# NCAA NEWLY ADOPTED Rules 2019



## Sane65

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-rules-curb-early-recruiting

Any clarification on these new rules being implemented.  Quite vague?!!  College ID camps, communication between players (initiated by), with college coaches.  How does this impact players currently in contact and initiating conversations with college coaches?  My DD is a sophomore.... is May 1st the date she can not communicate until June 15th, 2019.  Any insights?   TU!


----------



## Soccerfan2

My understanding:

Prior to 6/15 after Sophomore year, college coach can no longer have any contact - not even if student initiates and not through club coach. So yes, after May 1 no more emailing, calling or having club coach facilitate communication until 6/15 for your DD.

However, “contact” is currently defined as off campus and I didn’t read anything about that changing, so I believe a college coach can still talk to a prospect face to face at an ID camp anytime.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

These rules don’t mean anything unless they are enforced.

Will ncaa send agents to GDA and ecnl events to collect brochures at freshman and sophomore games and to look for girls that have marked committed by their names?  

If they are going to do this they should start examining early commits listed on top drawer Soccer and make calls athletic directors at top 20 schools.  

Geez.


----------



## espola

eastbaysoccer said:


> These rules don’t mean anything unless they are enforced.
> 
> Will ncaa send agents to GDA and ecnl events to collect brochures at freshman and sophomore games and to look for girls that have marked committed by their names?
> 
> If they are going to do this they should start examining early commits listed on top drawer Soccer and make calls athletic directors at top 20 schools.
> 
> Geez.


Why would you think they are not going to enforce these rules?


----------



## eastbaysoccer

espola said:


> Why would you think they are not going to enforce these rules?


How?  How do u police this?


----------



## Soccer43

Soccerfan2 said:


> However, “contact” is currently defined as off campus and I didn’t read anything about that changing, so I believe a college coach can still talk to a prospect face to face at an ID camp anytime.


I thought one of the new rules last year or recently was that college coaches could not have recruitment conversations at their camps either until Junior year.


----------



## Glen

eastbaysoccer said:


> How?  How do u police this?


It doesn't really need to be policed.  Going forward, no kid or coach is going to publicly claim a verbal commitment before the no-contact deadline lifts.  And if the coach and player secretly agree to a commitment before the deadline, what value does it hold?  Isn't it the public nature of the verbal commitment that gives the commitment some value?  Without any value, what is the point of breaking NCAA rules to do it?


----------



## Simisoccerfan

About damn time!


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Glen said:


> It doesn't really need to be policed.  Going forward, no kid or coach is going to publicly claim a verbal commitment before the no-contact deadline lifts.  And if the coach and player secretly agree to a commitment before the deadline, what value does it hold?  Isn't it the public nature of the verbal commitment that gives the commitment some value?  Without any value, what is the point of breaking NCAA rules to do it?


Makes sense.  Long overdue.


----------



## Real Deal

I am just a little confused.  If the idea is to prevent early committing, then wouldn't it just be simpler to say that an athlete can't commit, verbally or otherwise, until junior year?   Maybe you guys can explain - why prohibit anyone from talking to each other, getting to know coaches, programs, schools?


----------



## Simisoccerfan

Nothing is preventing a younger person from visiting schools to see if they are a fit academically, geographically, etc.   That way when they are able to talk to coaches they have already done some of the work.   They will still have two summers to visit schools and talk to coaches.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Real Deal said:


> I am just a little confused.  If the idea is to prevent early committing, then wouldn't it just be simpler to say that an athlete can't commit, verbally or otherwise, until junior year?   Maybe you guys can explain - why prohibit anyone from talking to each other, getting to know coaches, programs, schools?


Because they can, that is it.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

So I’m looking at soccerwire and top drawer soccer.   All those 2022 girls and schools that have verbally committed those girls are in violation?   Are their commitments null and void now as they can not speak with the coaches to verify whether the verbal is still good and vice versa?


----------



## Glen

eastbaysoccer said:


> So I’m looking at soccerwire and top drawer soccer.   All those 2022 girls and schools that have verbally committed those girls are in violation?   Are their commitments null and void now as they can not speak with the coaches to verify whether the verbal is still good and vice versa?


The no-contact rule starts May 1.  It doesn't apply retroactively.  That would be insane.

The commitments already made are not null and void.  If a coach backs out of a public commitment after the no-contact period lifts, the coach will suffer the same reputational harm as before.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Glen said:


> The no-contact rule starts May 1.  It doesn't apply retroactively.  That would be insane.
> 
> The commitments already made are not null and void.  If a coach backs out of a public commitment after the no-contact period lifts, the coach will suffer the same reputational harm as before.


True for now but the verbals commit list are about to go dark.  So if your 9th grader commits now will she list herself as committed on the brochure for the summer tournament when she’s about to lose contact with her future coach for 1-2 years?  And what if the ncaa decides to pop in and look at that brochure and see committed?  How would you or the coach prove this verbal commit occurred after May 1st?


----------



## gkrent

eastbaysoccer said:


> True for now but the verbals commit list are about to go dark.  So if your 9th grader commits now will she list herself as committed on the brochure for the summer tournament when she’s about to lose contact with her future coach for 1-2 years?  And what if the ncaa decides to pop in and look at that brochure and see committed?  How would you or the coach prove this verbal commit occurred after May 1st?


1st off, if your kid is so good that they are committed by 9th grade, then I don't think they have a thing to worry about.  2nd, I'm sure the team manager can add an addendum to the brochure like "prior to 5/2019" to kids that are committed.  But the bottom line is if your kid is already committed at that age, the coaches all know her and the word is on the street if they are available or not. 3rd, I love this rule, because early commitments suck!  I know plenty of girls that committed in 9th grade and then ended up somewhere else, or transferring after their 1st year.


