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'?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2012-Girls: College Commitments
Collapse
X
-
UnregisteredTags: None
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI 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'?
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
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View Post5/19/10 ADDED 2012 verbal commitment for Jana Jeffrey (M - Dallas Texans) - BOSTON COLLEGE
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
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostAmazing that these are being reported while there not supposed to be any contact. I guess nothing is 'illegal' anymore.....immigrants...college commits....
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThere 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThe 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostHow's that?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThe 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI 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?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThe 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.
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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostFull 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.
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.
- Quote
Comment
Comment