Changes coming to recruiting?

After reading the link, these 'changes' are a proposal by Becky Burleigh (UF coach) and have not even been submitted to the appropriate NCAA rules committee. I'm not sure that I see these things happening, particularly the no college coaches in ODP. As Burleigh notes, there are too many assistant positions that aren't full-time and/or 'decent' pay ones.

 

I think Becky is right on, but I'm not real optimistic about getting a consensus. Particularly on the ODP thing.

Certainly college coaches need to do something . . . but it's probably going to take an NCAA-wide stance to change the early commitment rush.

 

As the current recruiting rules are written, Im not convinced that early commitment isn't in the student athlete's interest.

What are the advantages of getting two more years of weekly calls from recruiters and harassment?

What are the advantages of not having to pay for two more years of club, showcases, and travel?

And how is having to pay for two more years of this an advantage for students over the idea that they can take an orderly program of bettering their game with actual practice and skills training over just playing games so coaches can "notice" them.

From a student perspective, knowing where I'm going and being able to plan my academic career around that sounds pretty nice.

Are you sure this proposal isn't just to make a coaches life easier, and should we care about that?

 

Unfortunately, what could have been a nice discussion will now stop. TopDrawer took the article off the public viewing area. you now have to pay to see it.

 

You can sign up for the free trial to read it or try this link to the PDF form:


http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=7960

 

I may have missed it in the article, but I thought that was one of the things they were trying to stop.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

From my perspective, the kids are being asked to decide what colleges they want to attend just as they are adjusting to being in high school.

 

I agree the early committments are a little out of control but that can never be stopped.

I also think that the National Teams and regional teams should NOT be coached by NCAA coaches.

The new professional league coaches(Tony D, Emma H, Abner R and Albertin M) would be great coaches for our national teams.

 

I also think that the National Teams and regional teams should NOT be coached by NCAA coaches.

In total agreement guru despite the fact that Mark has helped Pia recently.

 

I also think that the National Teams and regional teams should NOT be coached by NCAA coaches.

Then USSF is going to have to pay coaches on the girls'/women's side - like they do on the men's side. Do you think that's going to happen?

 

I agree with Cliveworshipper that it is more for the benefit of the coaches. Can you imagine the pressure if it is compressed. No school has the budget in soccer to bring in players who are not committed so there will be no savings for families because you will still pay to visit schools in most cases. Some of these coaches who are "doing it for the players" bring in 10-15 players a years a year and have a roster of 32-35 players and then sort the players and many transfer after several years.

I agree that NCAA coaches should not coach the national teams. They waste no time in their recruiting letters and on visits making sure you are aware of it. You also see DOCs and club coaches who coach national teams that bring in their own players. One coach who is an NCAA and club coach every year held a camp in their state and brought in a lot of local players some who were not even on their state or regional ODP teams. The players get to put national pool on their resume and if the coach ever recruits one of these players to their school, they can claim a recruit who was in the national pool. Something needs to change and they should listen to coaches like Anson and Tony and revamp it from the ground up.

 

Playing club and doing showcases if great if you like it and can afford it. What happens if you are one of 5 kids or from a low income family? Heading to Disney a couple of times can be a real financial burden on family finances and time resources.


I'd give Burleigh's proposal more credibility if she was addressing some of the concerns that players families have. She mentions how fortunate college soccer is to be drawing from a middle income pool, never stopping to think that's because lower income kids can't afford to BE in the pool.

Perhaps this is a problem for the ODP and club program, rather than schools. Club soccer is a pretty exclusive endeavor. It's ruled by money at every step. it needs s mechanism for including kids who can't afford club. I'm talking about more than 1 or 2 "scholarships" too.

As to what the NCAA could do if they wanted, how about allowing a paid visit anytime?
That would certainly ease the financial burden on players. The visit would actually be part of recruiting, rather than a weekend junket for the kids who already committed. The paid visits could even be REQUIRED before the school could make an offer, to make sure all sides know what they are getting into.

