Verbal commitment process needs change?

[FiveHole12]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

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.

Nah... it's all good. I'm interested in your thoughts on 4 questions I asked. Thanks.

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?

 

[slowe]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Nah... it's all good. I'm interested in your thoughts on 4 questions I asked. Thanks.

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?

I'm not the authority Chuck is, but I'll take a quick stab.

1.) Marginal kid at 16 get two offers from mediocre schools. He really wants to go to BC or North Dakota, but they aren't calling on him. He sees friends making verbals to other schools and gets nervous. What if no other offers come in? Take the offer in hand, or turn it down and risk losing it all? He commits to small school A. Two more years go by and this kid turns into a beast. He dominates his league. Does he decommit? Could he get into a power school now?

2.) John Olen. Club hockey has D-I dedication, not D-I funds The main point of the article is about Illinois Club hockey and how they get no school support. It transitions into talking about John Olen who though he never technically committed to Ferris, had an offer. He was 16 and turned it down due to "academics not being there." He assumed more offers would roll in, but they never did so he ended up in the ACHA. Doesn't fit your question exactly, but still illustrates a point. Respect to him for not committing if he wasn't interested, but maybe he should have. Then decommit if a better offer comes along? Would Ferris have regretted it if he took their offer if he never decommitted?

3.) Yes it's the players decision to committ early. But I can only imagine the pressure to do so. Rosters are being set. I'm sure the school puts pressure on (hopefully in a respectful way) the kid. You're not sure how many other offers you may get. What will your talent be like in two years (trending up or down)? So yes, it's their decision to commit. It's not a decision that should be takenly lightly by any means. But that's the point though. Is it fair to put that kind of pressure on a 16 year old kid?

4.) The player should take responsibility, but it's a messy, imperfect process. Should I think it's a character flaw if he decides to decommit? Depends on why. I can't blame him too much for wanting the best situation possible. Do schools ever pull a verbal offer? Why can't students change then? We think less of the student for "going back on his word" because he puts the school in a tough spot. If no Gentleman's Agreement, then it's fair game until the LOI is signed. No hurt feelings.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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?

Then change the rules that kids can't be contacted until they are older.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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.

Then let kids reach out to schools if they are thinking about changing their decisions. I don't like the idea of coaches filling holes from lost recruits by stealing other team's recruits. And let's not pretend that this isn't a big reason why some coaches want this change. The "it's all for the kids" mantra is getting tiresome.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

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.

I've had two cousins and more than a few friends from high school and friends I played against go thru the process. None have made the process sound as flawed as some people here are making it sound. None had any bad experiences with the process. No matter what changes are or are not made, some kids are always going to feel like they some how got the short end.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I'm not the authority Chuck is, but I'll take a quick stab.

1.) Marginal kid at 16 get two offers from mediocre schools. He really wants to go to BC or North Dakota, but they aren't calling on him. He sees friends making verbals to other schools and gets nervous. What if no other offers come in? Take the offer in hand, or turn it down and risk losing it all? He commits to small school A. Two more years go by and this kid turns into a beast. He dominates his league. Does he decommit? Could he get into a power school now?

2.) John Olen. Club hockey has D-I dedication, not D-I funds The main point of the article is about Illinois Club hockey and how they get no school support. It transitions into talking about John Olen who though he never technically committed to Ferris, had an offer. He was 16 and turned it down due to "academics not being there." He assumed more offers would roll in, but they never did so he ended up in the ACHA. Doesn't fit your question exactly, but still illustrates a point. Respect to him for not committing if he wasn't interested, but maybe he should have. Then decommit if a better offer comes along? Would Ferris have regretted it if he took their offer if he never decommitted?

3.) Yes it's the players decision to committ early. But I can only imagine the pressure to do so. Rosters are being set. I'm sure the school puts pressure on (hopefully in a respectful way) the kid. You're not sure how many other offers you may get. What will your talent be like in two years (trending up or down)? So yes, it's their decision to commit. It's not a decision that should be takenly lightly by any means. But that's the point though. Is it fair to put that kind of pressure on a 16 year old kid?

