I am a Jay Bilas-ian on the NCAA, so don’t get me started, but I will say that looking for consistency, fairness, or sense in NCAA rules is kind of a lost cause.
@BobcatPhoenix, several conferences now guarantee four year rather than one year renewable scholarships, which I think is a positive thing. Personally I got injured in college and if my coach would have pulled my scholly I would be digging ditches for a living. My question though was directed to what happens to the injured high school kid?
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I think you definitely do not want to get injured when you are in the window between committing and signing your NLI. Although if it happened I think the coaches would be sympathetic.
It all depends on how bad an injury it is, I guess. I have seen girls have an ACL tear in HS and still play in college, so if it is possible to return I think the coaches stand pat. If not, then I don’t know to be honest.
Are the guarantees for all sports or just head count? I know equivalency support amounts can and do vary from year to year, so if I get $1 does that meet the guarantee or is the minimum what I got for my first year?
i believe the language of the new rule in P5 conferences is that schools can not “remove or reduce” schollys for four years except in certain defined instances (break team rules, academic issues, etc). I assume that means that equivalency money can go up but not down in those conferences. Which I would guess could lead to coaches being very miserly with freshman money as they wait to see how a kid transitions to college athletics. That of course further complicates the dance of committing ninth and tenth graders. Women’s lax gets 12 divided between no more than 24 if fully funded I believe. That’s three full schollys a class. A coach who pulls the trigger on a three quarter or full scholly for a ninth grader (I assume the real early commit kids are getting the most money) who ends up entering college coming off a total knee reconstruction and then maybe never developed as anticipated in high school is going to be sweating bullets the first time that kid gets on the field.
Yes, I think full scholarships are very rare for incoming freshmen.
I have not seen the “between no more than 24” before. Interesting. Classes are usually around 8 so I guess coaches must be counting on some attrition to stay under that limit. Also, schools like Syracuse with rosters approaching 50 must have a bunch of players getting literally nothing to play.
Actually, I was wrong. I looked it up and fully funded it is twelve scholarships divided among no more than thirty players. So a few more, but a roster of fifty even fully funded is going to have a high percentage of walk ons
Just wanted to say that the last couple pages of discussion have been particularly great. Thanks for all your contributions.
Yes, my daughter was a senior when she signed her NLI, and she was 16 in November when she signed. She’s on the young side, but not that unusual for many states that have late fall cut offs for starting Kindergarten (Mass, Maryland California did but is moving closer to Sept 1). Doesn’t change that fact that she was 16 when she was deciding on her college. I was not the only parent signing NCAA documents because I had an underage athlete when she started college at 17.
NCAA rules aren’t any different for lax than other sports and it is a verbal commitment, but if you look on the forums for recruiting, those graduating from hs in 2018 are already starting to ‘commit’ and the coaches are already looking at the next class. At the Ivies they make it very clear that they are ‘committing to the process’, yet Brown has 7 and Yale has 6 sophomores listed as ‘committed’ and the schools will focus on getting those girls into the schools. Boston College has 11. My daughter didn’t decide to play in college until her junior year and was told by all schools in the top 50 of D1 that they were ‘full’ for her year when she started looking as a junior and they wouldn’t even look at her. Now if she were a superstar they would have found a spot, but she wasn’t so they rejected her immediately. There is some movement between the top players and top schools, but not really that much. All my daughter’s friends who committed as sophomores to top D1 programs went to the schools they committed to. All the boys went to their program or to a similar level program.
The NCAA rules say the coach can’t contact the family or the student, but they do contact the club coaches, the high school coaches, go to the recruiting showcases (there are 5 major ones in the summer/fall, all for club teams), go to the summer camps (divided by class of rising freshmen, rising sophomores, etc.) and the rising junior is the most import year because after that, most top programs are full. The student can make the contact. The college coach calls the club coach and says “If Janey calls at 3 pm on Thursday, I’ll be in my office.” It’s perfectly okay for the recruit to call and for the coach to take the call. Once contact is established, recruiting has started. There are dead periods, there are contact rules, but they are pretty easy to get around if both side want to get around them.
