<p>Verbal commitments are not binding contracts. Players are free to change their minds any time up until the NLI is signed.</p>
<p>Also, I believe the NCAA recently changed the rules to limit text messaging, as well.</p>
<p>^I knew they would sooner or later...I just find it interesting how much the coaches look for loopholes.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>"I'm sure you are also aware of strict NCAA rules regarding contact with athletes."</p>
<p>Hockey, both boys' and girls', seems to be the exception to strict adherance to the rules.</p>
<p>While verbal committments are not binding, what seems to happen is then the athlete does not continue to look at schools and if there is a fall from grace may lose out on opportunities at other colleges In my experience the changing of the mind often happens from the coach not the player</p>
<p>Case in point--a friend of my son's is a phenomenal ice hockey player. At the conclusion of his sophomore year he verbally committed to a Hockey East school beginning in 2008 . This school then asked him to go out and play junior hockey in the midwest in the USHL which he did for 2 years after his junior year of high school. He has had a rocky time of it with injuries and now said school has pulled their committment to him. He is now going on 20 years old with few college options as his grades really suffered when he was in high school in the midwest and playing 70 hockey games a year. </p>
<p>I think this is recruiting gone amuck</p>
<p>Coaches will take every possible advantage of players who are not well-educated about their rights and the recruiting process, so I am not surprised these situations occur. I can't speak to hockey, per se, but I would be surprised if there is any lack of enforcement of NCAA rules violations in the incredibly competitive environment of college athletics. It behooves all recruited athletes to educate themselves about the recruitment process as it can be very confusing.</p>
<p>Please don't generalize so much. It is a minority of coaches who will take advantage of a student-athlete. Without exception, the coaches our family met with during our son's recruiting were honest and ethical.</p>
<p>River - lovely essay. Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>Hockey requires recruitment at a quite early stage - because kids leave for the pros at 16. Maybe your kid wasn't going to, but top kids go on to play in Juniors at age 16, and make cash doing it. Colleges have to both offer and get you to commit to the idea of college very early, just to have a shot.</p>
<p>This is awkward, but necessary in order to compete.</p>
<p>MOWC, I agree. The vast majority of coaches that we and our friends have had dealings with, have been honest and ethical. </p>
<p>Bay, in the situation that I cited earlier involving the 14 year old, the parents are very well aware of recruiting process. They already have a son on a hockey scholarship in the U.S. and the father had a long NHL career and is now an NHL coach. They're not newcomers to the sports world.</p>
<p>Hockey is somewhat different than some other sports in that most professional hockey players did not play college hockey. A pro with a college degree is definitely in the minority.</p>
<p>"That's the proper technique"</p>
<p>That is tackle with your head to center, just as I said. Believe me it takes some effort to unlearn football technique. Having my lower lip stiched back on after a rugby match in canada for using perfect form tackling from american football leaves me little to dought about which sport has the highest tendency for head injury...;) If you look at the soccer arguement it came about the same time as a certain manafacturer was coming out with "heading helmets" for basically female soccer players. Marketingwise it was pretty smart as most moms in the states didn't grow up playing the game their daughters embraced. </p>
<p>I guess you might want to look at life expectancy for professional atheletes. NFL players life expectancy is I believe 59, when the national average is 77. For soccer players, if you remove georgie best... I think is much higher. ;)</p>
<p>"Heading a soccer ball done correctly does not do long term damage, incorrectly hurts like hell."</p>
<p>"A Norwegian study "</p>
<p>AllM, your study involves a total of 106 people for the worlds most popular sport. The other quote is mine, in case you missed it. A study in the US involved the ability to play blackjack.... </p>
<p>Having been involved in the sport since the late 60's as a player, coach, administrator and referee, I easily recognize the reccommendations you cite. I agree with some, not all. Banning heading at an early age is just silly and serves no purpose. The players at that age aren't capable due to phsyical size limitations to generate enough power to damage squat. At least from the decades I've spent on soccer fields. </p>
<p>"Players should have proper instruction on the correct way to head the ball."</p>
<p>absolutely positively correct, for any sport. Teaching proper skills at an early age improves future success at an older age of doing it correctly. </p>
<p>My point is american football doing it "correctly" involves the facemask, which usually means your head is the first thing to contact another player. The fact that you are wearing a helmet increases deeper injury (spine, brain) risks because of the false sense of security a helmet provides. Take the helmet away, your form of contact changes unless you want a nose that points another direction than straight ahead. </p>
<p>The rugby world cup just finished up. It's too bad the games aren't really shown here (as the us is bad compared to the rest of the world) you can actually see a game played at full speed and how tackling is done without leading with your "facemask". ;)</p>
