The NCAA committee has adopted the early recruiting restrictions. Let’s see if it makes a difference.
Cool. But like you said, the proof will be in the pudding
The college coaches communicate with the club coaching staff about the player they are interested in and vice versa. The club coaches are the intermediary. I wouldn’t expect much to change.
Many sports are trying to slow down the early recruiting. Women’s gymnastics has a new rule: ‘In women’s gymnastics, to specify that an unofficial visit with athletics department involvement shall not occur with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school.’ Goes into effect August 1, 2017.
^sounds like the same rule mentioned above. Unfortunately, the NCAA has not published anything about the change that I can find, so it is hard to tell if proposal 2016-26 applies only to lax or to other sports
I did see this on the NCAA page, in an article talking about the move to an early signing period for football. According to that article, the membership
Here is the link for those interested
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2017-04-14/college-football-di-council-adopts-new-recruiting-model
Don’t know how that plays into the lax rule.
As far as I know, the new rule only applies to men’s and women’s lacrosse.
I expect that the rule will be honored but I also expect that coaches who are interested in a player and vice versa will continue to be able to signal interest through club or HS coaches. But nothing will be public until 9/1 of Junior year so coaches will not feel like they have to fill their recruiting roster before then.
A former gymnastics head coach, Greg Marsden, posted the rule on Twitter. It looks to be rule 2016-44. But I, too, can’t seem to find it on the NCAA website.
@BobcatPhoenix Though I don’t know many coaches who would give a scholarship before a prospect has actually visited the campus. So even with the back channeling going on, it should slow it down. Or at least I hope so…
The rule only applies to lacrosse, and in fact it seems it only applies to D1 women’s lax. The men were also supporting the change, but everything I’ve seen in writing is for IWLCA (women’s coaches). It is a strange thing the NCAA lets every sport sort of control itself, and this came up for a vote FIVE years ago but it has taken them this long to get it through.
Will the d2 and D3 schools follow the D1’s? Well, they haven’t done much recruiting of the really young kids anyway unless it is a sibling. Everyone waits until the top D1’s fill up and then they start looking at D3 and lower ranked D1’s. They decide that playing time is important, or being near the beach, or have the top Japanese program is important.
On the men’s side, the Virginia coach has said he’s not going to commit to anyone below sophomores, and will probably wait until spring. However, he’s also said he will poach committed players.
@twoinanddone A LA Times sports reporter provided a link to a sports recruit website (I’m not sure of the rules on CC of providing links so I will not do so) but it says that it is for both the women’s and men’s lacrosse community. That the proposal was submitted by both IWLCA and IMLCA. This site says the new legislation will be rewritten and released by the NCAA later this week. It seems we will have clarification on both lacrosse and gymnastics at that time.
This happens quite frequently, particularly at the higher levels where kids are being recruited on a national level. Or at least it does in the “major” sports. Lots of football, basketball, baseball recruits get offers before unofficial visits. Lots of kids can’t really afford to travel across country and go to various schools, particularly before an offer is out.
I also wonder now if the reason that the Div 1 council tabled the general proposal about no offers until September 1 junior year was to give this proposal a few cycles to see how things work in a more contained enviornment. That might make sense, and would seem to explain the inconsistency, although with the NCAA, betting on rationality is never a sure thing.
^^^^ True about the “major” sports. Was focusing on gymnastics, where that really doesn’t happen (outside of Olympians, etc.).
I believe this to be the case. Especially given lacrosse and gymnastics coaches in particular have been so vocal about wanting to push back on early recruiting. Then again, as you say, with the NCAA ya just never know.
Many football players get multiple offers but have never been on an official visit to that school. Think of the scene in The Blind Side with all the coaches showing up at Michael Ohre’s house. My brother had a friend like that way back when. Their high school graduation program listed 12 scholarships he was offered and when I remarked on it my brother said all he had to do was mention that he was interested in a school and some coach would show up (with bags of money - this was pre SMU days). It was a different era, but there are still some high school players who can go anywhere they want. The Olympic swimmers also have their pick, but most have know the coaches for years and have probably done meets at Stanford, Cal, Georgia, Indiana over the years.
