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.