Article on early recruiting...

[cuzmail]

What I do find amusing is how many coaches say they don't like it but can't stop because everyone else is doing it. I wonder how many of them accept that as an excuse from their players?

I think you already know the answer to that!

To talk a little about the coaches battle with early verbals....
I know of a situation where a pitcher was being recruited in her 7th grade year from many top 25 D1 schools you see on TV. It came down to a few of those interested during her 8th grade year. School A didn't want to verbal an 8th grader and said it was a done deal, but they needed to wait until she was in 9th grade. School B stated a high interest for a full ride, but also wanted to wait until 9th grade. School C didn't mind the 8th grade status and offered a full ride, but wanted an answer quickly knowing the other 2 were going to offer in a few months. Player verbaled with school C stating that she had no guarantees with the other 2 and a solid offer with School C. Even the HS coach was miffed since she verballed before entering his school and couldn't share in the recruiting credit.

Bird in the hand.

You will see this girl in the circle with this D1 school in a few years.

 

[MTR]

I think you already know the answer to that!

To talk a little about the coaches battle with early verbals....
I know of a situation where a pitcher was being recruited in her 7th grade year from many top 25 D1 schools you see on TV. It came down to a few of those interested during her 8th grade year. School A didn't want to verbal an 8th grader and said it was a done deal, but they needed to wait until she was in 9th grade. School B stated a high interest for a full ride, but also wanted to wait until 9th grade. School C didn't mind the 8th grade status and offered a full ride, but wanted an answer quickly knowing the other 2 were going to offer in a few months. Player verbaled with school C stating that she had no guarantees with the other 2 and a solid offer with School C. Even the HS coach was miffed since she verballed before entering his school and couldn't share in the recruiting credit.

Bird in the hand.

You will see this girl in the circle with this D1 school in a few years.

And they were all playing a hand of cards when there wasn't even a game.

 

[Bartow12]

I attended the "Be Your Best" coaches clinic in NJ a few years back and Mike Smith from Oregon spoke of this same practice. He stated that he hated the practice of seeking younger players to commit and wished that the NCAA would prohibit it. He felt forced to do as his peers to keep getting the "good talent" and remain competitive. His program is by no means mediocre. I would bet he is one of the many coaches who spoke out about this practice to the NCAA.

I am with Riseball. Stop whining. It is a non binding agreement. I would be curious on how many of these early commits miss out on better opportunities that will come later down the road, and how many of the colleges back out of these commitments. A lot can happen in a few years. I know of 2 that were committed in middle school that suffered knee injuries that they rehabbed from that were de-committed by schools. They ended up playing NAIA level ball and that is OK. They are both where they should have been to start with. They are both happy and earning a degree. Both now helping coach a 12 U TB team. Both giving back.

We all need to remember softball is a means for paying for an education. Playing softball is not a viable career choice. Very few can do it, and they are not paid squat. these ladies need to use their talent to get a degree, then go into a profession then give back to the game that gave them so much, for the next generation of players.

 

[MTR]

Very simple, MTR. They can put in a rule that says no school can offer a verbal to any player under the age of 16 or before their junior year in high school, something like that. They can lay out the penalties for being caught, just as they have for other recruiting violations.

The fact that there's nothing to expressly forbid it is why it continues to happen.

Do you specifically go to everyone in Mundelein and tell them they cannot walk into your home and kick the family pet? Of course, not because you know there are laws that should cover that. In softball, there is no rule forbidding a runner from sucker punching a defender while rounding the bases on an over-the-fence home run. Is such action acceptable simply because there is no rule that specifically forbids it?

The NCAA already has a set of rules for the recruiting process and it does not include a verbal. Many of the NCAA regs are convoluted enough. So why add to that with another restriction simply because people have been duped into believing something of no value is actually worth something? Like everything else, value is determined by what one can receive in exchange. The value of a verbal is no more than what is perceived by the holder, but if taken to the NCAA, it has no value whatsoever.

This is somewhat like the reason why a lead pony isn't listed in the race program, simply because it isn't part of the race.

Do I think it's the NCAA's job? No. I'd much rather see a few high-profile coaches of Top 25 teams say enough is enough, we're not going to do it anymore, nor will we speak to any kids who accept a verbal.

There is the contradiction. Not offering a verbal is a start, but the point that others' verbals will be honored counteracts the effort. If a coach knows that a verbal will not stop other coaches from talking to their prospects, they may stop wasting their time and effort. And even if the NCAA does add verbals to their process, it will not stop the coaches from indicating interest in a specific player to that player and parents.

