board.  He was probably the 3rd or 4th to commit and then there was a large gap of time to this summer.  This summer after Atlanta the dominos started to fall and several landed in great spots most committing in July or August as rising seniors.  

 

I know this isn't all that helpful but each player's time is what it is and my son's right time won't be your son's right time.  Try to enjoy it.  Seems just yesterday I was excited about my son's prospects of being on varsity as a HS freshman.  We are now at most 4 months from his last season of HS baseball ending.  It will go faster than you think.

Re: 2 Many high level HC dont go out and recruit. They pay people to do that. So if there RC comes back talking about a guy he wants, how do you suppose the HC will know who is talking about? 

I am refering to high level programs. Not that they dont read emails or look at video, but pg is right, they know who they want as their top recruits, now they may need to fill in the holes. 

Since early offers are in no way binding, the Risk, on the part of colleges, appears minimal, if non-existent.   If the kid you "offered" as a 9th grader doesn't develop as expected/hoped, just tell him to get lost.  It happens.  I know one prominent D1 school that cut a kid loose with a letter.  You would think they would have at least had the courtesy/guts to do it in person, or by phone call.  I guess you could argue that the risk to colleges is that they get a bad reputation.  But, kids are desperate to play for Big State U.  Plus, they think it will never happen to them.  All of which makes the risk to the college minimal. 

 But what value is there in securing talent if its not binding?

 

all of this is very true, the bolded is huge.

The value is they have an excellent chance at getting that player.  The vast majority of early signs end up at the school they verbally committed to. The early commits to UCLA, Florida, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, LSU, Virginia, etc., usually want to stay with them.

 

Now if your competing at that level, your best chance to get that extra talented kid, is to get him early.  Chances of getting him later are extremely slim, because someone else (the competition) will already have his commitment.

Given that the data is fascinating, there are a couple of things:

 

1) The draft/college decision for POs v. position players is very different, as are the results. There's one study that shows a slight draft pick uplift for pitchers when opting for college vs. pros out of HS, but a dramatic fall for position players if they opt to go to college. There are exceptions, but the probability is against the position player especially during the middle rounds (starting around 5th).

 

2) The probability of long term success drops dramatically with each round. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall around a 60-70% chance of success for 1st rounders, a 50-50 chance for 2nd rounders, a 35% chance for third rounders, then it falls off the table.

 

3) Then overlay that with the degree of success that an organization has regarding bringing their prospects along and into the highest levels of competition. There are some that are exceedingly good, and there are some that are exceedingly bad, per a study I came across.

 

One other factor is the FV of a signing bonus + the LTV of a degree received around 5 years later than age peers (assuming the player gives the pros 5 years before deciding to hang them up), vs. the LTV of a degree (less 5 years) with the FV of the signing bonus received 3 years later, vs. a LTV of a degree without any pro toe-dipping. 

 

So what round is the difference? Quantitatively, it depends!

For reasons that ought to be obvious to most, I have chosen to remain quiet here; and I shall continue to do so, generally. However, there's one point that I'd like to make before ducking out.

 

Virginia Tech's current coaching staff is intent upon building a program that consistently contends for its highly challenging conference's championship. Those teams that do so, tend to go on to loftier post-season pursuits. Historically, that hasn't been where Virginia Tech has tended to compete, but that's not to say that it can't and shouldn't be done there in the future.

 

In order to accomplish the coaching staff's objective, it's imperative that they compete for the same elite level of talent that their principal competitors aspire to sign. It's only through that effort, along with the establishment of a track record of developing players who come through the program, that they have a chance to reach that objective.

 

So, the point is this: Virginia Tech's recruiting process mirrors exactly that of its principal competitors in terms of the age of the players it recruits. Since elite players are being courted principally in the summer following their 9th grade year, that's where a good bit of attention tends to be given.

