Verbal commitment process needs change?

[fangers]

Sure, there are examples of this, but a lot of kids don't want to take the risk because they don't know who might offer them if they do decommit. If there was no gentleman's agreement they would know who was interested before they made the decision to opt out of their verbal at their initial school for whatever the reason may be.

And conversely, if a kid doesn't take verbal when offered to wait & see if better offer comes along often finds the scholl making the original offer has moved on and offered to another kid. Happens more often than your scenario.

[fangers]

No, I've never personally gone through the process as an athlete. But I know enough people who have, and advisors who have advised players through the process to speak knowledgeably on the subject. If the biggest concern is kids getting too much attention from college recruiters, maybe that kid isn't mentally tough enough to play division one college hockey. Basketball and Football recruit until the letter of intent is signed, I don't hear them whining about coaches showing them love.

And you stayed at a holiday inn express last night, got it...

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

And conversely, if a kid doesn't take verbal when offered to wait & see if better offer comes along often finds the scholl making the original offer has moved on and offered to another kid. Happensore often than your scenario.

Yes, and what does that have to do with the gentlemen's agreement? Of course there is a risk in turning down a scholarship offer.

[mnstate0fhockey]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Football and basketball recruit up until the LOI is signed, but there is also far less parity in college football and basketball. Unestablished programs are far less likely to compete for a title in those sports. I like the parity in college hockey.

[slowe]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

I think the debate so far has ignored something. It's not fair already. Good (or large) programs get verbal commits from the best 16 year olds. They try to predict who will be the best 18 - 19 year olds. Smaller or less prestigious schools get less attractive recruits, for the most part.

All this does is shift the competition to 18 year olds when they are more mature and a their skills are more advanced.

The hope for less prestigious schools is that they do a better job recruiting or get lucky. An overlooked 16 year old blossoms and becomes a top flight player at 18. The hope is this kid feels obligated, or that larger schools can't take him on because they already have their own pipeline filled. So if the competition shifts to 18 year olds, it takes some luck away from smaller schools. If they want a higher end recruit, maybe if they identify hiim early and do a good job managing the relationship until 18, maybe he still signs with that school out of respect even if a bigger school comes knocking. Harder, but possible.

[mnstate0fhockey]

I think the debate so far has ignored something. It's not fair already. Good (or large) programs get verbal commits from the best 16 year olds. They try to predict who will be the best 18 - 19 year olds. Smaller or less prestigious schools get less attractive recruits, for the most part.

All this does is shift the competition to 18 year olds when they are more mature and a their skills are more advanced.

The hope for less prestigious schools is that they do a better job recruiting or get lucky. An overlooked 16 year old blossoms and becomes a top flight player at 18. The hope is this kid feels obligated, or that larger schools can't take him on because they already have their own pipeline filled. So if the competition shifts to 18 year olds, it takes some luck away from smaller schools. If they want a higher end recruit, maybe if they identify hiim early and do a good job managing the relationship until 18, maybe he still signs with that school out of respect even if a bigger school comes knocking. Harder, but possible.

The big schools will still get commitments from the best 16 year olds, and most when they are 16 year olds. They aren't going to want to wait to recruit a kid because another large program could show interest and get a commitment first. I can't tell you how often I have heard a recruit say that they committed to such and such school because they showed interest first (see Nate Condon).

However, what this will do is allow the big schools to go ahead and fill holes left when some of the kids they recruited early bolt for major juniors or when they have a larger than expected number of early departures. And they will do this by enticing kids away from the smaller programs.

The big schools may steal a player here or there from other large schools because of scholarship availability and the timing of when they can bring kids in, but the big losers are going to be the small programs IMO.

[slowe]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

It could cut both ways. If big schools have a lot of top talent, a smaller school could swoop in and steal a decent recruit. By making the decision closer to the time he would actually play, he would know the coach, team, and record of last years team. That small school could show exactly how he'd fit into the team and possibly promise a larger role or more ice time. That's hard to do when you commit to a school 3-4 years out.