Unfortunately, organizations aren't always willing to self-regulate. And that's when the governing body (or government) steps in. In the Industrial Revolution it would have been preferred for companies not to establish monopolies and instead allow fair trade. Instead we have laws against monopolies.

Yeah, how has government intervention into business or anything else worked out for this country lately?

This all comes down to the coaches demonstrating their willingness and courage to do it right and within the confines of the rules and regulations set by the NCAA. JMHO

 

[Mark H]

Even the HS coach was miffed since she verballed before entering his school and couldn't share in the recruiting credit.

Now that's funny.

 

[Mark H]

We all need to remember softball is a means for paying for an education. .

Or a means for getting into a school they couldn't otherwise get into. Or for some kids, just the chance to play the game they love at the college level enhancing their college experience. All three are valid.

 

[Mark H]

This all comes down to the coaches demonstrating their willingness and courage to do it right and within the confines of the rules and regulations set by the NCAA. JMHO

With larger and larger salaries on the line, there will always be some coaches willing to do it "wrong" within the confines of the rules to try get an advantage. We are humans after all.

As I've said before, look at how other sports who have gone through this ended up solving the problem. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[CoogansBluff]

We all need to remember softball is a means for paying for an education. Playing softball is not a viable career choice. Very few can do it, and they are not paid squat. these ladies need to use their talent to get a degree, then go into a profession then give back to the game that gave them so much, for the next generation of players.

I hope that it's more than a means to pay for an education. If that's true, it wouldn't be a good deal because the cost of developing a college prospect usually exceeds the value of the financial assistance the prospect will receive. IMO, softball is a means to getting great life experiences, whether you play in college or not. My hope is that playing on a college softball team will enhance my DD's education. If not, then she might as well get a job and work her way through college.

 

[Easton33]

"This all comes down to the coaches demonstrating their willingness and courage to do it right and within the confines of the rules and regulations set by the NCAA."

Sort of like umps calling the crow hop or leap? The difference here is there is no rule that expressly prohibits verballing and there are rules that do prohibit the crow hop and leap. So coaches of this game should be held to a higher standard and enforce non existing rules upon themselves and umps don't have to enforce the ones on the books? Think we can all be happy if rules were made to allow or outlaw certain practices and they are ENFORCED. To believe a coach that is being paid to win will not do everything in their power to get an edge (within the rules) is not being realistic. (I am rembering flapper gate now) So make a rule covering verbals, or expand/clarify the current rule set. Either way, have it addressed in the rules because the non binding verbal is actually binding. If coaches consider their scholarship money allocated to a certain player and can not offer another player (Binding), if other colleges will not speak to a verballed player (Binding), if a player stops going to exposure tournaments/camps and effectively takes herself off the market because of this agreement (Binding).
The last two mentioned is exactly why verbals need to be addressed. Some of these players are taking themselves off the market very early for nothing more than a coaches word that is not legally enforceable. They can find themselves in a very hard situation their senior year when a coach backs out on them. This is why it needs to be addressed in the rules, so students can have some kind of backing/ support if a coach makes a verbal and backs out. That is when the early verbals will stop. Until then players will be vulnerable to the car selling coach.

 

[wjdempkowski]

Just to throw something else in the mix. As you know, I am for student-athletes waiting until their Junior or Senior year to commit. I think there are some parallels from this conversation and what the NBA had to rule on High School players being drafted. I think the biggest take away from this is... College is a business. For it to remain, it must conduct itself as a business. It must recruit the best and the brightest to remain the top tier college. When it is all said and done, our daughters are merely cogs in the "college business wheel".

Look at the huge turn-over in college football coaches this year. If we continue to think that college coaches don't have to fight for their jobs, try to find ways to get those "best and brightest" by "thinking outside the box", or do what is necessary to ensure success, we are not truly looking at the whole situation.

Let's look at this analogy. We drive on Main Street in a car that is designed to travel from 1 mph to 90 mph. We are told to drive responsibly. Because we cannot guarantee everyone will do the "responsible" thing, we had to have the Government write a law mandating the the Speed Limit on Main Street was 35 mph. Because we couldn't self govern, the Law was needed.

I don't blame the coaches for seeking early verbals. They found a way to help them be successful that was not un-moral or unethical, or unlawful. I would like to see the governing body, the NCAA, do more to take care of our daughters. But alas, when it is all said and done, it is a business.