 

Last month, we saw a rash of commitment announcements involving the Class of 2018. Virginia Tech's name appeared on that list, as did the name of virtually every major program in the country. Any suggestion that Virginia Tech's recruiting timeline or approach differs in any material way from its competitors is simply a mistaken notion; and I would tend to think the same of any such suggestion involving any other major baseball program. 

 

It's a highly competitive process, and all of those who have chosen to compete do so using highly comparable approaches.

Prepster: it's difficult to respond given your level of vested interest and your distinct knowledge.

 

I completely agree with your assessment that VT's recruiting process is on par with its principal competitors (and better than in-state rivals). And I can attest that VT's RC level of effort and process is beyond competitive. And, oh by the way, the RC is of excellent character.

 

Something's amiss. Something is happening where the recruiting class is not as strong as its competitors. If the RC is doing his job correctly...and he is...then why doesn't it show in the results?

 

When comparing PG's recruiting class value, VT's 2016s are ranked #75 and the 2017s are ranked #42. VT lost 2 recruited 2016 PG AA's

 

When does the gap start to appear vis-a-vis VT's competitors? Why does the gap form? You are what your record says you are. The RC is bringing the goods to the table, so why is the recruiting record what it is?

 

We can agree it's not the RC. I can tell you what the Chatty Cathy Dads and Moms think, but that is just an opinion. The facts be what they be.

 

 

 

 

Prepster - you said what I was trying to say much better.  Tech looks to be making the effort to upgrade the talent level and is playing the game the way it is supposed to be played under today's rules.

 

They are definitely getting looks from players that previously probably would have passed.  That is a good sign for them.  Reeling them in and getting them to Blacksburg will allow them close the gap that traditionally has existed. 

 

Getting some top end Northern talent and nabbing a few of the top 10 VA guys every year will do the job right quick. 

VT is already competitive in one of the toughest conferences In college baseball.  They just aren't satisfied with being competitive.  Interesting note... last year in a three game series they swept the eventual National Champions.

 

Nobody out there is going to outwork them when it comes to recruiting, we see that at our events.  I think they are very close, that is why it must really hurt losing those two recruits. Both of those guys are potential front line impact players in any highest level program. Then again they could both be drafted high enough that they won't play college ball.  Their draft potential went way up, but that mostly happened after they had already committed to VT.

 

College recruiting is very difficult..  Only the very best, most recognized programs, have an advantage.  You find a player you like, you get him to commit before the world knows about him and then... You hope he doesn't turn into what you expect until he gets to your campus.  I remember years ago when Clemson was losing 2 or 3 recruits every year because they became first round picks.  So now days you have to hope the kid you recruited is not an early draft pick.  But how do you know for sure when you are actively recruiting a player?  You can't ignore talent, and then watch that player beat you later on because he wasn't an early pick.  LSU successfully recruited Alex Bregman who we thought was a first round type Out of high school. This year he was the second pick in the first round out of LSU.  You never know for sure what is going to happen and the earlier you get a verbal commitment that longer there is to wait and see what develops.  Then again, there's not much choice the way things are going these days. The early bird finds the worm.

A lot of what have been said is about what is good for the College.  But we are still talking about kids here, many who can't even sign a legally binding contract due to their age.  When do we watch out what is best for the kids? 

That would be the job of the parents...you know the ones that nobody wants to talk to!!

 

"But we are still talking about kids here, many who can't even sign a legally binding contract due to their age.  When do we watch out what is best for the kids?" 

 

Generally, we're talking about players who are at least 16.  Nearly all of them are looking at getting only partial scholarships, so any commitment to any college entails a commitment to finances as well.  Between the maturity level a player of 16+ should have, and the parental involvement at least for purposes of discussing the money aspects of things, I think the idea that we're dealing with "just kids" who should be indulged is not the reality at all.