I'm guessing that would never fly because schools won't vote for increased costs in a non-revenue sport, but it would certainly be in the interests of the player.

Her concerns about schools having to decide on a players' worth early also ring hollow. All schools are in the same boat. That's what coaches are supposed to be able to do- evaluate talent.

Her solution appears to be to scoop 'em all up and sort them out later, Then discard the ones that don't fit your plan. 40 players on a roster hardly in the interests of the student.

I was referring to the current way many club programs are run. Studies show they currently play as much as two games for every day of practice, and the concentration is on getting the club program noticed by winning games (good for the bottom line) and on placing players in top programs (good for recruiting future club enrollees).

Placing players and winning games is great, but not a lot of individual instruction can happen in that setting. College players practice at least 4 days , then play 2 games in a typical week, a much higher training and instruction ratio.

They also play as many as 85 games a year in club, which many sports medicine people say is too much for young bodies. I've had college coaches say that some kids come to college with overuse injuries and mentally worn out, and part of preparing kids for college competition often involved remedial work and even surgery to correct these issues.

If your kid has already comitted, you could find a program that could offer a higher percentage of training and instruction more in tune with what will be expected in college and eventually, one hopes, the pros.

 

Maybe Anson isn't the guy to reference on this issue. When he coached the WNT and UNC at the same time, he was famous for giving at least one 16 year old kid two full National team CAPs while he was recruiting her. She never saw another CAP or even camp after she signed.

 

Here's a thought: don't allow paid visits at all. I've got a senior who started her search process last spring. We visited three of her top five choices which was all we could afford since two of them were on opposite coasts. She's been accepted to highly competitive programs at all 3 schools which are some of the best for her chosen field. She's not an athlete so we didn't get any paid official visits unfortunately. So much for extra benefits in that regard.

Which is probably why Burleigh's proposal would get shot down if it ever sees the light of day. Accepting it means that recruiting budgets will necessarily have to increase especially at small and mid-major schools. As Darnatz points out, these schools won't be able to handle the cost of bringing in many recruits totally on the program's dime. The haggling over money will start with the official visit let alone the scholarship--"You can pay for half my visit? Well school X will pay for all of it so unless you can match that I won't be visiting your school."

There's some merit in there, Clive. Perhaps the blue chippers will continue to grow at good rate but there can be big jumps in players from sophomore to spring of their junior year. Those players probably get missed or miss out on the chance for bigger money because when they start to come on developmentally the scholarship dollars have thinned out by that point. Sure there's an element of evaluation in it but you're also asking a coach to be a bit more of a fortune teller than they should be.

Absolutely correct, and she's not alone!

 

You can get the second page of the PDF by changing the 7960 at the end of the URL to 7961

 

Interesting that Burleigh takes an all or nothing approach - states she'll withdraw the proposal if she can't get it all approved. Because I'd say the proposal is too narrow as demonstrated by some of the points that have been made here.

And frankly I'd be more concerned about the influence of club soccer coaches and teams than I would about the timing of verbal commitments. Luckily there's an easy way to end the influence. First, ban recruiting at club games and tournaments, Second, ban contact with clubs. College coaches can instead recruit at high school games and tournaments restricted to high school teams.

Clubs won't like it but the ones that actually teach soccer will continue to prosper. They'll just practice more and play fewer games. And the players won't like that but they'll improve more. And lazy college coaches won't like it because they won't be able to just go to holiday tournaments to recruit. But their spouse will like that!

 

My gut feel about this trend of early commitments is that the supply [scholarship $$$] is greater than the demand [prospects]. If the scholarship equivalent is increased from 14, kids & their parents may not feel as much pressure because "the school may run out of money".

Does anyone have any insight if this level of early commitments happens on men's college soccer?

Does anyone have any insight if other girls' equivalency sports [e.g. la-x, softball, field hockey] experience this level of early commitments?

