Importance of name of organization

[MNDad]

I would NOT suggest a sophomore join a team full of HS seniors for recruiting purposes. The HS seniors will either be already committed, looking for any school that will take them or have no plans to play college softball. That won't align very well for a 16U girl in prime of recruiting.

The name is a harder one to answer. In some cases it gives you access to the best showcases. In others it allows your DD to wear the same jersey name as the team in the best showcases and nothing more. It used to be a bid deal to beat the Firecrackers or Bandits. Now it's more like "who hasn't?". The top teams in a big name organization are a big deal. Some of the others, not so much.

 

[Strike]

It's a stretch because so many of the kids in the list were recruited and committed while the were with other teams. The big name organizations peruse the FloSoftball or GoldFastpicth lists and cherry pick players from teams that aren't PGF or ASA powerhouses.

That's very true. And I know it's not always that way but know a girl that signed and plays for Alabama who committed to them while playing for a smaller but good organization but ended up with the Thunderbolts after the commitment. Now it was good experience for her playing for them and against the highest level of competition before starting in the SEC. But she was found and recruited while playing for a team that while good and playing some big tournaments doesn't have the name recognition as the Thunderbolts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[riseball]

The big name team is meaningful if you believe that kids at showcases are somehow "discovered" by college coaches. If a kid goes to a camp or otherwise gets on a coaches radar the big name team is of very little consequence. If your strategy is to get "discovered" a big name team is a must. If your plan is to target specific schools and actually market yourself you can play for pretty much anyone.

 

[Sparky Guy]

That is so disheartening to me.

It shouldn't be. It should be a lesson. The bigger names are that because of longevity and consistency. Sometimes they may not have the best teams, but they have some of the marquee players in the area who draw coaches. The big name organizations usually have connections and reputation of being upfront with the coaches about their players. The college coaches trust the big name orgs evaluations of the their players and how they will fit into the coaches program.

There are soooo many things that go into the recruiting process that have to fall into place for players to get scholarship money at one of the schools they want to play at. And on the rare occasion it falls on plain ole luck.

 

[gatorcoach]

I would NOT suggest a sophomore join a team full of HS seniors for recruiting purposes. The HS seniors will either be already committed, looking for any school that will take them or have no plans to play college softball. That won't align very well for a 16U girl in prime of recruiting.

The name is a harder one to answer. In some cases it gives you access to the best showcases. In others it allows your DD to wear the same jersey name as the team in the best showcases and nothing more. It used to be a bid deal to beat the Firecrackers or Bandits. Now it's more like "who hasn't?". The top teams in a big name organization are a big deal. Some of the others, not so much.

Firecrackers have over 100 teams, Bandits have around 10 teams from 10u-18u. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[MNDad]

Firecrackers have over 100 teams, Bandits have around 10 teams from 10u-18u. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

It was just an example that playing lower teams isn't like knocking off their top teams. I used those two because a few years ago we beat lower teams from both organizations and I'd put our team at the time as just a little above average. You are right though. The Bandits are far more exclusive and shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

 

[Mangler II]

It was just an example that playing lower teams isn't like knocking off their top teams. I used those two because a few years ago we beat lower teams from both organizations and I'd put our team at the time as just a little above average. You are right though. The Bandits are far more exclusive and shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

Bandits also do a bit of 'recruiting'...All the top 'tier' bunch does.
And FTR, the reason you see college coaches push kids they're interested in to certain team is because, those teams play the better competition overall.
In other words they are playing the same kids they'll be playing against in college.

Recruiting is a very convoluted thing. And yes, between the Firecrackers, and now the Bomber orgs (all of which waters down the brand) it seems that 80% of every tournament will be either a Firecracker or a Bombers team. But dependent on the Flagship team (as ion which coaches name is associated) will be the 'big draw' for college coaches...And where college coaches seek players. Coaches have very limited days allowed to be on the road 'recruiting', they HAVE to be very focused and have a plan.
Nowadays, with the ridiculous early recruiting, high level name orgs are extorting colleges by insisting they take kids whose play is really unknown or questionable (and aren't even shaving their legs yet much less really know what they want in a school)...orgs use that to get kids 'verbal-ed' with a large fee associated by parents or those collegiate coaches wont be allowed to recruit kids within that org that they DO want. If you were ever curious as to why a LOT of incoming freshman are cut by teams after fall ball or are dropped before they sign an NLI, that's one reason why. The truth comes out when they get to college and cant compete.
And coaches will tell you that the early commit thing just isn't working out. But currently, that what they have to live with.