 

Bear in mind that even their non-athlete classmates are making life-altering decisions every day -- choice of college, whether or not to use alcohol or drugs, how responsibly they drive their cars, sex, you name it.  While some may have to learn hard lessons from having made decisions that they later regret, this too is a life experience that we all have to undergo and learn from.  As my father used to say, "You're not going to learn any younger!"

 

But then, a generation ago this was not a problem at all.  We now live in the helicopter parent era, with prolonged adolescence, but college-bound players would be well advised to model themselves after the expectations that prevailed for their parents' generation and not their own.  All the helicopter children run smack into the real world at some point.  One great thing about competitive athletics is, you get there sooner than your peers, and that gives you a giant head start in the competitive adult world you're heading into.

 

   Yep, understand completely.    And, you throw in the human element to an unpredictable situation....and voila it becomes even more unpredictable.   A potential high draft choice with family money may opt for college, or possible first generation college student promises his parents to get an education or a recruit from a low income family that needs the money to live....what is normal?.   There are all kinds of recruiting situaitons & stories out there.  

 

It's not easy to convince these top kids to take a chance on an upcoming college program in lieu of professional baseball.  It is alot easier to convince them to take less risk on an established college program.  There may be some top high school recruits out there that never considered going pro.  No doubt this is probably the hardest part of a RC's job....he has to read people and understand motivations. Never easy in any profession.

 

Rolling the dice and hoping for a 7.  As always, JMO.

 

 

I am sorry for not defining competitive better than I did and not trying to disparage Tech's direction at all.  In fact I think it is a positive that top players are now paying attention to them. 

 

Nevertheless, they have made 2 NCAA tourney's in the last 15 years with both since 2010.  That essentially puts them on par with the Radford's, ODU's and William and Mary's in baseball although they get the nod being in the ACC. 

 

UVA has more tournament appearances in the last decade than Tech has tourney wins in its history.  Despite the sweep last year it is hard to say they are truly on that level.

 

They play in a tough league so they have higher hurdles to get over.  Living with what is happening in Charlottesville has to be a tough pill and I think that is the stick they prefer to measure by.  I'd say the level they are trying to reach now is a regular in the top 25 or 40 year in and year out. 

 

Getting some top flight players that they haven't gotten in the past must happen if Tech is going to make that jump.

Well, if it were my son, and he showed possible first round talent, depending on who was recruiting him and wouldnt abuse him, if a pitcher, I would encourage him to go where he would impact a team the most

Everyone wants to play on the teams that often get to Omaha, I get that, but there is nothing more satisfying than being an impact player on a team trying to improve their program.

JMO

I definitely agree with that. Especially if that recruit is a pitcher.

 

Someone mentioned, "what about the kids".

 

Not sure how to answer that. If 16 year olds were draft eligible, MLB clubs would be drafting some of them.  So there has to be a rule put in place to stop early recruiting. Until that happens, early recruiting is only going to get more and more popular.  I think someone answered the question fairly well.  The kids have a parent.  In some cases I think it is the parent that wants that early commitment more than the player.

 

PG,

I am very glad that you said that.

 

I'm glad he said it also.  I have seen too much of that by parents.  

 

I think that our job as a parent is to guide your child towards something where they can best succeed.  To help them adjust their way of thinking when they go off track. To support them when they are on the right track.  And to help pick them up when they stumble.

 

Are they going to have their bumps and bruises?  Absolutely.  But you can't guide them down a path where you know they'll have little success just to stroke your own ego.

Truth is - this comes down to character.  We live in a world that has marginalized character.  We list all the reasons that it's ok to break our word and all the anecdotes that "support" our reasons for breaking our word - but it comes down to the willingness to break our word.  It always boils down to plain old fashioned selfishness (when there is a lack of cause - like a coaching change or academic shortcomings)

 

Some people (most actually) are comfortable with breaking their word and being that person.  They still think they are a person of character (because cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing) while behaving in a way that is completely in opposition to that reality.  You are the sum of your actions.  I am sure this cut and dry approach makes most people feel uncomfortable and that's fine.