Syracuse (a top program) gave an ‘early commit’ to an 8th grader this spring. Of course it is a publicity thing, and neither side is really committing, but I bet she does go to Syracuse in FIVE years. Commitments made by coaches to 9th and 10th graders become a little more solid, as if the coaches start reneging on them, word will get around. There is an article in this month’s lax magazine about the ‘first four’, the first four boys to commit as freshmen 4 years ago to top D1 programs. The coaches did commit to honoring the offers if the students were hurt during high school play. All four are headed to those programs they committed to 4 years ago.
I think those who thing recruiting takes place as outlined in the NCAA contact outline are going to be pretty surprised if they do nothing to be noticed before junior year. There are already 416 class of 2018 girls listed as committed on Laxpower, and those are only the ones who voluntarily posted (some clubs or teams don’t post until NLI is signed). That’s 416 (probably 5x that) who have had contact before junior year.
@twoinanddone, do you know if the four year scholarship rule has changed how schools are approaching dicing up aid for these early commits? I would think it makes the early dance even more complicated?
Recruiting is such a mystery to me. Thinking back to my 9th or 10th grade self, the college I would have committed to then would be vastly different than the college I want to go to now. That’s a huge choice for a 15 year old. And it’s alarming to me, as someone who is not an athlete, that the recruitment process places an emphasis on sports during a time in a kid’s life when, IMO, the focus should be (not fully, but primarily) on academics. It’s an aspect of our higher education system here in the US that I have never understood fully. I hope nobody here finds that offensive, I mean nothing against your kids or you!
I don’t expect the 4 year scholarship rule, at schools that have it (isn’t it only PAC12 and B1G that require the scholarships be for 4 years?) makes that much difference. Most coaches don’t decrease the awards but do increase them for upperclassmen. The only issue would be that on the 4 year scholarships, after sophomore year the athlete can quit the team and still keep the scholarship, or if the athlete doesn’t graduate in 4 years can continue going to school but is not eligible to play. Are those scholarships (and I think it is only the tuition part of the scholarship that continues, not r&b or the stipend) still counted against the team total? In non-4 year scholarship schools, that money would have funneled back into the scholarship pot when the athlete stopped playing (or the next semester). If those extra scholarships are counted against the team total, that could be a real mess as there would be no way to know which current players would still be scholarship athletes, counted against the team when the coach thought they would be gone. Or they can leave the school and return years later. Accounting would be a nightmare.
Sometimes the NCAA is kind. A hockey player at DU was found to have a heart problem before he even played a game. DU said it would honor his scholarship for all 4 years. The NCAA allowed DU an extra full scholarship for those 4 years. It could similarly not count these ‘holdover’ scholarships against the team totals.
A top school will know that it has $x for freshmen (probably 2 full scholarships), and will take 1-2 top recruits who will get 1/2 COA, then the next 1-2 might get 1/2 tuition, and the lower recruits get a standard $5000 or book money until the pot is gone or they hit the max # of scholarships.
I’m not sure the early recruits (hs sophomores) at the big programs know exactly how much money is being offered, and maybe the coaches don’t either. It’s all verbal, so who knows what the coach says and what the recruit hears. The exact amount isn’t required until signing the NLI/award letter in the senior year. Most kids are so excited at being chosen they aren’t thinking about money and their parents think ‘it will all work out’ just like many on CC do when the super selective LAC offer comes in the mail.
The Ivies historically do not give “scholarships.” With the increasing move away from “merit” awards, applicants including potential recruits find themselves wholly dependent on financial aid to offset costs spiraling towards $70k+. Do any of you have personal or even anecdotal experience with Ivy League recruiting? Curious not only as to your experiences or hearsay, but to your take on the Ivy League system of recruiting.
The Ives do not give scholarships but do recruit. They give likely letters, slots, tips, admission assistance. They absolutely do state that they, and the recuits, ‘commit to the process.’ I’ve read interviews with Ivy coaches that state someone ‘committed to the proces.’
Anyone can post to the laxpower recruiting page but it is most often done by the school, the coach, or the individual. When you see a run of ID numbers on the page for the same college, most assume the school made the post. If you see a run of names from the same high school, you assume the high school coach made the posts, etc. For the 2018 year (current sophomores), the #1 commit is going to Dartmouth, #2 to Brown. Brown also has #22 and #23, but those girls are from the same region so probably posted by a club coach or agent. These girls were ‘committed’ the day the list went up (probably 200 name on it on day one, so the names were turned in to the site administrator in February or March).
