Verbal commitment process needs change?

[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.

<a href="http://www.thedailygopher.com/2011/1/26/1948244/whats-wrong-with-minnesota-gophers-hockey-part-ii-can-the-gophers-win">Artcle</a>

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).

 

[SCSU Euro]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

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.



<a href="http://www.thedailygopher.com/2011/1/26/1948244/whats-wrong-with-minnesota-gophers-hockey-part-ii-can-the-gophers-win">Artcle</a>

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.

I am torn... overall getting rid of the gentleman's agreement is probably best for the kids and best for the system, but you're right... the rich get richer. In the Midwest this would help MN, UW and UND, and possibly at the cost of SCSU, UMD, MSU-M and BSU.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I am torn... overall getting rid of the gentleman's agreement is probably best for the kids and best for the system, but you're right... the rich get richer. In the Midwest this would help MN, UW and UND, and possibly at the cost of SCSU, UMD, MSU-M and BSU.

Yeah, that's why I have reservations about the idea of dropping the agreement.

 

[Patman]

Yeah, that's why I have reservations about the idea of dropping the agreement.

The question to me is more what it does for the players... If the school makes a mistake then tough luck

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

The question to me is more what it does for the players... If the school makes a mistake then tough luck

My concerns have absolutely nothing to do with teams making mistakes. And if it's just the players we're worried about helping, why don't we start paying them and give the large programs and even bigger advantage.

Truth is, there are lots of ways to help the players without giving the large programs a competitive advantage. Not that kids aren't allowed to change their minds before they sign a LOI anyways.

 

[slowe]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

The biggest thing it does for players is that they will be making decisions closer to when they'll actually be playing. What's the lineup of the team likely to look like? Who might I be playing with? Can I guess how much ice time I'll be getting? Is the team doing well?

Double edged sword, but they'll have a better idea of their skill sets. If you start slow and don't initially attract attention, you may only get offers from so so schools. As you get older if you are a late bloomer, you may have more options as power schools start to pay attention. Or vice versa. If you are a big time 15 year old getting lots of attention but you don't progress, those offers might not be there when you are older. So this could be positive or negative depending on trajectory. But it ensures talented kids are more likely to choose and get the program they want as opposed to a crapshoot (sorta) when they are younger. Maybe it's a big school with lots of talent, maybe it's a smaller program on the rise where they will be a star with playing time. But talented kids will get a better pick.

 

[fangers]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

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.

Definitely not doing this for the players.

 

[fangers]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

I am torn... overall getting rid of the gentleman's agreement is probably best for the kids and best for the system, but you're right... the rich get richer. In the Midwest this would help MN, UW and UND, and possibly at the cost of SCSU, UMD, MSU-M and BSU.

Still not seeing how this is, when combined with the more liberal phone/text/contact guidelines, does anything that is best for the kids.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Definitely not doing this for the players.

Of course the true motivations aren't to help the players. Anyone who thinks it is aren't being completely honest or are fooling themselves.

It's no coincidence that guys like Hakstol (and I'm not singling him out here because I know other coaches including Minnesota's probably want to see this change too) publicly brought up ending the gentlemen's agreement after losing a few kids to major juniors.

 

[SCSU Euro]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Still not seeing how this is, when combined with the more liberal phone/text/contact guidelines, does anything that is best for the kids.

It allows the decisions that count to be made later, when they are older

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

It allows the decisions that count to be made later, when they are older

The rules already allow that. A verbal agreement is non binding. The kid can change his mind anytime he wants, including after signing an LOI.
The only thing that binds a kid to a school is an LOI. If an LOI is signed, and the player then backs out, he has to sit out one year before playing with another NCAA team. If he never signed an LOI, no penalty.

 

[fangers]

It allows the decisions that count to be made later, when they are older

This would do nothing to change that since they can already do that. This just opens the floodgates for coaches to constant hound kids & their family, regardless of their wishes. One of good things about verbals is the peace of mind it provides players/families, this change would take that away. Unless you've been (the collective you in this thread) thru it I know it's hard to appreciate the value on that peace of mind.

 

[slowe]

The rules already allow that. A verbal agreement is non binding. The kid can change his mind anytime he wants, including after signing an LOI.
The only thing that binds a kid to a school is an LOI. If an LOI is signed, and the player then backs out, he has to sit out one year before playing with another NCAA team. If he never signed an LOI, no penalty.

Sure a kid can change his mind, but sorry, colleges have scholarships planned out and unofficial semi binding commitments made for the next three years. Unless you are top talent, do they make room for you? Verbals technically aren't binding, but they kinda are aren't they? Who wants to lose their spot?

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

The rules already allow that. A verbal agreement is non binding. The kid can change his mind anytime he wants, including after signing an LOI.
The only thing that binds a kid to a school is an LOI. If an LOI is signed, and the player then backs out, he has to sit out one year before playing with another NCAA team. If he never signed an LOI, no penalty.