 

Most people are average or below average in every way.  Character is just one of those ways.

 

Make a promise - keep a promise. End of story.

 

If you don't then you need to accept the fact that you are a person who's word is not worth anything and shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when people return the favor.

 

The staff at VT doesn't deserve this.  They are people of character and they keep their word.  It's unfortunate that not everyone adheres to that same moral compass.

Best post in this thread...I have been following this one at work wondering if anyone was going to take this path.  I will jump on-board with this line of thinking.  I was raised under one very simple philosophy -- live your life with the highest degree of integrity; which includes doing what you say you will do, even if it hurts.  Take a second and reflect about how many times you have asked yourself -- "what is wrong with our society" -- a lack of character, integrity, and strong moral fiber is what it always circles back too.  I say all this with a complete grasp on the reality we don't live in a black and white world and there are times when we have to reverse course.  But I also think those instances are the exception and not the rule. 

Couldn't agree more, R. Graham.  Tech doesn't deserve it.  Neither does the player who, recently, was forced to decommit from a major VA school because they had buyer's remorse.  Apparently he didn't throw hard enough at PG in July.  God forbid.

I actually feel the same way, have forever but.....

 

I cant blame a 15-16 year old who has been strongly influenced to make a decision, whether right or wrong and then influenced once again to make another decision when something they think better comes along.

JMO

I could totally agree with this if the party being referred to wasn't 15 when they agreed to the deal. There is a reason kids don't have the legal ability to make a contract. it is unfortunate and Tech isn't any more to blame then any other school - one thing for sure is the kids are not to blame...it is the system that is broken.

The "system" is only one part of the equation...the parent is where the buck stops.

I totally agree with the parent being part of the problem but they are not the professional. Parents are biased, we have no idea what the knowledge level is or what the financial need is...the higher standard will always be to the professional. if the 15u kid wasn't being chased the child and parents wouldn't have the chance to be stupid!

 

I was chatting with a showcase organization GM this summer at the 15u WWBA.  He said something to the effect, "I've lost count of how many RC's have told me that they are DONE with recruiting (read: offering) 15 year olds." 

 

Sounds like there are RCs who are drawing a line.  Not sure if the line begins at 16 or what?  I imagine it is an unwritten rule that they find hard to live by in the arms race that is recruiting.

I really struggle where I fall on this issue.  I, as well, was taught that your word is all you have, and I don't give mine lightly.  This is precisely why I told my son to make certain before he gave a coach his word.  It worked for us, but I can also see where it might not have.  I am not going to stand on my pulpit and proclaim that my son would have never gone back on his word, no matter what.  I would like to think I know, but I just don't.  We took the same approach when the pro guys started coming around.  Son was advised and followed the advise to never give them a specific number.  We had multiple in-home visits, and to their credit, I can't remember a single scout pressing son for a number.  Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, son had an injury in April, the same one that is being corrected today.  We just didn't get a diagnosis then.  I can tell you that once he shut down, there were NO more scouts!  While I understand why, it was very hard on a 18 year old kid that was being shown a lot of love for 6 months to have that disappear overnight.  He questioned himself and his ability.  We talked about this a lot and all I could do was encourage him.  My faith leads me to believe that God is in control and He has a purpose and plan for my son's life.  But that character issue is a two-sided coin.  Unfortunately, the college or pro team has the ace up their sleeve.  You break NCAA rules if you ask for advice, yet the teams are advised and they do this everyday for a living.  In my estimation, they should be held to a higher standard because they are adults with all the resources, and the players are kids with parents that have very little knowledge.  If I were the college recruiter, I would identify the kid as early as possible and then squirm as I try to hold on to him for dear life.  But the college coach not only has to worry about the kid changing his mind, he has to worry about that pro guy coming along with promises of cash.  I really do see this as a catch 22 on college coaches part.  Unfortunately, as many have pointed out on here numerous times, nothing is going to change and most likely it will get worse before it ever gets better.  

