I just noticed a 2012 commitment on the Google Spreadsheet (5/10/10). Is it me or are commitments happening earlier and earlier? How can a child know 3 years out which school is a 'good fit'?
-
-
5/19/10 ADDED 2012 verbal commitment for Jana Jeffrey (M - Dallas Texans) - BOSTON COLLEGEOriginally posted by Unregistered View Post
BC appears to be a program on the rise with aspirations of competing for a national title. Recruiting in the ACC places added pressure as 6 of the top 15 programs are in their league. One has to assume that early recruiting/commitments will occur in order to lock kids up.
Rank Name Conf W-L Road Neut Home Non-Div I
1 North Carolina Atlantic Coast 23-3-1 3-3-0 7- 0- 1 13-0-0 0-0-0
2 Stanford Pacific-10 25-1-0 9-0-0 4- 1- 0 12-0-0 0-0-0
3 UCLA Pacific-10 21-3-1 8-2-1 1- 1- 0 12-0-0 0-0-0
4 Portland West Coast 21-2-0 6-2-0 2- 0- 0 13-0-0 0-0-0
5 Notre Dame Big East 21-4-1 5-1-1 2- 2- 0 14-1-0 0-0-0
6 Florida St. Atlantic Coast 19-5-1 4-3-1 2- 1- 0 13-1-0 0-0-0
7 Boston College Atlantic Coast 18-4-2 4-2-1 0- 1- 1 14-1-0 0-0-0
8 Wake Forest Atlantic Coast 16-6-2 7-4-0 1- 1- 0 8-1-2 0-0-0
9 South Carolina Southeastern 19-4-2 4-3-1 4- 0- 1 11-1-0 0-0-0
10 Virginia Tech Atlantic Coast 16-8-0 4-4-0 4- 2- 0 8-2-0 0-0-0
11 UCF Conference USA 17-5-1 6-3-0 4- 1- 1 7-1-0 0-0-0
12 Santa Clara West Coast 14-7-2 5-4-0 2- 0- 0 7-3-2 0-0-0
13 LSU Southeastern 15-4-5 6-2-1 2- 1- 2 7-1-2 0-0-0
14 Florida Southeastern 16-6-2 3-2-2 2- 3- 0 11-1-0 0-0-0
15 Maryland Atlantic Coast 14-6-2 5-3-1 0- 1- 0 9-2-1 0-0-0 -
Amazing that these are being reported while there not supposed to be any contact. I guess nothing is 'illegal' anymore.....immigrants...college commits....Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
There is no rule against "contact." There is a rule against off campus contact. Recruits can visit and talk with coaches on campus perfectly legally. Coaches cannot call a recruit but recruits can call a coach and if the call is placed by the recruit, they can have phone contact legally. Please stop posting your outrage if you don't understand the rules.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The NCAA is fully aware of the early recruiting that is going on, not just in womens soccer, but other sports as well. They have listened to complaints and concerns, but so far decided to do nothing. Why? Well first because womens soccer is not high on its priority list. It is one of those secondary sports that provides little to no revenue but also comparitively few headaches. It is the old, "If it aint broke, don't fix it" situation. Second, the situation really helps the big time programs that carry the bulk of the institutional weight with the NCAA. Think of who stands to lose the most if all of a sudden everyone is recruiting under the same time-line. Maybe BC (or any big tine school) won't look so much better than some of its "second tier" competitors if the process is pushed back to were it should be. Finally, one of the components necessary to fix the situation is to make womens soccer a head count sport and require that all participating D1 schools provide up to 20 but no fewer than 16 scholarships. The NCAA will tell you that if they did this, schools would drop womens soccer and opportunities to play will be lost. Total BS. Although some schools would drop the sport, the corresponding benefit to those playing (in real athletic $$) would far out weigh any program departures. Without the added concern of recruits having to not only to decide about the school, but also the disparity in $$ offers, there would be considerably less pressure for them to commit early. Ultra-early recruiting (sophs and below) really does not help the recruit. They are being forced to make a decision far to early. Junior year is a little trickier. The player does gain the benefit of the piece of mind of knowing where they will be. I also believe that a committed player who becomes injured is in a better position than one who is uncommitted and still being evaluated, but it is a toss up whether these limited benefits out-wigh the enormous pressure and premature nature of an early commit. So maybe a slight loosening of the time-line (allow legitimate contact - no intermediary necessary in Feb. of the junior year) but strengthen the restrictions for players younger than that (absolutely no contact prior to junior year and no verbal commitments until Feb. of junior year). And make womens soccer a head count sport. Easy fix - but unlikely to happen.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
-
Good points. The system must work well for the big time coaches otherwise they would do something to change it.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The students end up being the losers in this system.Comment
-
-
For kids in the sophomore year (or younger) the answer is easy, they are simply too far away from the college experience to be able to make a reasonable decision about a college choice. Certainly the choice they do make could work out for them (especially is it caries a full athletic scholarship) but common sense says that this succesful decision is more about luck than a proper analysis being made. When the only kids making that ultra-early decision are the "can't miss" players with the size, strength, speed and ability to contribute without any improvement (even at 15 or 16) it is less of a concern. The bulk of ultra-early commits (pre-junior year) are projects. Kids wih great ability but also great potential, and its that potential that draws the attention. The problem is that when this potential does not realize, and the 15 year-old phenom develops into a 17 year-old role player... what happens? In sports