----------



## VegasParent

This was a discussion among parents at practice the other day. My question is what will this do to tournaments that advertise as college showcases? If your kid plays for a DA or ECNL team is there a reason to attend these tournaments (Surf or Silverlakes in the summer and Thanksgiving, Players Showcase for example) before say sophomore year in HS? Yes you can play good competitive games but DA and ECNL teams should be getting that (in theory) in their league games and showcases. So why pay the extra money for these tournaments if you can't have any communication with college coaches until junior year?


----------



## Soccerfan2

VegasParent said:


> This was a discussion among parents at practice the other day. My question is what will this do to tournaments that advertise as college showcases? If your kid plays for a DA or ECNL team is there a reason to attend these tournaments (Surf or Silverlakes in the summer and Thanksgiving, Players Showcase for example) before say sophomore year in HS? Yes you can play good competitive games but DA and ECNL teams should be getting that (in theory) in their league games and showcases. So why pay the extra money for these tournaments if you can't have any communication with college coaches until junior year?


Great question and it extends to ID camps too. I would think colleges will still be watching and evaluating players early even if they can’t communicate?


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Glen said:


> The no-contact rule starts May 1.  It doesn't apply retroactively.  That would be insane.
> 
> The commitments already made are not null and void.  If a coach backs out of a public commitment after the no-contact period lifts, the coach will suffer the same reputational harm as before.


As for coaches this is great news.  They won’t have to look u14, u15 anymore.


----------



## Kicker4Life

eastbaysoccer said:


> As for coaches this is great news.  They won’t have to look u14, u15 anymore.


Why do the “have to” now?


----------



## dk_b

I have one kid with a verbal and two who will likely not be recruited athletes though are still in middle school and not on anyone's radar.  I applaud this rule change and think that few folks will cheat and it will become the accepted norm w/in a couple of years (worth noting:  the younger 02s (class of '21 (not my kid's class)) got screwed by (i) the age split and (ii) by the prior rule change but at least this one does not screw them any more than other players - they will only be impacted by a 6 week "pause" - May 1 to June 15).  When the last change was made, I wondered how any kid could commit before seeing the facilities from the inside and seeing the coaches interacting with players in a less formal setting (than on the sideline of a game or in a camp that the players may be working as "coaches" or "counselors").

I think that limiting communication and early commitments are benefits for both player and coach.  The difference in maturity of even a year at this age is significant.  When I think about my own kid and her recruitment process and compare her to who she is now, who she is today is much better-equipped to make one of the most important decisions of her life (and the most important of her life to date).  My guess is that we will see a lowering of transfer rates among women's soccer and, to the extent it is trackable with any certainty, fewer instances when players back out of verbals to take another offer.  My only criticism is the way NCAA releases these rules - the press release is always poorly-written and it always seems to fail to release the text of the actual rule.


----------



## Glen

eastbaysoccer said:


> As for coaches this is great news.  They won’t have to look u14, u15 anymore.


There will also be less need to travel to these showcases at such young ages - saves everyone money.  I wish we could to the same thing for presidential elections.


----------



## Real Deal

dk_b said:


> I have one kid with a verbal and two who will likely not be recruited athletes though are still in middle school and not on anyone's radar.  I applaud this rule change and think that few folks will cheat and it will become the accepted norm w/in a couple of years (worth noting:  the younger 02s (class of '21 (not my kid's class)) got screwed by (i) the age split and (ii) by the prior rule change but at least this one does not screw them any more than other players - they will only be impacted by a 6 week "pause" - May 1 to June 15).  When the last change was made, I wondered how any kid could commit before seeing the facilities from the inside and seeing the coaches interacting with players in a less formal setting (than on the sideline of a game or in a camp that the players may be working as "coaches" or "counselors").
> 
> I think that limiting communication and early commitments are benefits for both player and coach.  The difference in maturity of even a year at this age is significant.  When I think about my own kid and her recruitment process and compare her to who she is now, who she is today is much better-equipped to make one of the most important decisions of her life (and the most important of her life to date).  My guess is that we will see a lowering of transfer rates among women's soccer and, to the extent it is trackable with any certainty, fewer instances when players back out of verbals to take another offer.  My only criticism is the way NCAA releases these rules - the press release is always poorly-written and it always seems to fail to release the text of the actual rule.


Is your daughter with the verbal planning to transfer or is she happy?  Despite transfers, I'll bet the vast majority are happy.  Also,  I believe transfers will continue to happen after college starts and players realize their place in the pecking order.


----------



## full90

I’m hopeful it will lead to less transfers but I fear it won’t. Sports that don’t have early commits are still at record breaking transfer numbers. Men’s Bball is over 1000 kids in the portal and women’s b-ball is closing in on 1000. That’s astronomical. Neither of those sports have early commits. 

We’ve taken a generation that has been taught to “take my talents to south beach” and find the best deal for them, sprinkled in a mentality of  “yolo” and “you do you” combined that with teaching them that anything uncomfortable means something is wrong and then changed ncaa rules to permit a free market of transferring and wonder why the numbers have skyrocketed? 

(And I’m not just blaming kids and parenting. Club sports is an awful business that doesn’t promote commitment and team first mentality. Club coaches and directors are implicated in this. Money and prestige trump kids so parents and players are almost punished for being solid steady non complaining long term club members). 

I’m glad the rules have changed. I agree kids and coaches will make better decisions. Sketchy coaches will still cheat but hopefully this will allow for more informed decisions on all sides.


----------



## dk_b

Real Deal said:


> Is your daughter with the verbal planning to transfer or is she happy?


She's thrilled - for her, it will work out just fine and that's great.  And I think w/o soccer, it would be a good place for her to go (there are a number of people from our community who go there despite it being outside of our area (I'm writing from the Bay Area)).  So it just so happens that the decision from kid at 14/15 may be the same one that that kid would make at 17.  To me that is not validation of the prior system (before last year's change so under the rules just prior) but more a fortunate artifact - I'm glad for her (and for the program) that I think it will work out.  But I can see how other early commits might say, as Juniors or Seniors, "what was I thinking?  I mean, I still like the colors but do I really want to go to THAT school?  THAT weather?  THAT conference?  THAT coach?"