In the near future, I think folks are going to see a real change in policy, not by the NCAA, but by the coaches themselves on early commits. Hopefully that plan will change the complexion of recruiting for the best.

One thing that wont change, collegiate coaches will still recruit at the larger much more competitive tournaments. Real good example of that with the push USSSA is having to become relevant.
Try to figure out how many coaches went to USSSA gig in Kansas City that the OC Batbusters swept?

 

[Rambler34]

One thing that wont change, collegiate coaches will still recruit at the larger much more competitive tournaments. Real good example of that with the push USSSA is having to become relevant.
Try to figure out how many coaches went to USSSA gig in Kansas City that the OC Batbusters swept?

There were 64 coaches there from all levels including 20 from P5 teams with all conferences represented. 7 from the SEC and 6 from the Big12 attended. I think that is a good showing for a first year tourney.

 

[grcsftbll]

It shouldn't be. It should be a lesson. The bigger names are that because of longevity and consistency. Sometimes they may not have the best teams, but they have some of the marquee players in the area who draw coaches. The big name organizations usually have connections and reputation of being upfront with the coaches about their players. The college coaches trust the big name orgs evaluations of the their players and how they will fit into the coaches program.

There are soooo many things that go into the recruiting process that have to fall into place for players to get scholarship money at one of the schools they want to play at. And on the rare occasion it falls on plain ole luck.

It's just because I don't love the big organizations around here. I have no idea if DD will even want to play in college or if she'll keep up enough to be able to (she's very good but is also only 9 and I know often the girls who are very good young get surpassed as they get older and there's not really any way to tell). I don't like to think that if she does want to that we may need to go to an organization we don't really like just to get into the good tournaments and things.

The big name team is meaningful if you believe that kids at showcases are somehow "discovered" by college coaches. If a kid goes to a camp or otherwise gets on a coaches radar the big name team is of very little consequence. If your strategy is to get "discovered" a big name team is a must. If your plan is to target specific schools and actually market yourself you can play for pretty much anyone.

This is more encouraging. I've always assumed to get recruited you have to do a lot of work on your own anyway.

 

[MNDad]

Bandits also do a bit of 'recruiting'...All the top 'tier' bunch does.
And FTR, the reason you see college coaches push kids they're interested in to certain team is because, those teams play the better competition overall.
In other words they are playing the same kids they'll be playing against in college.

Recruiting is a very convoluted thing. And yes, between the Firecrackers, and now the Bomber orgs (all of which waters down the brand) it seems that 80% of every tournament will be either a Firecracker or a Bombers team. But dependent on the Flagship team (as ion which coaches name is associated) will be the 'big draw' for college coaches...And where college coaches seek players. Coaches have very limited days allowed to be on the road 'recruiting', they HAVE to be very focused and have a plan.
Nowadays, with the ridiculous early recruiting, high level name orgs are extorting colleges by insisting they take kids whose play is really unknown or questionable (and aren't even shaving their legs yet much less really know what they want in a school)...orgs use that to get kids 'verbal-ed' with a large fee associated by parents or those collegiate coaches wont be allowed to recruit kids within that org that they DO want. If you were ever curious as to why a LOT of incoming freshman are cut by teams after fall ball or are dropped before they sign an NLI, that's one reason why. The truth comes out when they get to college and cant compete.
And coaches will tell you that the early commit thing just isn't working out. But currently, that what they have to live with.

In the near future, I think folks are going to see a real change in policy, not by the NCAA, but by the coaches themselves on early commits. Hopefully that plan will change the complexion of recruiting for the best.

One thing that wont change, collegiate coaches will still recruit at the larger much more competitive tournaments. Real good example of that with the push USSSA is having to become relevant.
Try to figure out how many coaches went to USSSA gig in Kansas City that the OC Batbusters swept?

That may be a stretch. Orginazations over hype players, but I don’t think there’s a conspiracy or any extortion going on

IMO The biggest reason kids drop off is maturity. They’re coddled throughout their youth and can’t have make their own life decisions with academics, sports and social life.