NCAA NEWLY ADOPTED Rules 2019

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.