----------



## Real Deal

dk_b said:


> She's thrilled - for her, it will work out just fine and that's great.  And I think w/o soccer, it would be a good place for her to go (there are a number of people from our community who go there despite it being outside of our area (I'm writing from the Bay Area)).  So it just so happens that the decision from kid at 14/15 may be the same one that that kid would make at 17.  To me that is not validation of the prior system (before last year's change so under the rules just prior) but more a fortunate artifact - I'm glad for her (and for the program) that I think it will work out.  But I can see how other early commits might say, as Juniors or Seniors, "what was I thinking?  I mean, I still like the colors but do I really want to go to THAT school?  THAT weather?  THAT conference?  THAT coach?"


That's what I figured:  So "you have yours" but you want everyone else to wait for theirs. Classic.


----------



## dk_b

Real Deal said:


> That's what I figured:  So "you have yours" but you want everyone else to wait for theirs. Classic.


I think you misunderstood my comments.  I am looking at this and was commenting as a general issue, not a personal one.  And as a general issue, I think the rule changes are better than what has existed.

If they kept the same rule, then they kept the same rule.  But when she was being recruited, she had to consider (and we, as parents, had to as well) the rules as they applied to her.  I feel lucky that I think she landed (or will land) at the right place.  That does not mean I liked the rules as they were - I do think she was very young to commit and said so (to my circle) at the time.  I was not going to keep her from making a decision (unless I thought it was just terrible) because I also understood - under those rules - what she stood to lose.  If she were operating under the revised rules (even the interim rules that will be further revised), it still would have worked out - a lot has happened since she committed (to her team and to herself) to raise her profile, not lower it, so she'd have been fine if she were starting the process today.  But given her position and how few there are on the field (and on a roster), we did not feel that she could roll the dice.  So "me having mine" is a bit simplistic - I would not criticize anyone from working w/in the rules - even rules w/which they disagree and even while acknowledging that other rules are better.

And I do have two kids coming behind this one.  They will be operating under different rules and, if the rules are what will go into place this May 1 (that is, if those rules still exist for their HS years), I think they (and their future coaches) will be better-served by those rules.  They won't have to have conversations with coaches as 14 year olds and they will be making a decision in the 2d half of HS (rather than the beginning (or even, for some, before HS)).

Sincere question:  do you think that anyone whose kid committed under the prior system is barred from criticizing that system and/or praising the new rules as "better"?


----------



## Real Deal

dk_b said:


> I think you misunderstood my comments.  I am looking at this and was commenting as a general issue, not a personal one.  And as a general issue, I think the rule changes are better than what has existed.
> 
> If they kept the same rule, then they kept the same rule.  But when she was being recruited, she had to consider (and we, as parents, had to as well) the rules as they applied to her.  I feel lucky that I think she landed (or will land) at the right place.  That does not mean I liked the rules as they were - I do think she was very young to commit and said so (to my circle) at the time.  I was not going to keep her from making a decision (unless I thought it was just terrible) because I also understood - under those rules - what she stood to lose.  If she were operating under the revised rules (even the interim rules that will be further revised), it still would have worked out - a lot has happened since she committed (to her team and to herself) to raise her profile, not lower it, so she'd have been fine if she were starting the process today.  But given her position and how few there are on the field (and on a roster), we did not feel that she could roll the dice.  So "me having mine" is a bit simplistic - I would not criticize anyone from working w/in the rules - even rules w/which they disagree and even while acknowledging that other rules are better.
> 
> And I do have two kids coming behind this one.  They will be operating under different rules and, if the rules are what will go into place this May 1 (that is, if those rules still exist for their HS years), I think they (and their future coaches) will be better-served by those rules.  They won't have to have conversations with coaches as 14 year olds and they will be making a decision in the 2d half of HS (rather than the beginning (or even, for some, before HS)).
> 
> Sincere question:  do you think that anyone whose kid committed under the prior system is barred from criticizing that system and/or praising the new rules as "better"?


Anyone who committed prior to being a Junior under the old rules should think twice about their comments. You all had a _choice_ and you could've all waited.  Then there would've been no need for a rule.

Edit:  Anyone can and should comment- makes for a better discussion .  Didn't mean to say otherwise.


----------



## dk_b

Real Deal said:


> Anyone who committed prior to being a Junior under the old rules should think twice about their comments.


Explain what you mean, please.  There has been no change since she committed that impacted her recruiting, even looking retroactively.  Do you mean because there is a credibility issue? Or because of a rules issue?


----------



## full90

He's saying that all the players and parents that made early comittments are the reason this rule went into place. If you could've waited on a wiser timeline then we wouldn't need this rule and player could have the choice when to visit, talk to coaches and commit, rather than be forced into waiting. 

Much like anson dorrance was the first coach to offer scholarships to 9th graders, encourage them to commit and then raise his hands in frustration when early commitments became the norm. He wasn't upset that kids were doing it, he was upset that other schools followed his lead and he lost out on top kids. He said it was bad for the game but it was just bad for him. 

But I do think even having a kid commit early doesn't mean you can't critique the process. Both things can be true.


----------



## dk_b

Thanks, @full90 - I appreciate that and I think that is a fair criticism.  Hard to criticize a single parent for an entire policy but fair as a representative of what was a broken system.

It is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma - or can be.  And I think that is particularly true of GKs under the "old" system - there are so few recruited into a given program that you feel uncomfortable saying "no" if the program is the "dream school" or just feels right.  That will continue - it will just be delayed (and I think that's positive).  If a kid is that good that she's being recruited as an 8th or 9th grader, she would have had other options under the old rule (if the coaches are correct in their collective assessment) but, unique to GKs, THAT one option may not be.


----------



## dk_b

Real Deal said:


> Anyone can and should comment- makes for a better discussion .  But those who committed prior to being a Junior under the old rules should realize:  You all had a _choice_ and you could've all waited.  Then there would've been no need for a rule.