Crimson - I did think the lax rule was a co-ed effort, but all the reviews I read only referred to the women’s side, and of course it is mostly the women’s side that is going after 8th and 9th graders. There are a few boys recruited in 9th grade, but the majority are in 10th. The guys also tend to de-commit more than the girls. It will really be an easy adjustment if the coaches accept it and don’t try to go around the rules. I think most of them will consider it as a relief, that they won’t have to deal with 8th graders calling them, with parents trying to get ‘just a minute’ with them.
The best programs will still know the best players. The mid-atlantic prep schools will still be feeders to Hopkins, Maryland, Florida, etc.
I consider gymnastics a major sport. It is a headcount sport.
Even with it being a headcount sport, most don’t. I’m glad you do! Of course, that’s probably my gym mom bias. 
Given lacrosse is still very much a growing sport here on the west coast, it’s been interesting to read about it on CC. As you note, at the end of the day, whatever the sport, if a kid is a 5-star, coaches will find a way to get to them. Those kinds of kids have been identified very early in the process and indeed have their pick (very close family friend has a soccer phenom daughter who could’ve gone anywhere in the country, picked her school as a freshman).
This is definitely a step in the right direction though IMO. It would be even better if the tabled proposal around financial aid not being offered until September 1 junior year is enacted as well.
@crimsonmom2019, I definitely expect it to slow things down. That was what I meant by not filling roster sports until 9/1 Junior year. As a sports parent, I would not agree to anything without a discussion between my family and the coach. Others may disagree and I would expect to see some of the inside jobs (e.g., child of ex-teammate, multi-generational double legacy) that we have seen in the past continue unofficially.
This idea helps college coaches who get more time to see prospects before making an offer. It also helps some club coaches who will now be even more important conduits for information between coaches and families. The only ones I see hurt by this are some of the super-clubs who stake their marketing to parents on getting whole teams committed early. Oh well.
The NCAA has finally published the proposal as adopted by the Div 1 council. Here it is.
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=100629
It appears to be effectively a proposed amendment to a pre existing carve out for women’s basketball as far as off campus contact, and two new carve outs for lacrosse only on the issues of unofficial visits and athletic staff recieving telephone calls from prospects. It seems that the proposal adding lacrosse to the carve out concerning off campus contact in particular is aimed directly at showcases and the like, as all off campus contact during the junior year must be at the recruit’s school or home. The proposed amendedments do not distinguish between men’s and women’s lacrosse.
The rationale is listed as
Gymnastics rule, quite pleased:
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=100174
@BobcatPhoenix Might be challenging for those who don’t have good club coaches. I do feel badly for them. But those marketing clubs, not so much indeed. 
The recruiting changes apply specifically to both men’s and women’s NCAA D1 lacrosse. Different sports have different guidelines under the NCAA umbrella; football, basketball (men’s and women’s), and ice hockey (men’s and women’s) have long had their own unique guidelines. I’m on the mailing list for the Intercollegiate Men’s Lacrosse Coaches’ Association (IMLCA) and received an email just this morning with additional clarifying info on this subject. The fol is copied from that email (PSA=prospective student-athlete):
"The NCAA Division I Legislation Committee understands that many questions have arisen regarding the new September 1st, junior year recruiting contact legislation. We are working with the NCAA to confirm the information we publish, so that is why it has not been posted or shared yet.
We can confirm this important information:
Club and high school coaches may NOT be used to circumvent recruiting contact rules.
Direct messaging to PSAs through these third parties is NOT permissible.
Communication about verbal offers through these third parties is NOT permissible. "
Wow, the inability to go around would definitely work to slow down the process for lacrosse. In effect, it would seem to mean camps are the only way to get an early commitment.
^But no contact at camps until after junior year.