The rules allow for it, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Far from it, actually. If a kid isn't happy with his situation, and he is a marginal kid, what happens if he decommits and no one else offers him a scholarship? Now he's screwed.

If there was no gentlemen's agreement he knows exactly what schools are still interested in him at all times. If there are none, he doesn't back out of his current commitment. In the current system he's blind to the process once he's already given a verbal commitment to a school. He's virtually locked in unless he's an elite player. Even if he does decommit, then what? How do teams know he's available? Sure with twitter and certain websites these days, the elite kids get written about. But what about Joe average who is comitted to a mediocre school but doesn't feel comfortable any more? Sure, he's told his current school he's no longer going there, but what is he supposed to do so the other 58 know he's back on the market? Take out a TV ad? Call every single one? Ridiculous.

Kids who decommit also get a nasty reputation under the current system. A lot of schools won't touch a kid who has backed out of one commitment. Letting coaches recruit kids until they've signed LOI's lets kids know their options if they are having second thoughts after making their initial commitment.

So yes, there are certainly many positives for the player in discarding the gentlemen's agreement.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

The rules allow for it, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Far from it, actually. If a kid isn't happy with his situation, and he is a marginal kid, what happens if he decommits and no one else offers him a scholarship? Now he's screwed.

If there was no gentlemen's agreement he knows exactly what schools are still interested in him at all times. If there are none, he doesn't back out of his current commitment. In the current system he's blind to the process once he's already given a verbal commitment to a school. He's virtually locked in unless he's an elite player. Even if he does decommit, then what? How do teams know he's available? Sure with twitter and certain websites these days, the elite kids get written about. But what about Joe average who is comitted to a mediocre school but doesn't feel comfortable any more? Sure, he's told his current school he's no longer going there, but what is he supposed to do so the other 58 know he's back on the market? Take out a TV ad? Call every single one? Ridiculous.

Kids who decommit also get a nasty reputation under the current system. A lot of schools won't touch a kid who has backed out of one commitment. Letting coaches recruit kids until they've signed LOI's lets kids know their options if they are having second thoughts after making their initial commitment.

So yes, there are certainly many positives for the player in discarding the gentlemen's agreement.

If a kid isn't happy with his situation??? Why in hell would he commit to a school/program in the first place if he isn't sure if the school/program is the right fit for him? Can you give me an example of a kid who screwed himself by decommitting from a scholly without having one in hand before doing so?

Maybe the marginal player is virtually locked in once he commits, but who's decision was it to commit? At what point do you think the player should take responsibility for his own actions? A school offers anywhere from a partial scholarship to upwards of somewhere around or above $200,000 for a four year education, and the coach/school is the bad guy here?

FWIW, I'm in fangers camp. Unless you've been through the process, you really have no idea. But I can tell you that once the endless research is done, the campus visits are complete, and the final decision is made, the weight of the world has just come off that kids shoulders. And the last thing he/she wants is to have coaches constantly contacting them once the commitment is made.

But I can see your side... there are telemarketer's out there with a similar thought process with their relentless calling. We are on the 'no contact' list, but still get calls. We ask them to please remove our number from their data base, but we still get called. Next time I hear my wife repeating her requests to the caller, I'm going to say... "Honey, maybe you'll get somewhere calling him by name. That's Chuck... Chuck Schwartz."

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

If a kid isn't happy with his situation??? Why in hell would he commit to a school/program in the first place if he isn't sure if the school/program is the right fit for him? Can you give me an example of a kid who screwed himself by decommitting from a scholly without having one in hand before doing so?

Maybe the marginal player is virtually locked in once he commits, but who's decision was it to commit? At what point do you think the player should take responsibility for his own actions? A school offers anywhere from a partial scholarship to upwards of somewhere around or above $200,000 for a four year education, and the coach/school is the bad guy here?

FWIW, I'm in fangers camp. Unless you've been through the process, you really have no idea. But I can tell you that once the endless research is done, the campus visits are complete, and the final decision is made, the weight of the world has just come off that kids shoulders. And the last thing he/she wants is to have coaches constantly contacting them once the commitment is made.

But I can see your side... there are telemarketer's out there with a similar thought process with their relentless calling. We are on the 'no contact' list, but still get calls. We ask them to please remove our number from their data base, but we still get called. Next time I hear my wife repeating her requests to the caller, I'm going to say... "Honey, maybe you'll get somewhere calling him by name. That's Chuck... Chuck Schwartz."

I've had close friends go through the process, coached players who were going through the process, covered the recruiting process for years, have weekly contact with advisors who have kids going through the process, but since I wasn't good enough as to play D1 I don't have the ability to speak on the process. Got it.

No matter what I say, it's going to be wrong in your mind so I'll step aside here.