I did not see your edited commented and I appreciate your clarification (I also really appreciate the disagreement w/o emoji-ing with "dumb" "dislike" or whatever - it is much better to have a discussion instead of saying "neener neener" (which is what I hear when I see critical emojis)).

As noted above, I think that is a really fair and valid criticism.  Who drives something like this? Is it the kid/parent or the coach or the combination?  (I'm asking rhetorically).

My younger kids are field players so if we were to go through this again AND if the rules were to revert back to what they were for their older sister, I likely would not allow an early commitment.  If they were good enough to be recruited young, I'd feel comfortable that a field spot would be available.  That comfort is something that be harder to feel if the player is a GK (any GK parents out there feel differently about that?)


----------



## shales1002

eastbaysoccer said:


> So I’m looking at soccerwire and top drawer soccer.   All those 2022 girls and schools that have verbally committed those girls are in violation?   Are their commitments null and void now as they can not speak with the coaches to verify whether the verbal is still good and vice versa?


@eastbaysoccer no violations. It just a mad dash before the dark period. I noticed that some schools were firming up their recruits for c/o 22 and others schools are now waiting. Players can no longer speak with the coaches, but a DOC, Club Coach, still can communicate.  Commitments were firmed up before the deadline.


----------



## shales1002

dk_b said:


> I did not see your edited commented and I appreciate your clarification (I also really appreciate the disagreement w/o emoji-ing with "dumb" "dislike" or whatever - it is much better to have a discussion instead of saying "neener neener" (which is what I hear when I see critical emojis)).
> 
> As noted above, I think that is a really fair and valid criticism.  Who drives something like this? Is it the kid/parent or the coach or the combination?  (I'm asking rhetorically).
> 
> My younger kids are field players so if we were to go through this again AND if the rules were to revert back to what they were for their older sister, I likely would not allow an early commitment.  If they were good enough to be recruited young, I'd feel comfortable that a field spot would be available.  That comfort is something that be harder to feel if the player is a GK (any GK parents out there feel differently about that?)


Good points about Keepers. When you see that they have a keeper for your class chances are much slimmer of them wanting two for the same year.  So, if the school you have been eyeing shows interests, the conversations are much different because chances are that it’s you and one other.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

shales1002 said:


> @eastbaysoccer no violations. It just a mad dash before the dark period. I noticed that some schools were firming up their recruits for c/o 22 and others schools are now waiting. Players can no longer speak with the coaches, but a DOC, Club Coach, still can communicate.  Commitments were firmed up before the deadline.


I suspect the NCAA understands what's happening between now and MAY 1st of this year.  After that it goes really dark.  Um I thought there was NO communication.  That needs to be clarified.  

Glad for all the kids that have verbally committed.


----------



## shales1002

eastbaysoccer said:


> I suspect the NCAA understands what's happening between now and MAY 1st of this year.  After that it goes really dark.  Um I thought there was NO communication.  That needs to be clarified.
> 
> Glad for all the kids that have verbally committed.


No communication between player and coach. Perhaps I’m misreading the press release? Anyone notice that DOC or club coaches were not mentioned.


----------



## Soccerfan2

shales1002 said:


> No communication between player and coach. Perhaps I’m misreading the press release? Anyone notice that DOC or club coaches were not mentioned.


The NCAA press release is not very specific and I can’t find anything published that contains the actual verbiage in the rule change.
I did find this. If the only difference between the Hockey rule and soccer is Jan 1 vs June 15, then it looks like it really will be no communication at all. I can’t find it now, but I’m sure I also read something that said college coach to club coach (does that also mean DOC) communication beyond saying “I’m interested in your player” will be prohibited?
http://collegehockeyinc.com/articles/2019/04/ncaa-rule-changes-to-slow-recruiting.php


----------



## shales1002

Soccerfan2 said:


> The NCAA press release is not very specific and I can’t find anything published that contains the actual verbiage in the rule change.
> I did find this. If the only difference between the Hockey rule and soccer is Jan 1 vs June 15, then it looks like it really will be no communication at all. I can’t find it now, but I’m sure I also read something that said college coach to club coach (does that also mean DOC) communication beyond saying “I’m interested in your player” will be prohibited?
> http://collegehockeyinc.com/articles/2019/04/ncaa-rule-changes-to-slow-recruiting.php


With regards to your link , I did notice this line in the original press release “create a separate structure for men’s ice hockey recruiting.”  So,  their rules are different from everyone else.


----------



## Glen

shales1002 said:


> No communication between player and coach. Perhaps I’m misreading the press release? Anyone notice that DOC or club coaches were not mentioned.


Yes, because the club coach or DOC may need to speak with the college coach about kids that are older at the club.  I am guessing you are thinking that maybe coaches will get around the rule through indirect communications.  Maybe, but I don't think much could be accomplished.  Any substantive communications, even indirect, aren't going to be permitted.  I see this as a serious limitation on contact that will hopefully do some long term good.  Do you perceive it differently?  Too many loopholes?


----------



## Glen

shales1002 said:


> With regards to your link , I did notice this line in the original press release “create a separate structure for men’s ice hockey recruiting.”  So,  their rules are different from everyone else.


A lot of college sports have slightly different recruiting rules.  For instance, this new no contact ban had been implemented by at least one other sport before soccer - maybe softball.


----------



## dk_b

shales1002 said:


> With regards to your link , I did notice this line in the original press release “create a separate structure for men’s ice hockey recruiting.”  So,  their rules are different from everyone else.


I think that’s at least in part because the kids can be drafted in HS and continue to have their rights held by NHL teams (unlike baseball - they can be drafted as seniors but if they go to college they go back to the draft when permitted). Perhaps if they didn’t have special rules they’d lose more kids to the pros.


----------



## Soccerfan2

Yes you are right - there is a separate structure. But the difference is the recruiting calendar because of the considerations about going pro that are unique to that sport, not the communication rules.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Real Deal said:


> Anyone who committed prior to being a Junior under the old rules should think twice about their comments. You all had a _choice_ and you could've all waited.  Then there would've been no need for a rule.
> 
> Edit:  Anyone can and should comment- makes for a better discussion .  Didn't mean to say otherwise.


