Verbal Commit last year, now other schools are expressing interest. What to do?

[riseball]

... If we really thought her stock would rise this much, maybe we would have encouraged her to keep her options open, but given what we knew a year ago, we weren't sure the door would always be open.

Look at it from a coaches perspective: Do you think if she was now totally stinkin it up that the coach would not be looking to reduce or eliminate the offer? You have to expect that you only have one chance to get this right. She has worked hard to become the best she can be and deserves the best opportunity possible. Do whatever it takes.

 

[RetiredCoach]

If your DDs stock does not rise after her sophomore year, she'll probably be without a scholarship her sophomore year in college.

 

[CoogansBluff]

If your DDs stock does not rise after her sophomore year, she'll probably be without a scholarship her sophomore year in college.

OK, let me redefine stock. ...

Let's call it your national ranking as a player. Let's rank the top 10,000 players in the class of 2018. The average improvement up or down is going to be 0. Your stock is as likely to go up or down, even though the class as a whole will improve significantly, and each and ever player - on average - will improve significantly.

So if DD commits as a sophomore and she's the #400 player in the country, are you saying she'll probably lose her scholly offer if she doesn't improve her stock (that is, her national ranking)? If she's still #400, she's out with the cat litter?

That's a big reason why players commit as sophomores. Somebody who ranks #400 as a sophomore is probably a borderline SEC recruit. If she gets that SEC offer as a sophomore and doesn't take it, she's as likely to be #500 as #300 in two years, so it might be smart to take the offer now. The window closes each year you wait.

Yes, there are big risks in committing as a sophomore. The scenario in the OP is an example. But there are risks in waiting. If not, then nobody would commit as sophomores. I can't all be parental pressure or dream school scenarios.

 

[ScottyDont]

It's also not only about stock rising or falling. It's about getting one of the scholarships available for that year before somebody else does. A school might only have 4-5 2017 scholarships to offer, if you wait too long maybe they go to some other sophomores and aren't available when you're a junior lighting it up.

 

[CoogansBluff]

It's also not only about stock rising or falling. It's about getting one of the scholarships available for that year before somebody else does. A school might only have 4-5 2017 scholarships to offer, if you wait too long maybe they go to some other sophomores and aren't available when you're a junior lighting it up.

I completely see why it made sense to commit as a sophomore in your DD's case. My DD might be in a similar situation now. She has a couple of opportunities that match the highest level of play that seems realistic at the moment. It certainly will be tempting to take it and worry later about what happens if she takes her game to another unexpected level next year.

And if she regresses, then the coach would be doing her a favor by getting rid of her so she can find a lower-level school where she can play. At least you had your chance. If you wait, you risk not getting the chance.

 

[29dad]

Decommitting happens ALL THE TIME in other sports, particularly football and basketball, but we have been conditioned to believe that it is taboo for softball. College coaches will reduce or take away a verbal if they land someone else that they covet more, so what's good for the goose...

 

[Easton33]

I agree, as soon as your dd verbal it is my thought that coaches automatically look to upgrade. So lets say they have their "base" 2017 team verballed at 30% and it is a class of 5. That is only 1.5 scholarships, granted they have 3 other classes to divide the rest into but don't think they aren't automatically looking to upgrade and they still have plenty of money left over to make it pretty appealing. She may have verballed at 30%, and she may get more or less her sophmore year, depending on how she fits into their team dynamic. Verballing girls early and cheap is a great way to get quality talent in for freshman year and then cull from there. Do what you think and your daughter think is best for her, cause the college is gonna do what is best for them.

 

[CoogansBluff]

College coaches want players who really want to play for their school. If suddenly a player would rather be somewhere else, then the coach will be disappointed, but will understand. I don't consider that kind of de-commit to be unethical. It just happens.

Meanwhile, if a college coach suddenly decides that a committed player just isn't as good as originally thought and isn't going to play at the school, then the coach might level with the player or reduce or pull an offer. Don't have a problem w/ that either if it's just a honest assessment of ''you just aren't where we thought you'd be.''

