Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Women's College' started by defendher, Apr 29, 2010.
Seven 2012 recruits show committing to Oklahoma State already. Is this normal?
Recruiting is getting earlier and earlier. You are seeing more and more Sophomores verbally committing. I think UK has 6 or 7 @ this time. I am on the same side of the fence as Becky Burleigh on this matter. She went to the NCAA and tried to get them to change their rules. It is her belief that College coaches should have no contact with recruits until the summer before their Senior year. It is getting rediculous. Injuries occur on the collegiate and club level.You offer a player a spot their Sophomore year and one of your current players is forced to "Redshirt"(due to injury) this changes the whole dynamic. Also you are asking these 15 year old girls to make a "life altering" decision that they are not prepared to make. The same decision that their classmates won't be making for another 2 years. It is putting too much pressure on the "Kids" and the universities.
I don't understand. If a high school sophomore is offered a college spot, why would a current college player be forced to "Redshirt"?
No! If a college player gets hurt(say a Sophomore) and that coach has already counted on that player being through the program, before the HS Sophomore"recruit", gets to school. The current player receives a "red shirt" year. Now that coach has a dilemma. They now don't have as much scholarship money available.What do they do? Where does the needed money come from? Be fore warned, if a coach is promising your child the world. Take it with a grain of salt. Also, know that there are very few players(the cream of the crop) that actually get "Full" athletic scholarships. 14 scholarships divided between 22-28 players.
Having gone through it with one child who did not play soccer in college and made the decision halfway through her senior year which college to go to and then one who did play soccer and made the decision fall of her junior year, I can tell you the main difference. The senior made the decision where she wanted to go, with the junior it was her father and I who tried to make the best decision for her. Yeah, she was the one that said, "I choose such and such school", but believe me she was not ready for the pressure put upon her. We had to shield her from some coaches who were coming on very strong, had to play the what if game on majors at the school because she had no idea what she wanted to study yet, and had to take a good hard look at trying to decide what was best for her because at that age the kids are still trying to please their parents, so you are still very influential. It's too early to tell if our decision was right for her, but we are hoping we did. Another huge factor is she spent an entire summer worrying about which schools she should visit because we did not have the $$$ to visit many, instead of just enjoying her soccer and going to the beach like a 16-year-old should be doing over the summer. I still remember getting the call from her counselor at school because she did not believe what our daughter was telling her about being recruited.
I think a move to eliminate early committments is needed, however I think the Burleigh proposal that basically eliminates all contact with coaches until a player's senior year is a bit much.
My older daughter is not an athlete but had visited all of the schools we could afford to visit by the time her senior year started. Her chosen major required a portfolio for admission and she used most of the fall to complete that. With that workload, plus normal school work, plus her extra-curriculars (and our schedule as parents) there would have been little if any time to make visits. Condensing visits into just a few months I'm sure a PSA would run into similar time problems.
For me, January of the junior year might be a more realistic time frame for all recruiting activities. Not a big fan of official visits either. Not something most non-athletes get to take advantage of (my daughter was highly sought after and accepted to 3 of the top 5 schools in the country for her major and never got an official visit) so I don't see why PSAs do. Also, a return to a reliance of official visits as a major part of the process might not be something a lot of ADs are interested in because it would simply put more stress on a program's budget.
Most Collegiate soccer programs don't have the money in their budget to pay for an "official" visit, until after a "recruit" has already committed to said University. We, as parents always want what is best for our children. We push them to take the "offer" we feel is in their best interest. I have 3 children that were offered several scholarships to play collegiate sports. In the beginning i was pushing for them to take what I considered to be their best option.The one thing you have to realize, it is truly their decision. You can and should help in the process, but in the end, it should be their decision.I can only say, that I am glad my daughters waited and made the "right" decision for themselves. If they would have listened to me, they probably would not be as happy as they have been. It is funny that girls recruiting has gotten earlier and earlier, but on the boys side, it has basically stayed the same. They tend to commit their Senior year. Like it or not, Athletes get "preferential" treatment. Coaches can get them in to school, even after classes have started. They don't have to go through the same rigors, as long as they have been cleared by the "clearinghouse'.
They men wait until they see how they do as far as the U.S. Development Program before they commit to colleges, with the best youth players not going to college at all, at least not until their playing days are over.
Wake up about the preferential treatment. It happens in both genders in every sport, even down to division 3. and that has been true since at least my father's college days (he went to college on an athletic scholarship during the depression - had to play three sports to get full tuition and room and board) I went to college 40 years ago and one of the ways I expanded my pool of schools that would consider me at the peak of the baby boom was by being an athlete. There is nothing new there.