I agree we “all had a choice”... however, I disagree we “could have all waited”. Under the old rules, because recruiting and commitments were happening so early, by waiting, you risked losing out on an offer from one of your top choice schools or there being less money available, especially at P5 schools.

The new rule creates more of an even playing field for both players and schools. Hopefully gives some of the lower profile players at smaller clubs a better chance of getting discovered.


----------



## socalkdg

Guys, the recruiting rules changed a year ago, and that this modification allows contact sooner. Also note this is for coaches to initiate contact, players have been and still can contact coaches on their own.

The rule modification says: Effective May 1, 2019, college coaches will be allowed to *directly initiate* recruiting-related discussions with potential recruits starting on June 15 at the end of the player’s sophomore year. *This is two and a half months earlier than the previous date of September 1 for players entering their junior year. *


----------



## dk_b

socalkdg said:


> Guys, the recruiting rules changed a year ago, and that this modification allows contact sooner. Also note this is for coaches to initiate contact, players have been and still can contact coaches on their own.
> 
> The rule modification says: Effective May 1, 2019, college coaches will be allowed to *directly initiate* recruiting-related discussions with potential recruits starting on June 15 at the end of the player’s sophomore year. *This is two and a half months earlier than the previous date of September 1 for players entering their junior year. *


If that were the only change, you are right.  But it sounds like the change is that ANY informal contact is prohibited until the June 15 window opens.  So while it moves the prior permission back 2 1/2 months, it shuts off all the other communication so that verbals and other discussion will be eliminated.  Otherwise, even the headline in the NCAA release makes zero sense (reference to curbing early recruiting).


----------



## dk_b

From the release:  "The proposal for most sports would allow communication — *either from or to a coach* — June 15 after the sophomore year of high school and would allow visits beginning Aug. 1 before the junior year of high school."

I read that to mean that while communication from or TO a coach is ALLOWED as of June 15, no communication is allowed prior to that.  That is a significant limitation, if accurate.  Of course, the NCAA does not help much by not including the text of the actual rule.


----------



## With Pace

socalkdg said:


> Guys, the recruiting rules changed a year ago, and that this modification allows contact sooner. Also note this is for coaches to initiate contact, players have been and still can contact coaches on their own.
> 
> The rule modification says: Effective May 1, 2019, college coaches will be allowed to *directly initiate* recruiting-related discussions with potential recruits starting on June 15 at the end of the player’s sophomore year. *This is two and a half months earlier than the previous date of September 1 for players entering their junior year. *


Can someone publish the link that will take me to the actual wording of the new rule(s) instead of a press release that doesn't seem to provide the actual rule?  Appreciate the help.


----------



## MakeAPlay

dk_b said:


> If that were the only change, you are right.  But it sounds like the change is that ANY informal contact is prohibited until the June 15 window opens.  So while it moves the prior permission back 2 1/2 months, it shuts off all the other communication so that verbals and other discussion will be eliminated.  Otherwise, even the headline in the NCAA release makes zero sense (reference to curbing early recruiting).


Players can still reach out to coaches, FYI.  The coaches aren’t able to reach out.  Each time they have changed the rule on this within the last decade the net result is to allow earlier contact each time.


----------



## dk_b

With Pace said:


> Can someone publish the link that will take me to the actual wording of the new rule(s) instead of a press release that doesn't seem to provide the actual rule?  Appreciate the help.


I am parsing through the rules right now - they are dense (and I do something like this for a living) and not in a user-friendly format (at least I have not found one).  The link to Bylaw 13 (which handles recruiting) is here:  https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=8749#result.


----------



## dk_b

MakeAPlay said:


> Players can still reach out to coaches, FYI.  The coaches aren’t able to reach out.  Each time they have changed the rule on this within the last decade the net result is to allow earlier contact each time.


You may be right but until we see the actual amendments in writing, it is hard to say (for me, at least) because if all they are doing is moving when coaches may initiate contact, the idea that this will "curb early recruiting" does not make a lot of sense (not that we need to assume logic from the NCAA).  It also suggests that the line regarding allowing communication TO a coach is unnecessary in the release (and that would surprise me that the NCAA would include a superfluous statement).


----------



## dk_b

dk_b said:


> I am parsing through the rules right now - they are dense (and I do something like this for a living) and not in a user-friendly format (at least I have not found one).  The link to Bylaw 13 (which handles recruiting) is here:  https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=8749#result.


FYI:  the 5/1/19 amendments are NOT in these rules as yet.


----------



## Soccerfan2

The new rules were adopted last week. They are effective 5/1. The wording is not on the NCAA site anywhere yet but I’m sure it will be published soon. 

The net effect will be that college coaches cannot talk to athletes about recruiting prior to 6/15 AT ALL (even if the athlete calls or comes to campus) except to share generic recruiting info and timelines or give camp info. No face to face recruiting discussions can happen at ID camps prior to 6/15. The only thing a college coach will be able to say to a club coach is “I’m interested in your player.” They cannot discuss at what level they are interested or facilitate any further recruiting discussion including setting up phone calls. 

So, send your emails anyway, expect no response beyond “I’m interested” and then I guess phones will go crazy on 6/15.


----------



## dk_b

Soccerfan2 said:


> The new rules were adopted last week. They are effective 5/1. The wording is not on the NCAA site anywhere yet but I’m sure it will be published soon.
> 
> The net effect will be that college coaches cannot talk to athletes about recruiting prior to 6/15 AT ALL (even if the athlete calls or comes to campus) except to share generic recruiting info and timelines or give camp info. No face to face recruiting discussions can happen at ID camps prior to 6/15. The only thing a college coach will be able to say to a club coach is “I’m interested in your player.” They cannot discuss at what level they are interested or facilitate any further recruiting discussion including setting up phone calls.
> 
> So, send your emails anyway, expect no response beyond “I’m interested” and then I guess phones will go crazy on 6/15.