About 6 years ago I was negotiating with a VC for Series A funding, and we agreed to give up X for the funding. We get to the signing, and the terms were different and in favor of the VC. Asked for an explanation, he said: "My reality has changed."

 

Moral of the story: don't put matters into the hands of someone else's moral compass.

 

Commits on both sides put matters into the hands of the other party's moral compass. It's at risk of failure. And NLIs are meaningless. Pick a company that had an NLI in hand where the other party at some point said GFY. The road's littered with those carcasses.

 

The answer is a Contract. I'd love to see the collegiate landscape change so that the phrase "He/she's committed to X university" to "He/she's contracted with X university."

 

Only that will eliminate the b u l l s h i t.

 

 

 

 

"I am not going to stand on my pulpit and proclaim that my son would have never gone back on his word, no matter what.  I would like to think I know, but I just don't.  We took the same approach when the pro guys started coming around.  Son was advised and followed the advise to never give them a specific number.  We had multiple in-home visits, and to their credit, I can't remember a single scout pressing son for a number.  Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, son had an injury in April, the same one that is being corrected today.  We just didn't get a diagnosis then.  I can tell you that once he shut down, there were NO more scouts!  While I understand why, it was very hard on a 18 year old kid that was being shown a lot of love for 6 months to have that disappear overnight.  He questioned himself and his ability.  We talked about this a lot and all I could do was encourage him.  My faith leads me to believe that God is in control and He has a purpose and plan for my son's life.  But that character issue is a two-sided coin.  Unfortunately, the college or pro team has the ace up their sleeve.  You break NCAA rules if you ask for advice, yet the teams are advised and they do this everyday for a living.  In my estimation, they should be held to a higher standard because they are adults with all the resources, and the players are kids with parents that have very little knowledge."

 

^^^^^^^

THIS!!!!

Sometimes character = stupid. 

 

About 12 years ago my company was planning to move jobs to India.  I was asked to review the plan and it was terrible with no chance to succeed.  I also knew it was going forward no matter what.

 

What asked for my opinion I told the truth - the plan would fail and made recommendations to change it.  They were ignored and I lost my job, the plan went forward and failed to the tune of about $10MM.  The plans designer got promoted.  I failed to play ball.

 

That single decision where I exemplified "character" cost me about $500k to $1MM in earnings over my lifetime.  Money that I could have used to pay for college and weddings that I do not have because of my "character". 

 

I will never forgive myself for being so selfish and prideful that I put what I thought was my reputation ahead of what was right for my children and family.  I was a damn fool.

 

When facts change or are ignored it is flatly stupid not to reassess the situation and change direction if necessary....and yes it can be selfish but no one is coming around to give me back the money I no longer have.  It could be a multi-generational hit to my family.

 

To ask a 15/16 year old to lock in and expect that he shouldn't take a better deal later is hardly a character issue.  It is smart and about as American as you can be.  Our entire country is built on backing out of deals when things changed or we didn't like it, starting with the Revolution. 

 

So please stop with that's what is wrong with the country stuff.  We have been breaking deals when it is in our best interests since the Pilgrims. That is what has made us great...our flexibility and willingness to be different and aggressive when opportunity presented itself.  That is true both on an individual level and as a nation.

 

Sounds like the same RC's that talk about velocity not being everything. They Complain about kids who throw 90+ and can't hit the broad side of a barn (do barns have narrow sides?) and how they value control, but put them in front of a kid throwing 84 with pinpoint accuracy and they have no interest. It's all talk. They'll complain, but, in the end, they'll offer more and more 15yo players because State U. can't afford not to when Tech is scooping up all the young talent.

Yep. Ask the Native Americans how they feel about old fashioned morals concerning keeping your word. They have a name for it, even.