like hockey, that player will lose their commitment. No more athletic $$ or admissions help!! That has been less frequent in womens soccer, but with increased pressure and earlier commits (meaning less surity about a player's ability to contribute) it will become more regular. And that is a huge problem. The longer the span between the time of the verbal agreement and when the parties have to formalize it with a NLI, the more precarious the position for the recruit. And if most of the $$ is allocated by the middle of the junior year of a recruiting class (like right now for 2011s) where does that leave a player who finds themself without a verbal and back at the beginning when they are starting their senior year? Especially if they are carrying the baggage of already losing a previous offer. Unfortunately, most NCAA recruiting rules are not intended to protect the recruit. They are intended to maintain order over a pretty sleazy business transaction and to remove unfair advantages to schools with well healed alumnae. If that has the incidental benefit of providing some protection to the recruit - great. But always remember that the coach's career depends on his/her ability to recruit talent. And that they will almost always be far more experiened and savvy in these matters than you or your child. We want to be trusting and expect that a college coach will always be honest and forthwright - or at least that the NCAA will protect us from those coaches that aren't. But this isn't the case so please... CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
I was surprised by this. I don't know of any ultra early recruits who were "projects". I've also never heard of a very early commit falling through. Does anyone know of instances where an ultra early recruit was a project (most are NT players) or where it fell through?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Full disclosure; my 2012 child does not play soccer.
This is absolutely insane. First, children at this age do not know what they want to do, or go to school in 2 years. Second, they have not taken the SAT's so their admission status is certainly unknown. Lastly, since verbal commits mean nothing, it is a waste of time.Comment
-
The ultra-early commit examples are pretty recent. I doubt there are many players from the 2009 recruiting class (current college frosh) who committed in their sophomore year, and I don't know of any from Massachusetts (including KM) that did. So, it is really speculative around here and we will know more with the 2011 class, afew of which where ultra-early commits (but not many). There are some examples from the Big 12 and Conf. USA of problems but again the numbers are relatively small and so are the difficulties. But in Massachusetts ice hockey recruiting there are multiple examples of verbal commitments being pulled because a player did not progress according the school's liking - that is the concern here. If you believe that a 15 year old (even a NT player) is capable of entering college and suriving the physicality and stress of the college game - I have a bridge in Chelsea you should look at to buy. More importantly, no 15 or 16 year old is a finished soccer product, and so by definition they are all projects. Take a worse case secnerio, Mia is a NP striker with great speed and a little "attitude". Coach Wormsley of Ginormous State just loves her play and "passion" and enters a verbal agreement at the beginning of Mia's sophomore year. After two seasons Coach W is fired and a new coach, Petty Pure Bottom is hired. She doesn't appreciate Mia's tough play or her perpensity to yap at refs. She actually believes that Mia is over-rated and isn't thrilled with using a good portion of her limited budget on this player, but she waits. When she sees Mia play at Disney (and Mia earns a yellow for her mouth) she decides to pull Mia's offer. Its January of her senior year and Mia has no NLI, no $$ and no admissions help and most importantly, no recourse! That control that the coach has, and the underlying precariousness left for the recruit is the problem. Frankly, what would be the harm if the real time-line did get pushed back? I don't think there is anybody that can reasonably argue that a system that forces Sophomores and ultimately Freshmen to decide on college makes sense.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Nice story...How is mine any different. NP striker Mia is recruited at the end of JR due to new NCAA restrictions brought about after extensive discussions with talkingsoccer.com parents. Coach see Mia play at Disney over XMas of senior year and Mia gets the same card for mouthing off at the ref.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Same coach decides that Mia is a liability and pulls her offer. Mia's mouth still got her in trouble and she is still stuck without a spot to play.Comment
-
Firstly, many 2012's have taken PSATs / PLANs and have a very good estimate of their ability to get into a given school. That taken with GPA will give a good idea of who stands a good chance of getting in where.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Secondly, take athletics out of the picture, if a HS student isn't thinking about college choices before Fall of JR year they can very easily find themselves unable to get into the more competitive schools because of class choice and/or grades.
Third, I don't really think JRs or SRs are any more ready to make college choices, the only difference is they don't have the option of putting it off. Late year sophomores are certainly capable of researching college choices and it is a process ALL underclassmen should be starting as early as possible.Comment
Comment