That is exactly my expectation - I'd guess an update to Bylaw 13 in the next week (May 1 is next Wed after all).


----------



## Dos Equis

From what coaches have told me (both club and college), the goal/intent is to prevent all direct and indirect communication regarding a specific player's recruitment until the 6/15 date after their sophomore year.  That would include talking to representatives of the player (coaches, parents, etc.).  The primary goal of the changes they have made in the last two years is to get to a point where there are no verbal commitments until that date.  

Perhaps my information is wrong, perhaps the language of the rules will not produce this result, and likely some coaches and parents will try to game whatever system is put in place.  All cynicism aside, there are honest college coaches out there, and given this is their livelihood, I would look to them for guidance going forward.    

As for camps and showcases, this may make them more relevant for freshmen and sophomores, if indeed other lines of communications are cut off.  In my experience, many top schools already have their list of the freshman they are looking at before their spring camps, and unless you already had lines of communication open, impressing at a camp or showcase "unannounced" was more of an exception than an option.  But that remains to be seen.


----------



## Glen

MakeAPlay said:


> Players can still reach out to coaches, FYI.  The coaches aren’t able to reach out.  Each time they have changed the rule on this within the last decade the net result is to allow earlier contact each time.


Doesn't the new rule specifically say that it doesn't matter who initiates the communication - the communication is prohibited?  Maybe the new rules still allow the kid to send an email to the coach, but the coach cannot respond based on the existing no contact rules applicable to electronic communications.

Here is one of the specific rule changes:

*13.1.3.2.3 Telephone Calls From an Individual -- Sports Other than Baseball, Basketball, Football and Men's Ice Hockey.*  In sports other than baseball, basketball, football and men's ice hockey, a_n institutional staff member may not receive telephone calls from an individual (or his or her family members) before June 15 _at the conclusion of his or her sophomore year in high school.


----------



## dk_b

I am not sure if the release (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-rules-curb-early-recruiting) did not have the chart at the bottom or if I just missed it previously.  I think this is a really helpful summary and seems to suggest NO COMMUNICATION AT ALL before June 15 after Soph year (I've re-formatted because I can't get it to paste w/column titles):

*Sport*:  All Other Sports
*Correspondence/Private Messages*: 6/15 after sophomore year
*Incoming Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
*Outgoing Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
*Unofficial Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
*Official Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
*Off-campus Contact*:  8/1 before junior year
*Verbal Offer*:  Not legislated.  6/15 after sophomore year is first recruiting interaction

This last one is interesting - it is NOT saying no verbals but it is saying, "be real everyone . . . you can't have a verbal before 6/15 of sophomore year if that is the first recruiting interaction".  That also suggests that routing communication through the club coach is not permitted though I think it is somewhat ambiguous.


----------



## End of the Line

dk_b said:


> I am not sure if the release (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-rules-curb-early-recruiting) did not have the chart at the bottom or if I just missed it previously.  I think this is a really helpful summary and seems to suggest NO COMMUNICATION AT ALL before June 15 after Soph year (I've re-formatted because I can't get it to paste w/column titles):
> 
> *Sport*:  All Other Sports
> *Correspondence/Private Messages*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Incoming Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Outgoing Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Unofficial Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Official Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Off-campus Contact*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Verbal Offer*:  Not legislated.  6/15 after sophomore year is first recruiting interaction
> 
> This last one is interesting - it is NOT saying no verbals but it is saying, "be real everyone . . . you can't have a verbal before 6/15 of sophomore year if that is the first recruiting interaction".  That also suggests that routing communication through the club coach is not permitted though I think it is somewhat ambiguous.


Nothing about the changes are good for student athletes.  Before the rule change, the student athletes and their families had plenty of time to get to know as many coaches and obtain first hand knowledge of as many programs as they wanted, even if it was earlier than anyone wanted.  Now, there will be absolutely no contact until 6/15 after sophomore year, which is likely to be the same day that many colleges will start making offers and pressuring kids to accept them - or risk that the spot and scholarship money will go to someone else.  There are going to be a lot of kids pressured to make verbal commitments even before they're allowed to even make an unofficial visit or even meet coaches in person.  Anyone who thinks they'll have plenty of time from 6/15 after sophomore year to visit and evaluate programs at their leisure is either delusional or one of the handful of highest ranked players in the country.

This is all about the NCAA taking away the power that student athletes and their parents previously had in the recruiting process.  College coaches didn't like "wasting" time having to meet with and schmooze HS freshmen and sophomores, but they also wanted to make sure they didn't lose them to another school.  They also don't like having to follow through on a verbal made as a freshman when the kid got hurt as a sophomore or didn't develop to their satisfaction.  Now they get to have their time back with no downside, but at the expense of the student athlete's ability to obtain valuable information.  And now the student athlete takes on the risk of getting hurt as a sophomore when they otherwise would have been verbally committed.  The rules are also bad for kids at smaller clubs because it's now that much harder now to even get a college coach's attention, and they probably won't until the big schools are already making offers to the kids that were already scouted at ECNL or GDA events or who happen to be on a GNT roster.  In the race to make offers starting 6/15, the big club coaches with the connections will be working the phones so hard that kids and coaches at small clubs will be getting a constant busy signal until it's too late.


