Verbal commitment process needs change?

[joecct]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

I think this would be an advantage to the larger programs in the country, and hurt the smaller programs. If a kid who was committed to a larger school decommit and heads to major junior, or if they get an some unexpected departures, they can try and poach kids who are committed to smaller schools who might not have gotten a look from a larger program initially. Not saying every kid would want to take advantage, but I don't like this idea for that reason.

Don't get me wrong, as a Gopher fan I would love it if our coaches could target kids that they may underestimated or missed at first, or kids that are late bloomers who may have committed elsewhere early. I don't think that would be fair to other programs though.

So, I'd vote no if I had a vote.

Aren't they poaching now with over 20 commitments. Granted they're probably spread over 3+ years, but...

I think you can commit after sophomore year. No need for a 12 year old to commit to Dear Olde U (or vice versa).

BTW, the problem is now hitting lacrosse. A local prep school had a rising freshman commit to UVA after 8th grade and then wondered if he was going to make the varsity.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

BTW, the problem is now hitting lacrosse. A local prep school had a rising freshman commit to UVA after 8th grade and then wondered if he was going to make the varsity.

Precisely my my point. Eliminating the gentlemen's agreement would slow the rush to offer kids so young because you're going to be recruiting the kid for the next four years until he signs his letter of intent. It eliminates committing a kid 3-4 years out and squatting on him because no one else can then talk to him.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Aren't they poaching now with over 20 commitments. Granted they're probably spread over 3+ years, but...

I think you can commit after sophomore year. No need for a 12 year old to commit to Dear Olde U (or vice versa).

BTW, the problem is now hitting lacrosse. A local prep school had a rising freshman commit to UVA after 8th grade and then wondered if he was going to make the varsity.

Schools that over-recruit run this risk of losing some of those recruits and building a bad reputation, so I think coaches are a lot more mindful of that than you'd think. Also, a team like Minnesota might get verbals from kids at 15 or 16, but they bring in a good number of those kids as 18-year old too. It's not like they are sitting in the pipeline for 4-5 years. And if they are asked to wait longer than they would like, they can go elsewhere (see Ryan Walters).

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Precisely my my point. Eliminating the gentlemen's agreement would slow the rush to offer kids so young because you're going to be recruiting the kid for the next four years until he signs his letter of intent. It eliminates committing a kid 3-4 years out and squatting on him because no one else can then talk to him.

Then set a limit on how young a kid can be before you can talk to him. But I don't want to see big schools poaching commits from small schools at the last minute to fill holes.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

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.

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.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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.

Kids always have the option to wait before making a verbal too.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Then push set a limit on how young a kid can be before you can talk to him. But I don't want to see big schools poaching commits from small schools at the last minute to fill holes.

There are already limits on this, it doesn't stop anything. Coaches can't call kids before their (I believe) junior years. How many kids do you know that commit before that? Hundreds?

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Kids always have the option to wait before making a verbal too.

They have that option regardless.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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.

Then let kids have the ability to reach out to teams to gauge interest if they want to re-explore their options. I just don't think coaches should be able to reach out to committed kids to fill holes with other teams commits because they made oversights/mistakes or had misfortunes in their own recruiting. It will hurt the smaller schools.

I think this is one of the motivations of the coaches who want to see changes, even if they won't come out and say as much.

 

[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?

 

[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.