Great point.  We saw the massive statistic book regarding players who sign out of high school versus going to college.  We were told how college coaches don't do this or that from the scouts and the opposite regarding pro ball from the college HC.  All of this was tremendously stressful with absolutely no guidance.  In hindsight, all you can do is go with your gut and hopefully chose what is best for the individual.  The jury is still out for me.

My son was fortunate enough to have an advisor (Thank you Jim). The navigation of land mines and just having a calming voice of reason to consult was priceless!

 

I cannot imagine having to go the scouts/draft scenario without an advisor.

I think pointing at character isn't fair in these cases.  There's a lot of facts that are not known to the public and there's always all kinds of extenuating circumstances.  Not to mention the fact that the relationship is very imbalanced.  For example, it seems that coaches have a laundry list of ways to renege on a verbal without their character being attacked.  To list a few I've read on this board (paraphrasing):

 

  - "as soon as a coach makes an offer he starts looking for someone better.  This is to be expected."

  - "baseball is a business".

  - "I expected more kids to go in the draft so I'm short scholarships next year and I won't be able to give you what I thought".

  - "kid didn't develop like I thought so I can't burn a spot on him".

  - "kid didn't meet expectations freshman year so I'm not extending the scholarship for next year".

  - "coaches job is on the line, you have to expect him to do what needs to be done".

  - etc.

 

What if a kid thought the same way?  What if a kid kept looking for something better after committing?  What if the college team didn't develop like the kid thought it would?  What if the college team, or the school, didn't meet his expectations after spending time there?  I suppose in these cases if he changes his mind his character is called into question.  Perhaps it should, but let's be honest and recognize that this goes both ways.  And let's not forget, this kids life direction is on the line, which is as important (at least to him) as another man's job.

 

Add to this that it seems common for coaches to "go dark" on a kid they've been courting and disappear without so much as a note, but heaven forbid the kid acts the slightest bit unprofessional - such asymmetrical relationships don't foster mutual respect that leads to good behavior.  I think each successive wave of kids coming up are going to have less and less patience and respect for this behavior and we're going to see more kids behaving in ways that protect their own self interest, not less.

 

I'm not pointing at any particular kid, situation or school, just summarizing the general environment as I see it.

 

A friend compared HC's and RC's to "used car salesmen" and there is a fair amount of truth to that statement.

I totally disagree with the comparison of used car salesman to recruiters and coaches.

 

The only thing in common is they both require selling something.  Nothing against used car salesmen, they are needed.  

 

The skill set needed to be a succesful head coach or recruiting coordinator involves so much more than simply the ability to sell something. The used car salesman sells to anyone that is interested.  The recruiter has to select who he will sell his program to and if the recruit doesn't like the program, there isn't another car in the lot to sell.

 

Once again, no disrespect to car salesman, but I do think the comparison is disrespectful to college coaches and recruiters.

I totally agree with PG on this one.  I never felt or looked at the college RC or HC we met or interacted with as such.  They were all extremely professional.  As a matter of fact, I always felt like I just didn't know how they were able to do their job.  You imagine trying to recruit the best talent possible, but not so talented that you loose out on them to MLB draft.  I would also say the best programs don't have to "sell" anything.  When my kid walked into the facilities of his school of choice, I assure you there was NO need to sell him on it.  It sold itself.  

I am definitely on the side of your word being your word and hope that when/if my kid commits to something he will stick with it.

I shouldn't even post this since I got my rumor about 3rd hand, but I asked somebody who should know the story what happened, and to be honest if it is true I don't blame the kid for bailing and I would have encouraged mine to move on. 

PG, I wasn't trying to disrespect college coaches and recruiters, only comparing  the selling techniques needed to sell their program versus another, with the same targeted recruit.  Each coach will sell a different story about their program as to why an athlete should come play at State U.  In the end, who knows other than the recruit, if any or all was true.

The best selling technique a recruiter can use is the truth.  The thing that is hard for some to understand is this... The truth today might not be the truth tomorrow. Circumstances can change.