----------



## espola

End of the Line said:


> Nothing about the changes are good for student athletes.  Before the rule change, the student athletes and their families had plenty of time to get to know as many coaches and obtain first hand knowledge of as many programs as they wanted, even if it was earlier than anyone wanted.  Now, there will be absolutely no contact until 6/15 after sophomore year, which is likely to be the same day that many colleges will start making offers and pressuring kids to accept them - or risk that the spot and scholarship money will go to someone else.  There are going to be a lot of kids pressured to make verbal commitments even before they're allowed to even make an unofficial visit or even meet coaches in person.  Anyone who thinks they'll have plenty of time from 6/15 after sophomore year to visit and evaluate programs at their leisure is either delusional or one of the handful of highest ranked players in the country.
> 
> This is all about the NCAA taking away the power that student athletes and their parents previously had in the recruiting process.  College coaches didn't like "wasting" time having to meet with and schmooze HS freshmen and sophomores, but they also wanted to make sure they didn't lose them to another school.  They also don't like having to follow through on a verbal made as a freshman when the kid got hurt as a sophomore or didn't develop to their satisfaction.  Now they get to have their time back with no downside, but at the expense of the student athlete's ability to obtain valuable information.  And now the student athlete takes on the risk of getting hurt as a sophomore when they otherwise would have been verbally committed.  The rules are also bad for kids at smaller clubs because it's now that much harder now to even get a college coach's attention, and they probably won't until the big schools are already making offers to the kids that were already scouted at ECNL or GDA events or who happen to be on a GNT roster.  In the race to make offers starting 6/15, the big club coaches with the connections will be working the phones so hard that kids and coaches at small clubs will be getting a constant busy signal until it's too late.


Nonsense.


----------



## full90

I think there are pros and cons to the new rule, but you are only highlighting the negative. Firstly, any coach that offers on 6/15 after the sophomore year and expects an answer will be rare. Or don't value your kid. They will have plenty of time. Coaches (who are worth playing for) want to get to know your kid and you as a family. Only UCLA coaches apparently take kids based on an email from someone else and never do any sort of background check on them. 

Coaches want to make good decisions too. I don't think many will rush into offers without getting to know kids and using the structured timeline that exists. The proof will be with UNC, UCLA, Stanford, Florida State...if those coaches slow down and don't offer the top 20 kids on day one everyone else will follow suit. Remember it is those coaches that started this entire thing. So on day one if there's a bunch of commitments to those top 5-8 schools you can bet the rule will be changing in a few years because this new rule didn't have the intended effect of slowing it down, just heightening the pressure. 

Ideally we will see commitments during or after kids take their 5 visits. I do wish you could talk to coaches while on campus as it was nice to tie in family vacays to a local school. I could see allowing that to happen anytime but keep the no offers/no commitments/no other contact rule in place.


----------



## dk_b

full90 said:


> Ideally we will see commitments during or after kids take their 5 visits. I do wish you could talk to coaches while on campus as it was nice to tie in family vacays to a local school. I could see allowing that to happen anytime but keep the no offers/no commitments/no other contact rule in place.


I agree with your comment - during my player's recruitment, I spoke to one of the coaches about her (the coach's) recruitment as a player.  She's still someone I'd consider "young" so it was not that long ago but she said she did all 5 officials - it was expected - before committing to a Pac-12 school where she played for four years.  If the system returns to that, all the better.

As for the small club (non-GDA/non-ECNL) players . . . I think this is also better for them because there may be less scrutiny in those years when all the early commitments seem to be for the big club players as they are getting seen at the big GDA/ECNL showcases.  Maybe that gives the small club players more of a chance to get noticed at an ID camp attended in the summer before HS or during the time before 6/15 following their soph year.

One fallout that I could see - if there is less emphasis on showcases for 8th and 9th grade players (U14s and U15s) - and if GDA survives . . . even fewer non-GDA players being invited to YNT camps/put on younger YNT rosters since, I'd imagine, US Soccer will continue to scout those events while pulling back even more from ECNL events.  

(consistent with what someone speculated upthread, one wonders if colleges will continue to scout younger teams at the current level since they can't really establish the relationships like they do presently - obviously they will continue to scout the events when there are U16s, U17s playing but they may just ignore the younger ages and if your teams are being ignored, does it really make sense to pay the expense of travel/hotel/etc.?)


----------



## Lambchop

dk_b said:


> I am not sure if the release (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-rules-curb-early-recruiting) did not have the chart at the bottom or if I just missed it previously.  I think this is a really helpful summary and seems to suggest NO COMMUNICATION AT ALL before June 15 after Soph year (I've re-formatted because I can't get it to paste w/column titles):
> 
> *Sport*:  All Other Sports
> *Correspondence/Private Messages*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Incoming Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Outgoing Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Unofficial Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Official Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Off-campus Contact*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Verbal Offer*:  Not legislated.  6/15 after sophomore year is first recruiting interaction
> 
> This last one is interesting - it is NOT saying no verbals but it is saying, "be real everyone . . . you can't have a verbal before 6/15 of sophomore year if that is the first recruiting interaction".  That also suggests that routing communication through the club coach is not permitted though I think it is somewhat ambiguous.


Rule changes start May 1, still four days left!


----------



## SpeedK1llz

full90 said:


> I think there are pros and cons to the new rule, but you are only highlighting the negative. Firstly, any coach that offers on 6/15 after the sophomore year and expects an answer will be rare. Or don't value your kid. They will have plenty of time. Coaches (who are worth playing for) want to get to know your kid and you as a family. Only UCLA coaches apparently take kids based on an email from someone else and never do any sort of background check on them.
> 
> Coaches want to make good decisions too. I don't think many will rush into offers without getting to know kids and using the structured timeline that exists. The proof will be with UNC, UCLA, Stanford, Florida State...if those coaches slow down and don't offer the top 20 kids on day one everyone else will follow suit. Remember it is those coaches that started this entire thing. So on day one if there's a bunch of commitments to those top 5-8 schools you can bet the rule will be changing in a few years because this new rule didn't have the intended effect of slowing it down, just heightening the pressure.
> 
> Ideally we will see commitments during or after kids take their 5 visits. I do wish you could talk to coaches while on campus as it was nice to tie in family vacays to a local school. I could see allowing that to happen anytime but keep the no offers/no commitments/no other contact rule in place.


I agree with you here. What would possibly make all this better is to allow contact and conversations for 6-12 months before allowing verbal commitments. Maybe contact (6/15), visits (8/1) and then no verbals until December of Junior year to coincide with the early signing period. Allows players to visit and talk to multiple schools/coaches and everybody gets to know one another better.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Lambchop said:


> Rule changes start May 1, still four days left!


