Let's take this little statistical report off of the individual years and give it its own space. Here's some historical data to start with and I'll try to keep this updated on an ongoing basis as the years go by. Known Commitments of Girls by Christmas Break of their Sophomore Years For the 2013 class, 2 commitments by 12/21/10 For the 2014 class, 5 commitments by 12/21/11 For the 2015 class, 15 commitments by 12/21/12 For the 2016 class, 37 commitments by 12/21/13. For the 2017 class, 87 commitments by 21/21/14. Known Commitments of Girls Before the Beginning of their Sophomore Years For the 2013 class, 2 commitments by 8/31/10. For the 2014 class, 5 commitments by 8/31/11. For the 2015 class, 7 commitments by 8/31/12. For the 2016 class, 9 commitments by 8/31/13. For the 2017 class, 18 commitments by 8/31/14. Known Commitments of Girls During Their Freshman Academic Year For the 2013 class, 0 commitments by 5/31/10. For the 2014 class, 2 commitments by 5/31/11. For the 2015 class, 3 commitments by 5/31/12. For the 2016 class, 5 commitments by 5/31/13. For the 2017 class, 5 commitments by 5/31/14. For the 2018 class, 5 commitments (so far) by 1/22/15 Are there trends showing here? Probably too soon to tell in the freshman years as the numbers are too small. However, by the end of the summer vacation after their freshman year and certainly during the fall semester of their sophomore year, the trend is significantly positive.
Some interesting data for sure. Early recruiting/commitments and ECNL are the two biggest causes of parity in the women's game. Schools are missing on players with these early decisions while ECNL is not the end-all-be-all of the player pool and is causing coaches to not roll up their sleeves and actually find players.
Soccerhunter, great work and great to separate the general topic of early recruiting from the year-by-year discussion. Also, there's already an ECNL discussion thread, so I hope we can keep that interesting discussion there (other than if there's a clear relationship to early recruiting) and have this thread really be for early recruiting discussion. By the way, there's a pretty good thread going on US women's soccer player development here: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/u-s-soccers-player-development-plans.2014222/
What will be interesting to see is how new legislation to make it much harder to reduce or non-renew a players' athletic scholarship could have on the recruiting timelines of coaches going forward.
At least lacrosse is trying to slow down the process with a proposal. No idea of if this will pass or not but at least they recognize the problem and are attempting to fix it: http://laxmagazine.com/college_wome..._two_recruiting_legislative_proposals_to_ncaa Couldn't women's soccer at least discuss this matter and offer a similar proposal? At least show they see this as an issue and make an attempt to correct it. The one 'positive' about this is that it has given more parity to women's soccer. Yes, there is a deeper pool of better players. But other point is that programs that recruit earlier have more chance of being bitten in the end. UNC is a prime example. Didn't even make the Sweet 16 for the first time in program history and they are pretty well known for early commitments, even have a couple 2019s at this point. Big risk as you know freshmen in high school may not pan out once they are in college (have to admit having 5 ACLs didn't help this year but that's another matter).
New legislation from what body? Congress? Scholarships have always been one year deals, and subject to modification. Coaches now both tell kids that they're probably not going to play much going forward, and for that reason must have their scholarship monies trimmed or eliminated--and that's when players transfer. Legislation might eliminate the scholly reduction but that's not going to get inferior players on the field, in most cases. I hate to see kids transfer, and sometimes they do it late in their collegiate careers when they're playing time is going to be reduced--but a lot of those who do transfer from big programs go to lesser but still solid programs and play, and that's a good thing. As for early commitments, the herd mentality has kicked in, like the stock market. Once a few kids started committing early, pressure built on coaches to get earlies or risk losing out on the most promising players, even if they are only 15 and who knows what kind of players they'll be three years later--not all that, in a lot of cases. There are a lot of late bloomers in high school, for sure, who in a lot of cases turn out better than the kids who were phenoms at 15.
They've discussed the shit out of it. In Baltimore DI coaches had a nearly four hour meeting with lots of discussion. Action and results are where there's not much happening.
It's a little organization called the NCAA. Things have changed. Reducing monies is not quite as easy as it used to be. Of course, coaches have some of the same tools at their disposal with playing time and making life uncomfortable for student-athletes and most players will want to be on the field will look to go elsewhere but if a kid is comfortable where they're at and with their money and keeps out of trouble simply cutting them loose is definitely more difficult.