 

Has there ever been anyone, that has never changed their mind or their word? Doesn't everyone make a bad decision at times and if possible correct the mistake.

 

Someone gives their word, they promise they will be there next Saturday.  However a close relative passes away on Wednesday and the funeral is Saturday. Remember you gave your word!

 

Nearly everyone would excuse you for breaking your word in that situation. You simply apologize and attend the funeral.  So obviously there are different situations and degrees of what your word really means.  I do think breaking your word to the college is a bigger deal than the scenario above.  It has an adverse effect on the college program.  So in all the cases where people could break their word, where does a verbal college baseball commitment rank?  It's not considered breaking your word if you get drafted and because of the money you decide to sign a pro contract. Yet it is breaking your word if you go to another college that offers you more.

 

Anyway, here is how I look at verbal commitments from both sides.

 

The recruit - At this time I plan to attend your college.

The recruiter - At this time we plan on you attending our college.

 

I don't like seeing kids changing their mind.  Just like you hate seeing colleges change their mind.  But as long as coaches want to win and players want to win this will continue happening until there is a rule that disallows it. I'm not sure those with that kind of power, see it as a big problem.

 

Guess I have a hard time calling it a character flaw.  We see plenty of real character flaws.

Fair responses.  And I understand them.

 

When a player decides to commit to a college his parents should look him in the eye and stress the fact that he is giving his word and by proxy - the word of his family.  So take it seriously.

 

When a University commits that scholarship to that player they are assuming the risk that they "missed" on that kid and they are obligated to live up to that mistake. 

 

Our approach has always been to be sure to do your due diligence BEFORE making that COMMITMENT.  If a player ever backs out (it has happened once with the Cardinals) then that player needs to move on from our program to another program that doesn't value or honor one's word.  If a School EVER backs out from their commitment then they never get a player from our organization.

 

Coaches know that.  Players know that.  Problem averted.

 

I will once again try to offer some perspective (which understandably is only my perspective and may not be comfortable for everyone) - People get divorced... business deals get broken... sometimes people flat out lie to your face... such is life.

 

You can be one of them or you can be exceptional.  We are talking about players breaking a commitment to a quality school in one of the best 3 conferences in the country for what?? a program that MIGHT be a dozen spots higher?!?!? - this is equivalent to leaving your beautiful wife and mother of your children for the same woman who is 5 years younger.

 

Sure, people do it - namely people who learn that breaking their word is defensible at the age of 15.  then it is even easier to do it at 30 or 40 or 50.... heck, whenever you can marginally improve your situation in your opinion...

 

Fact remains that there are people who keep their word and there are people who don't.

 

luv baseball - you shared your opinion and that led to you being marginalized.  You didn't break your word - you made a choice. It only is a "stupid" mistake if you define success purely by the measure of money.  It is not.  This is the lie we tell ourselves when we allow others to tell us what we are worth and you r former employers had their opinions (right or wrong).  Your anecdote is the rallying cry of every person who rationalizes their abandonment of integrity.

 

Sometimes integrity costs you in ways that are less important than integrity itself.  Any dollar made through selling out your integrity is a hollow dollar.  That may very well be the 'New American way" - but it isn't worth glorifying.

 

The "RIGHT" way to handle a situation where you feel as if you may have committed to a school that you don't feel you can fulfill your commitment to would be to open a dialogue with that staff.  Talk to them about why you feel you may have made a bad choice - and in the end, if the feeling is mutual then both parties can cshake hands and walk away.  - for instance, maybe a player verbals to a high academic school with good baseball but finds that they consistantly struggle with the rigors of a High School academic load... the conversation with that school (a UVA or Stanford type) can be easily navigated.  Allow the staff to re-emphisize the support they can offer before jumping ship.  Same with the idea regarding any other reason a player may want to re-evaluate their situation.  Everyone owes it to eachother to have the conversation.  O

Just got a text that another 2017 Va Tech commit tweeted tonight he is going to Penn State, he was summer before / September of sophomore year kid as well. 