I think Sock Drawer Soccer's commitment page is blowing up right now!


----------



## smsummers

dk_b said:


> I am not sure if the release (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-rules-curb-early-recruiting) did not have the chart at the bottom or if I just missed it previously.  I think this is a really helpful summary and seems to suggest NO COMMUNICATION AT ALL before June 15 after Soph year (I've re-formatted because I can't get it to paste w/column titles):
> 
> *Sport*:  All Other Sports
> *Correspondence/Private Messages*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Incoming Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Outgoing Telephone Calls*: 6/15 after sophomore year
> *Unofficial Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Official Visits*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Off-campus Contact*:  8/1 before junior year
> *Verbal Offer*:  Not legislated.  6/15 after sophomore year is first recruiting interaction
> 
> This last one is interesting - it is NOT saying no verbals but it is saying, "be real everyone . . . you can't have a verbal before 6/15 of sophomore year if that is the first recruiting interaction".  That also suggests that routing communication through the club coach is not permitted though I think it is somewhat ambiguous.


So let me get this straight. If DD has already had first recruiting interaction with College Coach prior to rule change, she can still be offered a verbal? My DD is a freshman in high school. Also, what would be the definition of "recruiting interaction"? That could mean alot of different lines of communication.


----------



## dk_b

smsummers said:


> So let me get this straight. If DD has already had first recruiting interaction with College Coach prior to rule change, she can still be offered a verbal? My DD is a freshman in high school. Also, what would be the definition of "recruiting interaction"? That could mean alot of different lines of communication.


No idea how it’s being interpreted but I doubt the ncaa is going to “grandfather” people who started before the rule change. But if my kid were impacted I’d definitely figure out a way to ask the question - through the club coach, by calling the ncaa, some other way.


----------



## MarkM

smsummers said:


> So let me get this straight. If DD has already had first recruiting interaction with College Coach prior to rule change, she can still be offered a verbal? My DD is a freshman in high school. Also, what would be the definition of "recruiting interaction"? That could mean alot of different lines of communication.


No, she cannot get an offer because that would require contact between the staff and your kid.  Your kid cannot talk to anyone until after her sophomore year.  It's that simple.  Enjoy the time.


----------



## smsummers

Well to me if I am reading the new rules correctly, DD can still be offered a verbal if it is not the first recruitment communication between DD and College Coach. Hence the new rules would not apply in reference to communication between DD and College Coach since the process has already been initiated between both parties.  You can't be offered a verbal if the two parties don't continue to communicate. Why else would the verbal exception be included in the new rules? If it stated "no verbals until 6/15 after Sophomore year", that would be pretty clear with that part of rule change.


----------



## dk_b

smsummers said:


> Well to me if I am reading the new rules correctly, DD can still be offered a verbal if it is not the first recruitment communication between DD and College Coach. Hence the new rules would not apply in reference to communication between DD and College Coach since the process has already been initiated between both parties.  You can't be offered a verbal if the two parties don't continue to communicate. Why else would the verbal exception be included in the new rules? If it stated "no verbals until 6/15 after Sophomore year", that would be pretty clear with that part of rule change.


I would not take the risk without being very, VERY clear statement from the NCAA or the school.  The way I read the new rules, everything was erased - any contacts that happened with frosh or sophs (or middle schoolers) are as though they did not happen.  So kids who had had extensive conversations with coaches could not continue them and anyone who had not been given an offer had to wait until 6/15 after Soph year.  I see how you'd form your interpretation but, on this one, I would not want there to be any grey area if it were my kid.


----------



## smsummers

I agree with you on that. Would need to get further clarification from the NCAA regarding the specific language of the new rules in this particular area. Just curious on other people's interpretation more than anything. My DD now has a couple more years to focus on development rather than worrying what school she is going to attend.


----------



## MarkM

smsummers said:


> Well to me if I am reading the new rules correctly, DD can still be offered a verbal if it is not the first recruitment communication between DD and College Coach. Hence the new rules would not apply in reference to communication between DD and College Coach since the process has already been initiated between both parties.  You can't be offered a verbal if the two parties don't continue to communicate. Why else would the verbal exception be included in the new rules? If it stated "no verbals until 6/15 after Sophomore year", that would be pretty clear with that part of rule change.


You are not reading the rules correctly.   There is no verbal exception in the new rules.  You cannot speak to a coaching staff until after your kid's sophomore year.  Period.   It doesn't need to state "no verbals until 6/15 after Sophomore year" if you cannot speak with them AT ALL.


----------



## MMMM

I completely agree with MarkM’s interpretation. Curious about what does this mean for the 2022 kids whose verbal commitments were already public before the change, like on TopDrawerSoccer? unverified, of course, but still out there. Seems like they’re left hanging for more than a year and a lot can change during that time.


----------



## shales1002

MMMM said:


> I completely agree with MarkM’s interpretation. Curious about what does this mean for the 2022 kids whose verbal commitments were already public before the change, like on TopDrawerSoccer? unverified, of course, but still out there. Seems like they’re left hanging for more than a year and a lot can change during that time.


For 2022’s they are no longer allowed to communicate with coaches until June 15,2020. All conversations were had prior to the new rule change.


----------



## MMMM

shales1002 said:


> For 2022’s they are no longer allowed to communicate with coaches until June 15,2020. All conversations were had prior to the new rule change.


Right, agreed. I was curious about whether those pre-rule-change conversations and verbals are actually worth anything now, when there’s a year of absolute silence mandated between the coach and the player.


----------



## dk_b

MMMM said:


> Right, agreed. I was curious about whether those pre-rule-change conversations and verbals are actually worth anything now, when there’s a year of absolute silence mandated between the coach and the player.


Pre-rule change verbals are worth the same as before. Not sure what that was though since they were non-binding.


----------



## espola

dk_b said:


> Pre-rule change verbals are worth the same as before. Not sure what that was though since they were non-binding.


"...not worth the paper they weren't written on..."


----------

