Or if Heisenberg keeps revisions of his listings (I know one of the UW posters keeps a good listing of our commitments).
Chris is known to keep old commits on the list with a crossout over their name. I think when he moves on to a new year/list they get dropped from the new one though so you would have to hunt for them on each individual year.
The good news is that he keeps a different list year to year.
The point was...much like arguing againt older freshman...only a few schools seemed to do this
Funny how it also seems like the ones getting these young kids and the ones who don't want the older kids are the same schools...
"Getting" these young kids is funny because it's not like they are coming next year. A verbal commitment at age 14 means absolutely nothing. Doesn't prevent other schools from recruiting them, doesn't stop the kids from changing their mind and doesn't stop coaches from souring on a kid.
Dear God...you might want to check the post I started the thread with.
Actually I don't like the recruiting of 13 and 14 year olds. No idea how you came up with that conclusion. All I am saying is a verbal commitment at that age is meaningless. Really at any age but especially at 13-14.
Meaningless in that so much can change in 5 years. Meaningful in that 13 and 14 year olds shouldn't be pressured by adults into making a college choice to begin with.
It took all of 10 days to get our first 15 year old commit under the new rules. https://twitter.com/ReedKluender/sta...341853696?s=19