It's also changed by conference. Three years ago the NCAA allowed four year scholarship offers and some conferences are guaranteeing them across sports. The B1G and Pac12 come to mind. I think the rest of the FBS is falling in line. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...st-major-conference-to-guarantee-scholarships http://pac-12.com/article/2014/10/2...weeping-reforms-student-athletes-guaranteeing http://informedathlete.com/the-facts-about-guaranteed-multi-year-ncaa-di-scholarships/
It won't really change much until they provide FULL scholarships for all. Then there would be little pressure for the girls and families to rush into a commitment with out seeing all of there options. Also allowing coaches to evaluate a broad range of girls from ECNL to local club and get the best talent avail. Some schools won't and can't even offer girls in their FR and Soph years because they don't haven enough academic history or test scores yet to be accepted.
Stanford, among others, makes offers to 9th graders in the USYNT system every year without really much idea if they will gain admission. Most do but there is often a Sr. year domino effect when one can't. I don't think the 4-year scholarship policy is going to change things much. Any coach who plans, in advance, to recover scholarship funds from a kid before her 4 years are up is likely not very successful or won't be around long anyway. Coaches will still play around with 'incremental' offers as well, promising an increase in future years. This is very common on the men's side with more limited funds and more admissions and retention issues than the women. This has been discussed here before but the only option is to prohibit offers until a certain date. I've suggested Sept 1 of the Jr year and also allow official/paid visits at that time. Kids could then visit their top 3-4 schools, watch a game, spend the night, and make a decision in Sept/Oct. Many could even take the SAT right then and get a score so coaches relying on academic scholarship support would be even more competitive. Basically, the way it used to be in the Sr Year. Everyone would be on the same timeline and it would really increase competition for top prospects and therefore increase parity in the game even more. It would also empower the top prospects with more options and that's why the big money schools often object.
One thing to consider is the obvious way schools can avoid the four year commitment. If they tell you they don't have a scholarship for freshman year, consider that a player who isn't offered a first year scholarship has no guarantee of a four year scholarship, according to the third link I posted. Make sure whatever commitment they say they are giving you is in writing.
The Stanford scenario is rearing its head again with a decommit a few weeks back and another bomb to drop prior to signing day
The above discussion keeps talking about changing the rules and not allowing offers or commitments until the senior year, junior year etc etc. Allow me to point out again, that "officially" as it is right now, offers can not be made and players can not commit until February of their senior year. (NLI signing peroid.) What we are all ringing our hands about here is the completely unofficial and non-binding declarations of players, their parents, or their club or high school coaches that the player has "committed" to school X. Colleges X, Y, or Z have never indicated publicly that they have offered or committed to a player before this senior year date. There is complete silence on the college or college coach side. Only after official signing commitments have been made (NLI) do coaches or colleges comment on any player. Before that time a player can change her mind as often as she wishes and doesn't have to tell a soul. Since what we fans know about all comes from the player, parent, club, etc., it seems to be these sources that want the publicity. Who knows... are there many players who have actually made a commitment to a college (and maybe changed their mind a few times) who never say a word about it until they sign?
No, what people are wringing their hands about are offers of scholarship money when players are in 8th/9th/10th grade. Yes, NLI's aren't signed until Senior year, but the money and, to a lesser degree, roster spots are allocated years in advance. The offers of scholarship money by coaches is what drives early commitments by players because they know if they don't commit the money or roster spot will be allocated to someone else. The publicity of commitments is just a by product.
Wrong. At least for almost everyone on D's club team, most of the information is release by the college coaches to the various spreadsheets. They want everyone to know that the girls have committed so other coaches stop their pursuits.
Just to be clear, proposals like the one made by the Lacrosse coaches (cited earlier) would restrict ALL contact with prospects prior to a certain date (Sept 1st of Jr Year). Currently, prospects can initiate all the contact they want. Usually, through "appointment" phone calls or when they are physically on campus. Under the proposed rule, these early conversations would not be allowed at all so if there was any evidence of an offer being made, or one being discussed or accepted or confirmed, that would constitute a violation. Coaches would still use YNT and club coaching, odp, and camps to actually talk with recruits but apparently no discussion of offers or commitments could occur, or certainly not published. There would be some enforcement issues but this would help a whole lot I think.
I have heard what I consider to be a reliable report about a major BCS conference team recruiting what would be '21 players (I think I've got the right year, 7th graders). Has anyone else heard anything like that?
Nothing should surprise you and 'there's nothing new under the sun'. I know a women's basketball program at a mid-major D1 in the midwest who runs a summer league on their campus for middle-school kids. They use the league to evaluate and rate the local talent and can talk to all of them since the definition of "PSA" begins in 9th grade. They usually get a commitment or two from the leagues best players as they are about to enter 9th grade. Point is - There's always an example of someone out there stretching the limits of the rules and protocols. Usually why the rule book is so big in the first place!