Where I think it's unethical is play each other. Player commits to keep a spot open, but keeps looking, hoping climb the ladder to something better. In the case of a coach, they need to be honest about how many their recruiting and stick to their word.

Perhaps I'm naive. I sat in the office of a D-I coach on Monday who said they want 5 players in this class, 6 in that one, that they don't believe in big recruiting classes, gave an example of a really good 2016 who called in the summer after her origianl school fell through, hoping to be a late add, and he declined. He said she could've helped, be he already had his player at that position and was committed to her. Like I say, maybe I'm naive.

I certainly don't believe in the philosophy that they'd stab you in the back if necessary, so it's OK to stab them.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I agree, as soon as your dd verbal it is my thought that coaches automatically look to upgrade.

I take a more optimistic view. I expect that coaches might look for, say, one catcher in the class of 2017. Coach might identify 3-4 catchers that fit that bill and make 3-4 offers, or might offer their top choice, failing that go to #2, etc. Once one catcher accepts the offer, I expect the coach to stick with that catcher. If the catcher doesn't develop, then they might renegotiate, but I don't expect the coach to continue recruiting catchers and dump one for the other and continue to attempt an upgrade until signing day. I don't think a coach can survive operating like that. I just believe that success depends on integrity and relationships. Can't do it that way, IMO.

 

[marriard]

College coaches want players who really want to play for their school.

Kind of... College coaches really want players who can help them win and keep their job at the School they are currently employed by.

If suddenly a player would rather be somewhere else, then the coach will be disappointed, but will understand. I don't consider that kind of de-commit to be unethical. It just happens.

I wouldn't bank on a coach understanding. But yes it happens on both sides. There are many. many instances of schools not letting players out of NLI's. At least with the verbal you don't need their permission.

Meanwhile, if a college coach suddenly decides that a committed player just isn't as good as originally thought and isn't going to play at the school, then the coach might level with the player or reduce or pull an offer. Don't have a problem w/ that either if it's just a honest assessment of ''you just aren't where we thought you'd be.''

Until that NLI is signed, the verbal offer/commit is worth nothing. We talk hear about reputation stopping coaches screwing their recruits, but it doesn't seem to matter to some coaches - just as why you wonder why some terrible **(((((@#@ travel ball coach gets all the talent, there are some real #@(#&(@ coaches in college who get a whole bunch of talent DESPITE their behavior. I know of many a verballed player who suddenly found that their college coach suddenly went silent and then they get a 'You have been released from your verbal/we are not going to be able to offer you what we had talked about' message.

Where I think it's unethical is play each other. Player commits to keep a spot open, but keeps looking, hoping climb the ladder to something better. In the case of a coach, they need to be honest about how many their recruiting and stick to their word.

Sounds good, but the NCAA makes this hard. There is a REALLY good chance the coach who recruits you as a sophomore wont be there when you are a freshman. The verbal process is a made-up process that doesn't commit anyone to anything (What is a verbal commitment? | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA)

Perhaps I'm naive. I sat in the office of a D-I coach on Monday who said they want 5 players in this class, 6 in that one, that they don't believe in big recruiting classes, gave an example of a really good 2016 who called in the summer after her origianl school fell through, hoping to be a late add, and he declined. He said she could've helped, be he already had his player at that position and was committed to her. Like I say, maybe I'm naive.

Yes you are being naive. While this coach MAY be absolutely 100% genuine in what they told you and how this person personally behaves, that would be the exception rather than the normal way of things.

BTW - Original Poster - the 'new' coaches your DD is talking to who want her to 'decommit' before they 'talk' are being every bit as unethicial as you can be. If they can't answer the very reasonable and simple question "If I come here will I at least get the financial support I am currently going to get from my verballed college' that is BS. They are just looking to make sure you can't go back to the other team when they offer you less, maybe hoping you get stuck with their offer since they made you burn your bridge with your current verballed school.