what exactly does verbal commitment mean

The only thing that is an actual binding agreement is the National Letter of Intent.  The NLI is an agreement that the team will give the player a certain amount of money - scholarship.  Once that is signed by both parties, the school is bound to provide the money to the player for one year.  Anything short of that is not binding.  A verbal commitment is basically a gentleman's agreement that an NLI will be signed when the time comes to do that.  NLIs are issued 2x per year - November and I think April of Senior year.  I'm not an expert on this, but generally speaking, this is the case.  Hope this helps a little.  I'm sure there will be many other responses.

Verbal is a handshake - where you technically take yourself off the market.  There is nothing in writing (not allowed until NLI periods) and other coaches will (supposedly) stop recruiting you if they know you are committed. 

 

I have seen both coaches and player renege their verbal commitments unfortunately.

 

It is a gentlemen's agreement - but unfortunately there are always some that don't carry through on their commitment.  (Not trying to scare you here - I would say the reneging is only about 1% of the time as far as I can tell) 

Sometimes the "reneging" may be because there was a mutually agreed upon level that the prospective student athlete did not attain, i.e. certain GPA, ACT/SAT Score, and maybe the athlete got in some kind of trouble that ended the relationship.

It's like being engaged, but without the ring.

Lol.  Good one

followup question to this topic. Are verbal agreements supposed to be in confidence or is it ok to talk about it? reason i ask is i know two kids who have made agreements in the past, in one case the school actually sent something to the local paper announcing it but in another the school asked the family not to mention it to anyone.

 

Did some searches here and could not find anything, did find a cool post about Kershaw committing to A&M back in 2005 lol

From what I've seen and experience. . . it depends on the verbal agreement between the two parties when the commitment is made.

 

If the verbal commitment is a very serious one, then there's really no reason to keep such information in confidence.  Is there?

 

If someone wants the verbal commitment to be kept in confidence, I would have serious reservations as to whether the commitment could be depended upon.

 

 

Agree with that. Here in CA there are stories about underclassmen getting verbals in the news all the time, and it's pretty much how all girls' soccer, softball, and volleyball scholarships appear to be given out.  Seems to me if the verbals were a secret, there would be less incentive for schools (and families) to honor them, so it's to everyone's benefit if they are known.  

If the player is being recruited from other programs the announcement of the verbal commitment should be given to those programs so they can turn their efforts to recruit someone else. 
Not announcing it in a newspaper or on social media is up to the player and his family.

In Division I, no official representative of a school can comment publicly upon a specific committed player until after the player's signed NLI is in hand. That's why official team websites usually post an article about all signed recruits soon after the November signing period has concluded.

In my experience, I think it means different things to different people depending on the program level, talent level & leverage, and the integrity of the people making the commitment.  

 

I've seen hyper-competitive programs drop committed recruits for a bad summer travel season or injury.  I've seen D1 academic programs drop recruits for academic reasons after committing because Admissions wouldn't approve them (even after a pre-read).  Verbal commitments are a leap of faith, and they almost always work out. However, it is always great to have a Plan B and to never burn your bridges.  JMO.

 

 

My daughter verballed to a school.  She went for an unofficial visit and then a camp at this school.  After the camp, it was clear that the coach wanted her to commit.  So, she did and then, coach came up to watch tournament.  She had a tremendous tournament, hit 4 home runs, had a very high on base percentage and even won 2 games in the circle although she was not being recruited as a pitcher.  Coach spoke with my daughter's TB coach and wanted us to come down to discuss the particulars.  We could not talk to him at the tournament.  I called on a Wednesday to set a time.  Coach was 180 degrees and so, hinted that he would make token offer.  It broke my daughter's heart and especially after having such a big weekend. 

 

These coaches have their recruits ranked and so, what happened is that he got a girl higher on his list than my daughter.  Good for them, she drank her way off the team. 

Sadly I saw a few situations - where kids committed early - sophomore years.  I guess the kid didn't grow/advance like the program wanted - and the verbal offers were retracted.  Which is sad cause those kids took themselves out of the recruiting game...

My son is a 2016 and has a couple of teammates that are committed already.  Once they committed and it became well known one father told me conversations/contact from other schools went to almost zero.  For elite players like them they don't have the risk that others might, they would likely be snatched up again.  

 

For everyone else I think in most cases the player is best served to be patient.  Lots of things change in a two year window.  

Are verbal commitments the fuel (or at least NOS) behind the travel/showcase baseball industry. Parents seem to be willing to spend big $$ to get that early commitment. I suspect that if the NCAA made them illegal, that local and Legion baseball would make a huge comeback.

A verbal is a handshake agreement that the student-athlete will receive a scholarship from the school.  Also, the student-athlete agrees that his recruitment is over as he has already selected his school of choice.

 

IMO, no.  The showcase/travel teams exist to showcase the talent of the players.  A team that has 1-2 D-1 prospects will not draw as many coaches to their games as a team that has 20-25.  

 

The early commits are not a function of the showcase/travel teams but more of an arms race by the colleges to lock up a player before their competition does.  Playing on a showcase/travel team allows the players to face better competition, which allows the college to better evaluate the player.  For example, a hitter who can demonstrate a consistently good approach against a kid throwing 88mph is easier to project than a kid regularly hitting against a guy throwing 78mph slop.  

Typically, a verbal commitment is mutual, and reflects (1) the program's promise to deliver NLI documentation on specific terms, or where there is no athletic money involved, otherwise to reserve a roster spot as a recruited walk-on (with or without an academic or financial aid package), and (ii) the player's promise to sign the NLI upon receipt, or otherwise to matriculate and come to play as agreed. 

 

There are also times when a player is told only that he'll be allowed to compete in the fall for a walk-on roster spot.  Some players who agree to those terms will publicize that they have committed, also, even though they aren't getting athletic money, and NLI, or a promise of a spring roster spot.  (Sometimes it's enough to know that the coach helped get you through admissions and that you'll have your shot.)

 

As these handshake deals are being made earlier and earlier, I think more and more coaches may consider that their end of the bargain also carries with it an implication that the player will devote himself diligently to constant improvement.  We've probably all seen kids who commit early and then "pop the chute", not improving, perhaps even seeming to regress.  Sometimes kids let their grades slide, get caught drinking or worse, or have other disciplinary issues.  With more and more time now coming between many commitments and NLI time, I think you'll inevitably see more and more commitments pulled when one side thinks the other is not living up to the full spirit of the deal.

 

I never like to see people say "you have nothing until the NLI is signed."  Aside from a very few bad apples, college coaches are generally worthy of a player's trust.  But it is true that the player is at risk until the NLI is signed.  (And he's also at risk when he goes in for his post-season sit-down with the coach after the end of every season.) 

 

In practice, we see commitments pulled by players more often than by coaches.  Again, I think this is bound to increase as the prevalence of earlier and earlier commitments increases.  When you have kids committing in fall of their sophomore years -- a full two years before their non-ahtlete classmates even have to decide which schools they'll apply to -- it should come as no surprise that as those two years pass, some will find that they have changed their minds.

A verbal commitment means only as much as the coaches word/integrity. I could also add his job security, because many a kid was recruited by coach X, only to find out that the coach went on to greener pastures, or was fired. So the new coach can completely ignore what his predecessor said. Getting a feel about the coaches integrity is important to judge whether the promises that were made are worth anything.