4.) The player should take responsibility, but it's a messy, imperfect process. Should I think it's a character flaw if he decides to decommit? Depends on why. I can't blame him too much for wanting the best situation possible. Do schools ever pull a verbal offer? Why can't students change then? We think less of the student for "going back on his word" because he puts the school in a tough spot. If no Gentleman's Agreement, then it's fair game until the LOI is signed. No hurt feelings.

No one here is an authority on the subject. Your opinions are appreciated

If the kids are truely the main motivation for making this change, I do think there are ways to make these changes that don't have as big of an impact on the competitive balance though.

Setting an age limit on contacting kids and allowing committed kids to contact coaches are just a few.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

No one here is an authority on the subject. Your opinions are appreciated

If the kids are truely the main motivation for making this change, I do think there are ways to make these changes that don't have as big of an impact on the competitive balance though.

Setting an age limit on contacting kids and allowing committed kids to contact coaches are just a few.

The NCAA already has those sort of limits. It may be in the form of number of calls per month, but it still exists.

 

[CLS]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

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?
...

I’m no expert on the situation, but in response to your first point, I can think of some plausible situations that IMO are legit, are completely out of control of the recruit’s hands, and there would be no realistic way for a recruit to know in advance.

-- The coach who I wanted to play for has been unexpectedly fired, and the school is unwilling to release me from my commitment. The new coach is a neutral zone trap advocate, and I don’t think that suits my style of play.

-- I’m from Connecticut and I’ve committed to BC. I’ve met coach York, but my primary contact has been Coach Cavanaugh. I’ve built up a close relationship and I’d love to play for him. Now I read stories he’s apparently going to UConn.

-- I’ve grown up a lifelong CCHA fan. I love the atmosphere at Yost, my parents are UMich alums and they’d love to see my play there. Michigan is not interested in me, but Wisconsin and Ferris State are, and I pick Ferris State because of the chance to play at Yost. Then the CCHA blows up.

That having been said, I personally think that the “gentlemen’s agreement” is a good thing. The current system has its flaws, but as was said in one of the very early posts, making the college hockey like the cesspool that college football recruiting is would not be a positive development. The point was made earlier that schools with limited recruiting resources at least know who’s available. Additionally, the schools with limited recruiting sources don’t have to play “defense” with their current commits.

The fact that a school may lose a commit to Juniors or to the pros is one of the things that levels the playing field between the haves and the have nots. No system is perfect, but I think this would be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[fangers]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

The NCAA already has those sort of limits. It may be in the form of number of calls per month, but it still exists.

No, most call/text limitations have been lifted by recent changes, including "time off" changes.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

No, most call/text limitations have been lifted by recent changes, including "time off" changes.

I thought there was an article that recently came out where those changes were not accepted?

 

[fangers]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

I thought there was an article that recently came out where those changes were not accepted?

I missed it if it did. I'll do some research.

 

[fangers]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

That having been said, I personally think that the “gentlemen’s agreement” is a good thing. The current system has its flaws, but as was said in one of the very early posts, making the college hockey like the cesspool that college football recruiting is would not be a positive development. The point was made earlier that schools with limited recruiting resources at least know who’s available. Additionally, the schools with limited recruiting sources don’t have to play “defense” with their current commits.

The fact that a school may lose a commit to Juniors or to the pros is one of the things that levels the playing field between the haves and the have nots. No system is perfect, but I think this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Agree. The benefits would only impact a small % of players and the big name schools. For all the rest there's more potential downside than good.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

The NCAA already has those sort of limits. It may be in the form of number of calls per month, but it still exists.

People don't want to see kids recruited so young. The NCAA has no limits on a 15-year old being recruited and committing at 15-16 years old. I would rather see limits on teams contacting kids before they turn 17 then what is being proposed here.

Then again, I don't think any changes really need to be made at all.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I’m no expert on the situation, but in response to your first point, I can think of some plausible situations that IMO are legit, are completely out of control of the recruit’s hands, and there would be no realistic way for a recruit to know in advance.

-- The coach who I wanted to play for has been unexpectedly fired, and the school is unwilling to release me from my commitment. The new coach is a neutral zone trap advocate, and I don’t think that suits my style of play.