These posts aren’t made without the Ivy coaches having indicated the athlete is part of the process. It is not a rouge student or crazy parent thinking an offer is coming. Yes, the student still has to be accepted to the school, but that is the case with any recruit at any school (just harder to get intoand Ivy). On the 2018 list Brown has 7, Dartmouth has 7, Harvard has 4, Yale has 6 commits listed. The Ives are part of the early recruiting process.
@twoinanddone, I thought all the Power Five conferences are on four year schollys now?
As I believe we have discussed on another thread, I believe an athelete who quits can still have their scholly pulled even under the four year awards (one of the four examples published by the NCAA for when a coach can pull a scholly during its term is quitting for personal reasons). Also, I am pretty sure once eligibility is exhausted an athelete is no longer a counter. The school can continue to provide aid, but the student is no longer a counter for NCAA purposes. And medical red shirts (your example from DU or me for that matter) are never counters under the NCAA. I think a doctor needs to certify the athelete should not continue to participate, but it is or at least was pretty formulaic.
But yeah, it has got to be as complicated as heck keeping track of all the equivalencies, especially for kids who are maybe ineligible for a year, or who quit whatever. That was kind of my point, the more classes in play, the more complicated that has to be.
@BrooklynRye, my son is currently playing in the Ivy, and I know a handful of current or former Ivy atheletes pretty well. My son was also recruited by some non Ivy scholarship schools, and I know a number of non Ivy recruits who have come out of my kid’s school in the last several years. Ivy recruiting, at least in football and wrestling, which are the sports with which I am most familiar, is very different than regular D1 recruiting. Regular D1 recruiting happens more quickly (because there is no need for academic/financial aid pre reads, etc), and there is far more information available on the recruiting sites/ESPN concerning where various teams are with their recruiting classes. That is a huge advantage to non Ivy recruiting. On the other hand, since Ivy football and wrestling recruiting follows the rules outlined in the Ivy Common Agreement (which is apparently not the case with most sports discussed here), it was much easier to figure out where you stood in the process, once you understood the system. Personally, I found all of the Ivy coaches my son dealt with to be honest, as did all the parents I know personally. Others I have corresponded with on this board felt that was not true. Certainly non Ivy D1 football coaches are “looser” in their discussions with recruits. Those were the biggest differences I noticed.
I assume all postings to laxpower are done after agreement with the coach. To front-run that process seems highly risky to me with no real upside.
From my experience, financial support was part of the discussion. I personally would never advise someone to accept an offer without understanding all the terms. My understanding is that $$$ are generally discussed even in verbal offers.
I have said this before, but if colleges are posting and or commenting on recruit commitments prior to signing of a NLI, that is a direct and blatant violation of NCAA rules. In football, the sites which report commitments (ESPN, Scout, 247, Rivals) populate their commit lists from self reported commitments or from stringers who follow specific high school programs/areas. I would bet a ton of money it works the same in other sports.
Maybe the difference in the DU Hockey situation was it wasn’t a red shirt year - he was never allowed to play hockey again. The team got to have 19 scholarships instead of 18 for those 4 years.
BobcatPhoenix, I agree that it would be the kiss of death to claim you were committed before the coach actually made an offer. I’ve never heard of anyone who did that.