1) Not rhetorical: Is it commonplace for all schools to experience 1-2 decommits per year? 

2) Is this the result of a series of individual and unrelated coincidences, or is this a systemic issue?

R. Graham, that may be one of the best post I have ever read.  It is hard to do the right thing most of the time, but I have tried to instill in my son that you are who you are by the things you do when no one is watching.  It's easy to work hard or make "good" choices when people are around that you want to impress or don't want to let down.  It's when you are all alone, those decisions you make reveal your true character.  This is my opinion, and the way my dad raised me.  I have made many mistakes in life, and continue to do so.  While I realize I will never be perfect on this side of Heaven, I do believe that my word is really all I have.  If someone cannot trust that I say what I mean, then how can they trust anything about me?

The whole thing is sort of messy business.  

For the small percentage of kids who have their choice of Maryland, UCLA, LSU and whoever else it is only tough because of the choices.  For everyone else, the vast majority, that are on a lower level or sort of stuck between levels it can be very confusing.  You get some attention, then get ignored.  You get buttered up by a coach who tells you you are his guy....but, you know 4 guys he has said the same thing to.  

Its a business and should be treated as such.  Is there loyalty?  Not much.  A coaches job is to win, not develop talent or give a toss about his kids.  He may or may not care.  The kid needs to watch out for his own butt and find the best situation for himself....the same as a coach is out for himself first and foremost.  Its the way of the world.  

A perfect example is this, and it happens all the time:  If a raw player develops the coach wants credit, if he doesn't develop it is the kids fault.  The truth in either case is probably in the middle somewhere. 

There is a line of buses just waiting for people to get thrown under them....

Throughout this whole discussion I keep coming back to the fact that many of these kids who break their commitment were 15 years old when they entered into it. 45 year old coaches, responsible for multi-million dollar operations and putting food on the table for their families, are themselves committing to verbal contracts with 15-year olds.  How many multimillion dollar businesses do business deals with 15 year olds?  Not many. And the reason is clear.  They're 15!

 

Remember these are the same boys who are probably also making verbal commitments to their girlfriends that they will "love them and be with them forever" and all that other mush that adolescents can think they believe and say.  Not faulting the coaches for taking the commitments, and not faulting the kid either.  Not faulting either for reneging.  It is what it is.  Plenty of marriages don't even get to the alter because someone breaks off the engagement 4-weeks before the wedding.  It's unfortunate but I'd say that's a better idea than going through with the union simply because you made a "verbal commitment" to the betrothed on top of the ferris wheel at the county fair. 

 

I hear what R. Graham so eloquently and passionately stated.  And understand that I agree with most of it when we are talking about ADULTS.  I just have a hard time holding a 15-year old to a commitment for a duration of much more than the standard team sports season of 4-months.  I expect players as freshman to commit to my JV team for THAT SEASON.  You start on day one, you should finish the season.  I never assume, nor expect any kid to make a verbal commitment to play baseball for our HS program all four years as 14-year old freshman.  Stuff gets in the way: surfing, fishing, hunting, girls, drugs, soccer, alcohol, soccer, jobs, burnout, or a better opportunity for life success.

 

Call it setting a bad precedent for an adult life of doing the same but where you choose to go to college is a very important decision.  Easily a Top-10 LIFE decision as far as ramifications thereafter.  Most kids do not even consider it until 17 or 18.  And there's a reason for that.  You are that much older and wiser. The maturation that takes place between 15 and 18, for boys, must be akin to that of 30 and 50. I'm not a psychologist but I play one on HSBBWeb.  Therefore I'd venture to guess It's huge. 

 

I'm a free market guy.  The recruiting market will correct itself in all these cases.  Until an NLI is signed, it's "Caveat Recruiter," and "Caveat Recruit."