<p>"NCAA has strict rules on phonecalls, but nothing about texts, so the coaches can text their recruitees as often as they like. Some of my friends are sufferring massive bills because of it."</p>
<p>The reason the u of WA is so screwed up is the coach at the time (Rick N) had a law degree and simply knew how to tweak every ncaa rule. Texts and cell phones were not a consideration in NCAA bylaws at the time and still may not be. Tricky Rick would sit in a recruit's driveway and call him on his cell, there they would talk to each other from home window to car window on the cell phone, thus "avoiding" the NCAA no contact rules... ahh slick rick.</p>
<p>Opie,you look as the coach, and I look as the professional. Different lens see things differently!</p>
<p>The only good part of heading for younger players is that their brains have more possibility of repairing themselves. There are loads of seemingly minor head accidents in soccer (really, as many as in football...like 3-5% of all injuries are head injuries), and the brain is just not as resilient as all that. Often, there minor neurological changes can't even be traced to a serious accident, but cause lifelong changes nonetheless. </p>
<p>I am all about protecting the brain, since you are only born with one, and it isn't replaceable. That's the end of that PSA!</p>
<p>Allmusic</p>
<p>I hear you. I don't think potential head injuries are something to take lightly. This says nothing about the value of sports--I'm sure the activities are loaded with value. But I get the sense that brain scientists are getting worried about repeated blows to the skull, repeated concussions, etc., from whatever cause and long term cumulative effects. I don't know the answers, but I think we should stay open to the questions.</p>
<p>In our area some kids do go to Canada to play Major Junior hockey at 16 or so, they are paid so lose NCAA eligibity. I do think they have some sort of provision for college in Canada for these kids.</p>
<p>By and large most D1 Hockey players come from the D1 preps, USHL, and other junior hockey programs where kids are not paid.</p>
<p>More and more of the D3 hockey recruits also come from the junior hockey ranks</p>
<p>"Opie,you look as the coach, and I look as the professional. Different lens see things differen"</p>
<p>We disagree also I suspect because one of us has played and one of us hasn't? </p>
<p>You simply cannot take adult playing field situations and apply them to 5-6 year old players. This is where the science fails the situation and common sense has to settle it out. How much force and distance in the situation has to be addressed. </p>
<p>If I were to tap you on the head with my finger and then strike your head with my fist, you would have different experiences for the same event based on force. </p>
<p>A small kid's game on a 30 yard field with a size three ball, is not going to have the same heading situations of distance and/or force than an adult game where I could in my day send a ball 80 yards downfield with a height of 60 yards at it's top height. </p>
<p>Again back to your study.. do you feel 106 people is a representative sample compared to the millions that play? Is the sample size large enough to draw a strong enough conclusion? </p>
<p>Allmusic are you an MD with sports head injury experience? If so, I will defer a bit. However, being involved in the sport and more importantly being involved in the safety of the sport for decades I have not seen a definative arguement that backs up your pov. I am not some silly blood and guts tough guy talking out my backside... We've looked at liability issues involving the game from goals and fields to teaching the game. Are you implying children are at abnormal risk of head injury by playing soccer???</p>
<p>The only folks I know of in the last decade that had that position also had a product they sold to "solve" it. How convienent.</p>
<p>I have no personal horse in this race, Opie, since you are correct, I don't play the game, and neither do my kids. And the Norwegian study is small, but everything else I have without research (which I will do, but not right now) is anecdotal, and that and two bucks will get you a subway ride in NYC! ;)</p>
<p>I see a lot of kids with cognitive impairments (not as an MD, but in another capacity), and the repercussions of brain injury, even mild, are of great concern to me. Let's say I have seen a lot of them in the past 25 years, and mild brain sheering can result in behavioral issues, memory dysfunction, intellectual changes. It's really quite devastating.</p>
<p>As I said, I am all for protecting the brain only, and nope, I have absolutely no product to sell, whatsoever. I can see the enjoyment people get from soccer, too....just trying to offer a little bit of caution, that's all.</p>
<p>I'll just remind you that presidential polls have a margin for error of +/-3% at the high end, and generally are based on about 1000 people. This is to study over 100,000,000.</p>
<p>So although 106 is small, it is far, quite far from something able to be thrown out.</p>
<p>Opie, we talked about it briefly in my Introduction to Athletic Injuries class when we were talking protective equipment. I would guess we will talk about it more when we get to the "Thorax, Head and Face" part of the syllabus in the next few weeks. I'll get back with ya then:)</p>
<p>I don't think my Athletic Training professor has anything to sell.</p>
<p>I have nothing to sell. As a psychologist, I'm interested in people and their brains and their lives. Repeatedly slamming the brain against the skull might be a problem for people's lives. This is not anti-sport, it's pro-people. I'd be just as worried about brain trauma from car accidents.</p>