-- I’m from Connecticut and I’ve committed to BC. I’ve met coach York, but my primary contact has been Coach Cavanaugh. I’ve built up a close relationship and I’d love to play for him. Now I read stories he’s apparently going to UConn.

-- I’ve grown up a lifelong CCHA fan. I love the atmosphere at Yost, my parents are UMich alums and they’d love to see my play there. Michigan is not interested in me, but Wisconsin and Ferris State are, and I pick Ferris State because of the chance to play at Yost. Then the CCHA blows up.

That having been said, I personally think that the “gentlemen’s agreement” is a good thing. The current system has its flaws, but as was said in one of the very early posts, making the college hockey like the cesspool that college football recruiting is would not be a positive development. The point was made earlier that schools with limited recruiting resources at least know who’s available. Additionally, the schools with limited recruiting sources don’t have to play “defense” with their current commits.

The fact that a school may lose a commit to Juniors or to the pros is one of the things that levels the playing field between the haves and the have nots. No system is perfect, but I think this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Kids can change their commitment all the way up until they sign their LOI, even now, and will need a release to change their commitment after signing their LOI, even if the gentlemen's agreement is eliminated.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Agree. The benefits would only impact a small % of players and the big name schools. For all the rest there's more potential downside than good.

Agreed. There will always be kids who feel like the system has harmed them in some way, regardless of what system is in place. These cases are few and far between. The fact that this whole thing is being presented as a move to help kids is misguided at best. Let's call it what it really is, and that is a way for coaches to overcome some of their recruiting difficulties, even if it creates new recruiting difficulties for other coaches at smaller institutions.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

People don't want to see kids recruited so young. The NCAA has no limits on a 15-year old being recruited and committing at 15-16 years old. I would rather see limits on teams contacting kids before they turn 17 then what is being proposed here.

Then again, I don't think any changes really need to be made at all.

I remember getting college catalogs almost immediately after taking the PSAT, to put things into perspective. We are certainly in agreement with no changes needing to be made to the verbal commitment process. The biggest worry that I have is kids being poached to MJ. Actually, when watching Coach's Corner, Don Cherry's idea that he thinks MJ should be restrictive on foreign players, similar to how the USHL restricts the number of non-USA kids, would actually go a bit of a way towards benefiting college hockey, as we'd be more likely to get high caliber players since the only restrictions are amateurism and being able to normally qualify to get into college.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I remember getting college catalogs almost immediately after taking the PSAT, to put things into perspective. We are certainly in agreement with no changes needing to be made to the verbal commitment process. The biggest worry that I have is kids being poached to MJ. Actually, when watching Coach's Corner, Don Cherry's idea that he thinks MJ should be restrictive on foreign players, similar to how the USHL restricts the number of non-USA kids, would actually go a bit of a way towards benefiting college hockey, as we'd be more likely to get high caliber players since the only restrictions are amateurism and being able to normally qualify to get into college.

You have to love Don Cherry as an American hockey fan

 

[CLS]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Kids can change their commitment all the way up until they sign their LOI, even now, and will need a release to change their commitment after signing their LOI, even if the gentlemen's agreement is eliminated.

Understood. I was merely responding to the question, "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?"

There are some plausible and IMO legitimate reasons why a school/program may be the right fit for a player at the time he makes his verbal commitment but aren't when he's ready to attend college. Such players would benefit from an elimination of the "gentlemen's agreement" because they might know if any schools are interested in them. With the "gentlemens" agreement place, the recruit has to decommit without knowing if there's a suitable replacement.

I think this advantage is outweighed by the disadvantages though, so you and I agree on the general point.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Understood. I was merely responding to the question, "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?"

There are some plausible and IMO legitimate reasons why a school/program may be the right fit for a player at the time he makes his verbal commitment but aren't when he's ready to attend college. Such players would benefit from an elimination of the "gentlemen's agreement" because they might know if any schools are interested in them. With the "gentlemens" agreement place, the recruit has to decommit without knowing if there's a suitable replacement.

I think this advantage is outweighed by the disadvantages though, so you and I agree on the general point.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: Verbal commitment process needs change?

Best advice I ever heard told to a recruit... 'Choose your school based on your intended major and the community of the campus. If you have a career ending injury in your first practice, is this the place you want to spend the next 4 years of your life?"