Having good grades is still the surest way to the school of your choice.
I agree with it being the child's choice. My argument is that most sophomore girls are not mature enough (and shouldn't be) to make such a big decision. And like I said, having gone both routes (one playing soccer and one not), I was much more comfortable with my senior's choice than the early junior's decision.
We can go another entire direction by pointing out that early recruiting is for the family with more $$$ as they can afford the many non-official visits. I know we had to limit our daughter to three in-state trips and could only afford two out of state, as this was the high recruiting year and her team was attending many tournaments. We are still paying off that year of travel, but many of her friends could not afford to travel far and went with in-state schools, even though they could have probably received scholarships had they been able to visit smaller out of state schools.
One word of advice is before jumping on a plane to visit a school, have a realistic conversation with the coach regarding what type of $$$ may be available for your child. I know we had a couple high on her list where the coaches were very blunt that her graduating year was not a year they would have scholarships available. Saved us a lot of time and $$$, even though there was a little bit of disappointment on her part.
Smeg, I agree with you on a Sophomore being too young to make a college decision. That is why I agree with Becky Burleigh. Offers should not be made until the summer b4 their Senior year(even the spring season of their Junior year) As for flying; my family took a 17and1/2 hour trip in our car, only for my daughter to turn down a very large offer. Coaches will skirt around the $$$ and are very put off by parents that make that their number 1 concern. It should not be about the soccer, I have always instructed my players to pick a school that they would still want to be at, if and when soccer is no longer an option. Nearly 50% of college freshman are not playing b their soph. year and the number is higher by their Junior year. As for good grades, it is always the 1st question asked. What kind of student are you? What did you get on your ACT/SAT? A"full athletic scholarship" is not always that in the Olympic sports. Out of state tuition comes in to play also. If the scores are high enough, the coaches can work that into their offer. School over Soccer, make the right choice for you.
Maybe someone can shed more light on:
1. I thought D1 and D2 couldn't communicate (other than camp invites, admissions info, and other "non-recruiting recruiting ) before the fall of the prospect's junior year, so how does an offer or something resulting in a verbal commitment get made?
2. Why does it seem that the 2012 verbal commits have a high % of kids from the same club verbally committing to the same school?
I'm not saying anything is untoward, just a bit odd.
I hear the sound of a can being opened...
Would love to hear the anonymous anecdotal evidence from those with kids, or that know kids well, that were somehow offered dollars before Sept. 1 of the Jr year... no names of course
The student can visit the school, and on campus, the coach can talk about anything they want, including making offers. the student can call or email the coach (but the coach cannot return calls or emails). These coaches have seen the girls play multiple times, and have talked to their coach and DOC.
The club in question (assume you mean Dallas Texans) is annually ranked the top girls' club in the nation. They carry a lot of clout, and their players are coveted. That's why the concentration.
True now, but in Burleigh's plan the official visit once again becomes a big part of the recruiting process. As you say, budgets are tight so re-introducing the official visit could spark a financial battle before an offer has even been made! School A will pay all expenses on an official visit but School B can only afford 50% because of its budget. That will certainly shift the battle lines.
Which is a pretty similar situation for the families of non-student athletes when choosing a college. I understand there is inherent preferential treatment in the whole institution that is college athletics. That said, it always cracks me up that people decry (not necessarily saying that you are doing so, Smeg) the unfairness or burden of spending money to figure out which school is the best fit for their child when the overwhelming majority of prospective college students are in that position.
Might be referring to Toro SC, 5 players all listed with Nebraska.
My dd went to a college soccer camp last summer. What RedBlueDevil said is what the coach told us too.
It does seem early for 2012 commits already.
That could be true-I knew that 3 or 4 2012 Texans committed yesterday as well.
According to soccercbg's list:
Ok State - 7 (Texans, NOKC, KCFC)
Nebraska - 5 (Toro SC)
Is that typical that so many from one club go to the same college in the same class?
Talking to friends here in SoCal with 2012 kids. Kids play on Slammers, Blues, RSC, Surf. Some have talked to coaches about playing for them. None has verbally committed...yet. Most seem to be waiting for the summer (Regionals, Nationals, Surf Cup) to be seen again before that decision in the fall or spring of Jr year.
Have heard that a 2012 player in CA with USYNT experience has commited to UNC. Kids "heard" it through facebook so you know it must be official.
Top recruit Lindsay Horan is down to UCLA,Santa Clara and USC.