The coach who authored the article is doing a favor to all athletes with the type of undesirable attitude described. She is under no obligation to talk to the athlete and give her advice. She has a job to do and that job includes having a successful college team including coaching, training and of course recruiting. Prospective college athletes come at all levels from Olympic gold medalist level to someone who just started the sport recently (some of these people do get recruited at D1 schools). No athlete (or coach) is perfect and the coach’s job is to figure out which athlete flaws the coach can work with and improve on. Obviously superiority attitude is a flaw and some coaches choose to not recruit that athlete and that is their choice. I see recruiting as a very tough job since some highly recruited athletes peak too early and fizzle out and other much lower level athletes have a lot of potential and with good coaching and training move to the top of their sport. A coach has to make these hard choices. As the parent of a currently retired college athlete, I can tell you the recruitment process is no easier from the other end. An athlete who may be the top division 2 athlete may be in the middle of division 1 or at the bottom. Even within the division, there is a huge range of the sport level. As a parent, you are trying to figure out where your child fits and where they would be happy (the best at a lower level or at the middle or bottom of a higher level trying to climb up). The coach has a huge advantage in the whole process since they do this every year and know your child’s value. In the end, there is a lot of gut instinct going on for both sides and it is a dance, kind of like searching for a job and hiring on the other end but with this all on steroids since it’s all going on for all colleges and athletes at the same time and often all companies aren’t hiring at the same time. There are so many rules and parents should become familiar with them to help themselves in the process. Read all that you can. My understanding is nothing is binding until the NLI is signed so all these early commitments can and are often broken. Coaches know this and parents/athletes need to understand this so they don’t feel obligated to stay somewhere that is a bad fit.
It is still a medical redshirt. Rules are the same as if the injury happens during NCAA sanctioned activity. A kid either is certified by the docs to be healthy enough for competition or not. If not, and the institution chooses to maintain the scholarship, then the kid is not a counter.
Given the danger inherent in the sport, it happens to a couple big time high school kids a year in football. Happened to a kid at Ohio State last year. Blew out his knee as a HS senior, was an early enrollee at OSU, and the doctors wouldn’t pass him on his physical before spring practice.
As far as reported offers, I personally have seen kids’ recruiting pages report recruited walk on offers in addition to scholly offers. Sometimes it is the kid blowing smoke, sometimes it is the stringer assembling the data who is maybe not reading the Twitter feeds closely enough. Happens. But yeah, for the most part I doubt kids are self reporting offers they do not have. I would be really surprised if any of the college coaches are reading that stuff at all. They may (or may not) care if a kid is a four or three star, but generally they will know who they are competing against for a particular kid far better than some guy at Scout or 247.
I take back everything I said about opacity…lol. You guys in the big-boy/girl sports deal with so much more intricacy and complexity. There are about 25 DV1 and 15 DV3 fencing programs (about 20% of which are women only programs), and only 4 DV2 programs (2 of which are women only). In any given year there are a very finite number of prospective recruits. 10 top recruits in any gender/weapon is a large number. Usually there is a top 3-5 in any gender/weapon who are the targets of most programs. It’s pretty easy to map out the schools, their current teams, and to project their strongest needs and most likely recruiting paths. Most of the very top fencers end up at Ivies. The demographic tends to be very smart, wealthy and mature. There are less competitive programs at top schools such as Duke, BC and UNC, for those prioritizing academics over sport. The “big box” schools, e.g., UND, PSU and OSU, offer resources, scholarships and top competition, but only UND is ranked as highly academically as the Ivies and other elite DV1 programs. UND in particular has a strong program known for producing Olympic fencers. Weighing competitive fencing programs versus academics is a big deal because there are a lot of top schools where fencing can enhance admissions prospects but that are not seriously competitive at the top NCAA levels, e.g., John Hopkins, Brandeis, Haverford, MIT and Vassar, to name a few. Academics are no joke, particularly at the Ivies, and no matter how valued the recruit, there is only so far top schools will bend. I have heard stories of ‘flexibility’ when it comes to scores, including balancing out a poor standardized test scores with a high score from a less desirable recruit, but these seem to be very rare occurrences. Fit is also paramount and I have experience with several schools that actually survey their current team regarding prospective recruits. One coach actually circulated a list of potential recruits asking about talent, personality, work ethic and team compatibility, as well as opening the door for suggestions of possible recruits not on the coach’s list. Apropos of the article that originally started this thread, there have been cases where a team voted down a prospective recruit. There are also cases where a less talented athlete is recruited based on popularity within a particular team. Part of the emphasis on team is not just about fit but also because NCAA fencing is so different than National and International competition. There are many notable fencers who are literally NCAA Champions who had no presence at all on the National or International circuit. I will say, however, that most top national fencers who continue to train and not screw off translate to successful NCAA careers as well. While, especially for an orphan, fencing does seem to toe the line more than most, there have been a myriad of instances in which I have really wondered whether those NCAA lines are truly toed…More on that another time.