 

My impression is that many more men commit senior year. They wait until they see no offers from other areas. They have the issue that the best men aren't going to college, but go to programs funded by professional teams, go into the development academy or go overseas. In Europe, players start their professional careers at about the time US kids are going to college. If you want to be in the top professional ranks, there is enormous pressure to go pro early.

Most European clubs won't spend time or effort on a 22 year old kid. They are passed over by the 18 year olds who have comparable talent, and on the Men's side, college soccer is not seen as high enough quality preparation for the pro's. College players only get to play 20 or so quality games a year, where a player in a Junior pro team might play twice that many games against better competition.


As to other sports..
I know of a top talent soccer player who just committed in the middle of her Junior year. Her sister, who is a very good LaCrosse player expects to commit by the middle of next year, which will also be her Junior year. I do think more players commit senior year, but it's changing.

The LaCrosse player also plays in a club program. I've sort of suspected that some of the early signing is pushed by the club programs and not necessarily the colleges. They want to see lots of recruits they can put on their web pages for prospects to see, and they seem to put the same "pick or lose" pressure on coaches as on players.


I'm not sure if there are club programs for Field Hockey. 20 years ago their weren't, and I don't see the sport much out West, so I couldn't say. I think most of the action is senior year.

 

Thanks for the reply. Curious to see that early recruitments may not yet be the norm in other sports.

ETA: I originally meant to say that the demand [prospects] >>> supply [scholarship $$$]

 

One other Sport to think about. Men's and Women's Ice Hockey both have an early commitment time line.

They have strong club programs.

 

Well, the club coaches gain a TON of control when you allow verbal commitments (since they're the conduit for communication in a system where coaches can't initiate contact directly with players).

Also, I'm baffled by the idea that verbals are good for players. If there's a coaching change, your verbal is worthless and you've wasted months/years telling other interested programs you're "committed." Also, since nothing is in writing, coaches have a great deal of leeway to negotiate downwards or even rescind an offer (i.e. if there's an injury, or a better player comes along). And it's not like sophomores have a high likelihood of knowing what they're going to study . . .

 

I agree about club coaches wielding control without guidelines, supervision, or control. Their role isn't defined in the process, so is ripe for abuse.

I'm trying to imagine a university rescinding an offer that's publicly known and accepted in the time frame for which the offer was extended in a non revenue sport merely for a coaching change. I would imagine the possible bad influence towards future recruiting and university good will would outweigh any benefits. It also opens the university to litigation.

I have heard of kids being dropped after a year with a new coach, but that can happen anyway. the letter of intent commitment is ONLY year to year - no exceptions.

As to kid losing a verbal commitment offer due to an injury, that's true until a kid signs no matter when the commitment was made. If the injury happens before the offer was extended, it might not be extended at all. I don't see a late commitment period would help the player.

I could see how an early commitment might even be a benefit.

There is a UP player who was Oregon POY for two years, then had an ACL during her Senior year in high school. she had surgery and rehabbed, UP stuck with her, and she's now on the u20 squad and a vital member of the college team.

Would UP have recruited her when she was on crutches? I don't know, but they might not have ,and the injury after commitment didn't hurt her cause.

As to coaches rescinding verbal offers, for the most part I don't think it happens. I can think of a coach who was fired two years ago by her university when a parent complained to the college administration about her rescinding a verbal commitment. The coach left, the kid got a scholarship.

The NCAA says these commitments aren't binding on the player, but if you read the literature on the letter of intent website, you'll see the same isn't claimed for the institution.
If an issue comes up such as bad grades or conduct issues, well, yeah, but that can happen even after a kid signs.

Signing is no guarantee, either.
The national letter of intent also clearly states that aid can be rescinded or withheld if a student

That could mean anything, including injury or health.

So while there are risks in the system, I'm not sure they can be attributed to early signing or commitment. The same risks can exist all through the student's career.