I agree that nothing should happen before fall of their junior year, which I think is the current rule but is not finite due to loopholes and maneuvering around the rules. But sophomore/freshman recruiting is ridiculous. I believe a good option is no one should be able to receive an offer until Sept. 1 of their junior year, and no one should be able to give an official commitment until Jan. 1 of their junior year. This would give them plenty of time to mull over scholarship options and visit schools they've already thought about (if you haven't already thought about it by your junior year, you're probably not interested in playing collegiately). Then with a few months research (minimum, you don't have to make a decision on Jan. 1), they can make an informed decision about what school is right for them.
I think it's win-win. Kids can get all of their scholarship information in the fall and not have to worry about pulling the trigger once they get an offer or face losing out on it. If they don't get offers they want in September, keep working hard and continue to try to get noticed at other places. For coaches, sure it takes away the ability to "lightly pressure" a kid into an early commitment but it also gives you a chance to recruit on an even playing field with everyone. You know what schools have offered and targeted your prospects and should have ample time to come up with a package you're comfortable offering to counter another program.
And instead of doing three things at once [1) locking down your seniors commits, 2) getting final commits from your juniors and 3) recruiting sophomores and offering schollys too early in the process], now you're just focusing primarily on two. Sure you still have to look at sophs/fresh at clubs and such so you know who to target, but you don't have to worry about if you offered them too late compared to School X or if they'll have a major setback in talent after offering a scholly as a soph.
Horan will end up at UCLA. She has to......Ellis is her next National Team coach. At least we'll know, two years early, that she'll never win a National Championship.
As far as early recruiting, coaches can not call, email or send anything other then camp info and/or a general questionnaire. So if the process is moving forward, then there's other parties (club coaches and parents) who are facilitating the process. Takes two to tango....or maybe three in this case.
How do you police that exactly? These offers and commitments are all verbal at this point. That's awfully difficult to police.
It's the visits and contact that really need reformed. Get an early signing period in place, no visits including any contact with the coaching staff or athletics prior to a student's junior year which would include contacts and visits. Even then you still have the camp and (growing in prevalence) prospect mini camps or one day "clinics" that will be used to get around some of those rules.
Perhaps parents and recruits should take firmer line with coaches pressuring for a decision too early in the process. Perhaps some opportunities are missed but at the end of the day maybe playing for someone who wants a person to make a hasty decision they're not ready/prepared to make isn't someone to be trusting your kid with for four years.
A recruiting calendar would help both the players and the college coaches, for reasons listed above.
The process is out of control, which is crazy because the NCAA loves to have things under their own control.
I would be in favor of a Dec 1 of junior year contact date. Official visits in spring of junior year. Nothing before then. No contacts, even if the kid calls the coach. The kid can visit a campus but not talk to a coach.
Its just favors the rich right now; both the rich families who can do unofficials on their own dime and the rich schools who are the recipient of those visits.
And lastly, Jil is blatantly using her position as a u-20 coach as a carrot to recruits. Its widely known out here and a shame. I am a UCLA fan, but that is wrong. And some coaches give deadlines to kids "you need to decide by April 26th or I move on." That cannot help people make a sound, rationale decision.
The NCAA needs to step in, and I say that as someone who thinks the NCAA needs to be overhauled and regulated. (Like they make billions off of mens basketball but can't afford to seed a national women's soccer tournament? Uh-huh)
Anyone familiar with the NCAA recruiting rules?
This is true of the entire college search process, athlete or not.
And wouldn't bringing official visits into play favor the rich schools/programs more heavily as they would likely have more ability to budget enough money for recruiting both for evaluation and official visits? There are a good number of mid-majors that struggle to get to all the events they want in order to see players with their current budgets. Add the need to pay for official visits and that puts more pressure on an already strained budget. Just a thought.
The same way recruiting rules regarding contact are policed in football and other recruiting rules are enforced in every Olympic sport. Like right now, media guides and such can't be sent to recruits until Sept. 1 of junior year. What stops a coach from sending it August 15? Knowledge that if anyone finds out it will lead to violations. Do people knowingly break rules because they think they're invincible? Yep. But what percentage follow the rules? Probably around mid-90% or else recruiting violations would be known widespread already and reform would have happened.
Can a kid know where they're going to commit before they even start playing club soccer? Of course. All we're saying is school's can't give an official offer or accept a commitment until certain dates. You give a kid an earlier offer and that kid accidentally tells another coach in the conference, I'm sure whistles will be blown loudly! And all the "official commitment" date would serve to do is actually give these kids a chance to mull their offers rather than having to pick a school immediately after getting an offer. It also gives coaches a shot at selling their programs for a few months since we know a lot of coaches respectfully back off when someone announces their commitment.
These aren't earth-shattering reforms on recruiting, just ways to help kids actually make informed decisions, not be rushed into decisions, and keep recruiting at a level foot.