Article on early recruiting...

[Bartow12]

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.

Agreed, you stated much better than I did.

I know that if mine finishes all 4 years with her current level of athletic and academic scholarships it is worth over $120,000 to her. So that leaves me with the cost of a community college education, while she is getting a private college education and degree. And playing a games she loves at the one of the highest levels she can.

I wonder what it did cost me to run all over the country with her for the last 10 years. I feel like I now owe her younger brother a very large check

 

[riseball]

Agreed, you stated much better than I did.

I know that if mine finishes all 4 years with her current level of athletic and academic scholarships it is worth over $120,000 to her. So that leaves me with the cost of a community college education, while she is getting a private college education and degree. And playing a games she loves at the one of the highest levels she can.

I wonder what it did cost me to run all over the country with her for the last 10 years. I feel like I now owe her younger brother a very large check

I am sure you will agree that she is getting much, much more.

 

[CoogansBluff]

"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.

I agree that coaches cannot stop this on their own. They need help. If you want to make an analogy, compare it to the number of hours that coaches are allowed with their players every week. It's 20, I believe. What if there were no regulations? Coaches would be forced to practice longer hours in order to compete, at the expense of the student-athletes and their own mental and physical health. That's what coaches are asking in the case of the early verbals. Please give us a rule so that our need to compete and keep our jobs doesn't put us and kids in unfair, unhealthy situations.

 

[JAD]

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.

Being verbally committed is like being engaged, you are not married, but it is not going to go over well if your partner finds out you are still "playing the field"....

 

[wjdempkowski]

Being verbally committed is like being engaged, you are not married, but it is not going to go over well if your partner finds out you are still "playing the field"....

Love this analogy!

 

[FP26]

Being verbally committed is like being engaged, you are not married, but it is not going to go over well if your partner finds out you are still "playing the field"....

I like your analogy, but I would also suggest that the player should assume that the school will continue to "play the field". If the school finds something better, they won't hesitate to move on them as well.

 

[JAD]

I like your analogy, but I would also suggest that the player should assume that the school will continue to "play the field". If the school finds something better, they won't hesitate to move on them as well.

This is why schools have the upper hand. Most coaches will sign 4-6 players/year (8-12 in the SEC), and they are always recruiting for the next class, so they essentially get to play the field. If a coach finds a player they think is better and decommits someone, no one really talks about it...the coach does not want to advertise that they reneged on a verbal commitment, and the player does not want to get "blackballed" while she is scrambling to find another school that fits her skills/requirements.

 

[BB875]

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.

This is my opinion as well. The non-binding verbal agreement is contradicted by the actual practice of other coaches honor that verbal like its a binding agreement. If kids kept getting recruited by other schools after a "verbal" then the playing field would be level. Also, I liked the comment of posting the % of scholarship offered on goldfastpitch.com so other coaches could up their offer to get the best talent and kids would bet the best deal. Right now, I feel all the advantage goes to the university. Kids commit early because everyone else is doing it and let's take the best deal now because the music may stop soon and my kid will be the one left standing... JMHO.

 

[JAD]

If someone verbals in 8th grade with a big school at 25%, that's on them for saying yes. If Florida wants to give me 25% in 8th grade, I wonder what South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky or other SEC schools would offer after seeing me in 9th or 10th? All the more reason to let coaches talk to kids after the verbals.

Progressive scholarship offers are very common, especially at big schools that verbal 10-12 players/year. A typically offer may be 25% freshman year, 50% sophomore, 75% junior and 100% senior. This should also clue parents in on how many players the coaching staff thinks will make it from one year to the next. If a coach signs 12 freshman at 25% that only uses 3 scholarships (D1 schools have 12 total). The next year the coaching staff would expect half of those (6) to return at 50%, which would still only use 3 scholarships. By the time this class are seniors the coaches expect 3 players to be on the roster. Attrition is going to happen, but coaches may be forced to outright cut players if the numbers get tight. If a coach cuts a senior who was slated to get 100% they can sign 4 more freshman at 25%.....let that sink in for a minute.

 

[Easton33]

Progressive scholarship offers are very common, especially at big schools that verbal 10-12 players/year. A typically offer may be 25% freshman year, 50% sophomore, 75% junior and 100% senior. This should also clue parents in on how many players the coaching staff thinks will make it from one year to the next. If a coach signs 12 freshman at 25% that only uses 3 scholarships (D1 schools have 12 total). The next year the coaching staff would expect half of those (6) to return at 50%, which would still only use 3 scholarships. By the time this class are seniors the coaches expect 3 players to be on the roster. Attrition is going to happen, but coaches may be forced to outright cut players if the numbers get tight. If a coach cuts a senior who was slated to get 100% they can sign 4 more freshman at 25%.....let that sink in for a minute.

Excellent! I have been talking about this for the last 2 months. I think this a dark side that few are willing to discuss or acknowledge but it's there. Seniors are particularly vulnerable because after 3 years the likelihood of them leaving is not very high. Maybe even if it is not so cutthroat, maybe 50% from 2 different seniors and u still have same scenario. I would be happy to see 4 year commitments from colleges and players. Imagine traveling half way across the country to play for your dream college at the 30% you verballed at in 8th, then getting cut your sophomore year or not seeing an increase in money. Granted some kids won't work out regardless but they should be the exception, not the norm.