[mnstate0fhockey]

It could cut both ways. If big schools have a lot of top talent, a smaller school could swoop in and steal a decent recruit. By making the decision closer to the time he would actually play, he would know the coach, team, and record of last years team. That small school could show exactly how he'd fit into the team and possibly promise a larger role or more ice time. That's hard to do when you commit to a school 3-4 years out.

Sure it could happen. But I think the odds are much greater that a big program would be able to lure a kid away IMO. Look at college basketball and football. How many five star recruits do you see going to small programs? College hockey is different because the small programs are able to find those late bloomers that turn out to be gems, and they don't have them stolen away from them before they get to campus nearly as often.

But hey, I think my school would be one of the biggest benefactors of this rule change, so it's no skin off my back personally. I think it would really reduce the parity in the sport though.

[Mike Rane]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

*****http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WXXKia3-3j4/UD5xjQIFeEI/AAAAAAAAE_8/CbiN3KlnIyQ/s1600/BB_Saul_Goodman11.jpg******

[midwest hockey]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

I think Andy is right; it's a good read. Interesting that most of the comments so far have focused on competitive implications and what's best for the schools. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about the schools. Rather, I'm interested in the kids. For all parties involved, a more mature commitment is a "better" commitment. Andy's article misses one important point that does feed into things from a kid's perspective. While a kid may want to wait until their junior year to decide, they can look at their top couple of schools and see the available slots being filled up by other verbals--and feel pressure to commit or the spot goes to someone else. All this---by the way---is going on prior to the school being allowed to even proactively reach out to the kid. Seems funny, huh? I'd vote for a system that no verbals are allowed, and of course no gentlemen agreement in place, until start of junior year. That syncs the communication timeframe with the verbal commitment timeframe. It makes sense, and would provide all parties an additional, valuable year.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Besides, the way things are now, it didn't stop a kid like Ryan Walters from decommitting from Minnesota and committing to UNO. It was his decision. A decision he made without coaches trying to pry him away from the Gophers. So, if kids don't like the situation they have committed to, they do have options right now to go elsewhere.

One thing that the Gophers have to their disadvantage is the perception, from a recruiting standpoint, that they're a "big pond". That probably is one of the schools where, unless you're headed to WJC, good luck getting ice time your freshman year. That's one reason why when a small program is starting to rise, they pick up talented high school kids that would normally play juniors for another year and then go to a big ten school, and they do it by offering "immediate" ice time. I put it in quotes, as I would fully expect a coach to make that final determination in practice. Once you establish a great reputation, you can then start bringing in the players you want on the similar schedule that the big dogs would. As an example, a few of RPI's big dogs (Polacek, Foss, Brutlag, Pirri, D'Amigo) were all either directly out or effectively out of high school, as in, they were 18 when they started college.

[mnstate0fhockey]

I think Andy is right; it's a good read. Interesting that most of the comments so far have focused on competitive implications and what's best for the schools. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about the schools. Rather, I'm interested in the kids. For all parties involved, a more mature commitment is a "better" commitment. Andy's article misses one important point that does feed into things from a kid's perspective. While a kid may want to wait until their junior year to decide, they can look at their top couple of schools and see the available slots being filled up by other verbals--and feel pressure to commit or the spot goes to someone else. All this---by the way---is going on prior to the school being allowed to even proactively reach out to the kid. Seems funny, huh? I'd vote for a system that no verbals are allowed, and of course no gentlemen agreement in place, until start of junior year. That syncs the communication timeframe with the verbal commitment timeframe. It makes sense, and would provide all parties an additional, valuable year.

Kids can change their minds all the way up to the point where they sign their LOI. You're kidding yourself if you think that this is being proposed to help the kids. It's no coincidence that certain coaches brought this up after losing kids late to major juniors.

[mnstate0fhockey]

One thing that the Gophers have to their disadvantage is the perception, from a recruiting standpoint, that they're a "big pond". That probably is one of the schools where, unless you're headed to WJC, good luck getting ice time your freshman year. That's one reason why when a small program is starting to rise, they pick up talented high school kids that would normally play juniors for another year and then go to a big ten school, and they do it by offering "immediate" ice time. I put it in quotes, as I would fully expect a coach to make that final determination in practice. Once you establish a great reputation, you can then start bringing in the players you want on the similar schedule that the big dogs would. As an example, a few of RPI's big dogs (Polacek, Foss, Brutlag, Pirri, D'Amigo) were all either directly out or effectively out of high school, as in, they were 18 when they started college.

You're kidding right? We had two freshman defensemen come in last year and play over upper-classmen. Kyle Rau started on the first line as a freshman. We have six freshmen coming in this season that will get immediate ice time.

I don't think your comments about Minnesota are true at all. But hey, if you want to see Minnesota or BC go after some of the late bloomers you recruited late because they started tearing it up in the USHL, fine by me. I'd be lying if I said I would be worried about you guys stealing some of our recruits late.

Having no gentlemen's agreement in place would have helped Minnesota greatly between 2006-2010, when they had a rash of departures after only a year or two. We could have gone after some more seasoned committed guys instead of rushing some of our own commits in straight out of high school.

The new problems developing then are two-fold: the top prospects (Nick Leddy, Jordan Schroeder, Alex Goligoski, Erik Johnson etc) leave after a year or two, and there doesn't seem to be enough quality players left behind to make up for it. Because Lucia and the Gophs get so many kids with high upside and NHL futures, the second tier of potential college players, the kids who may or may not have a pro future but could develop into excellent D1 players, end up going to other schools because they either have a better chance to play, or they may not get an offer from Minnesota at all. It then seems that to replace the blue chip kids that leave early, Lucia then has to dip into a third tier of players who are from Minnesota who may be only fringe players, and have even less of a chance to succeed in the WCHA than the second tier kids he's passing on.

Artcle

It would be really nice to be able to go after some of those "second tier" guys the Gophers didn't initially offer when some of the "top tier" guys they recruited leave early. They may not always be successful in stealing kids, but they probably would be enough times to hurt some of the other smaller MN programs.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of fans of some of the other MN schools. If they aren't worried about this, then I have no problem with it either.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

You're kidding right?

You're finding out why I have him on ignore. Yes, some F didn't play a ton but I doubt that's an anomaly across college hockey. Games played by Fr the last 3 seasons:

2012-13
Mike Reilly D Fr 37
A.J. Michaelson F Fr 22
Brady Skjei D Fr 36
Ryan Reilly F Fr 8
Adam Wilcox G Fr 39
2011-12
Kyle Rau F Fr 40
Sam Warning F Fr 39
Ben Marshall D Fr 41
Travis Boyd F Fr 35
Seth Ambroz F Fr 41
Blake Thompson D Fr 5
Christian Isackson F Fr 11
2010-11
Erik Haula F Fr 34
Nick Bjugstad F Fr 29
Nate Condon F Fr 35
Mark Alt D Fr 35
Justin Holl D Fr 25
Tom Serratore F Fr 28
Max Gardiner F Fr 17
Nate Schmidt D Fr 13
Jake Parenteau D Fr 8
Jared Larson F Fr 8

[mnstate0fhockey]

You're finding out why I have him on ignore. Yes, some F didn't play a ton but I doubt that's an anomaly across college hockey. Games played by Fr the last 3 seasons:

2012-13
Mike Reilly D Fr 37
A.J. Michaelson F Fr 22
Brady Skjei D Fr 36
Ryan Reilly F Fr 8
Adam Wilcox G Fr 39
2011-12
Kyle Rau F Fr 40
Sam Warning F Fr 39
Ben Marshall D Fr 41
Travis Boyd F Fr 35
Seth Ambroz F Fr 41
Blake Thompson D Fr 5
Christian Isackson F Fr 11
2010-11
Erik Haula F Fr 34
Nick Bjugstad F Fr 29
Nate Condon F Fr 35
Mark Alt D Fr 35
Justin Holl D Fr 25
Tom Serratore F Fr 28
Max Gardiner F Fr 17
Nate Schmidt D Fr 13
Jake Parenteau D Fr 8
Jared Larson F Fr 8

Yeah, it was a pretty puzzeling comment. Not to mention the Gophers probably have more 18 year old freshmen than most of the smaller schools in the country. In fact, they even have had kids who have accelerated their education start right out of high school (see Bjugstad).