TomVH: New Recruiting Rules
I had just spoken with a sophomore recruit, and he told me the first day he would be able to receive an offer was September 1st of this year. I reported that. Tim tweeted me, and told me the rule had changed, and that Junior prospects can not be offered until August 1st, of their senior year.
So, I looked into it.
The proposal is here, on page 11: 2009-47-B
Question: Prior to August 1 of the prospective student-athlete's senior year in high school, may the institution verbally indicate that it will offer a prospective student-athlete athletically related financial aid?
Answer: Yes.
This rule was adopted by the NCAA in May, as you can see here. It was adopted, with a 60-day override period (not 100% on what that means).
Another rule that was proposed, was 2009-45 on page 10. This rule would have allowed Juniors, who had completed their academic year, would be allowed to take official visits starting in June. The maximum number would have stayed at five. Unfortunately, this rule was defeated, as you can see here.
2009-45 – Recruiting – Official visit – First opportunity to visit – June immediately prior to senior year – Football. Status: Defeated.
I'm not sure how the rule that was adopted will help, since it seems like it will get more confusing for a recruit to keep track of "verbal" offers, than written ones. A verbal offer, from this standpoint, will be pretty much the exact same thing as an early written offer is now. I would have liked to see them defeat that proposal, and adopt the early official visit proposal. That to me would have made more sense.
No, the first part you have right. They won't be able to receive written offers until August 1st, before their senior.
The official visit proposal would have allowed them to take an official visit in June, following their junior year. That had nothing to do with the written offer part. That was defeated, and it still stands the same now, that they have to wait to take official visits during the season of their senior year.
So sign an early offer but never be allowed a visit or wait to visit but you can not sign an early offer...TVH what is the rational behind that?
Tim guided me to this article, where this was first talked about. They say it's to make things less confusing for the athletes, but that doesn't make sense to me. I think it's more confusing this way.
Thanks Tom
Today's NCAA: All the decesion making prowess of the United States Post Office with half the effciency. Nothing but no brainers since Title IX.
I have no idea what it is like to try to focus on enjoying my senior year and having these coaches texting me every 20 minutes, but I imagine it could suck. So I can appreciate what they are trying to do, but the execution leaves something be be desired.
As I understand, the rationale is different than "lessening confusion for recruits."
The rationale behind the rule is to slow down the recruiting process. The NCAA feels that kids' junior and senior years are being "ruined" (for lack of a better word) by being recruited so early. As of this year, kids like Greg Brown were getting offers on September 1 of their junior year, and then they have about 16 months to make a decision - and be bombarded with letters, phone calls, etc.
Under the new rule, kids will ideally only be bombarded by letters, phone calls, etc. for 6 or 7 months, from August 1 of their senior year until the first week of February.
I don't think the rule will change much, but I think it does alleviate some of the pressure on athletes to pick a school so early.
Will this lessen the number of de-commitments and "conditional" offers that have become quite prevalent?
I agree with what you say about slowing down the process, but I don't think 100% of that is right. From what I understand, the time from which they will be allowed to receive letters and recruiting materials will not change. The only date that changes is when they can receive written offers.
They'll likely see the same amount of mail, and if you think about it, will make "early commitments" a little more risky for the recruits. With this rule, if a junior were to commit during his season, or before August 1st of his senior year, theoretically, he is committing without having an actual offer in hand. It seems like this leads for more opportunity of confusion, potential for mistakes, and a chance that coaches could use this in a negative way.
Yeah I think this could actually put recruits in a tough spot, and definitely opens the door for coaches to mislead recruits
As we know from our own staff, even written offers aren't necessarily committable. Until you send your LOI in, your offer can be rescinded, even if you've committed, and even after you send your LOI in and qualify the school can still reject you. There is no increase in risk here.
Yeah, I guess I worded that a little strangely. It doesn't change the dates that you can receive calls, letters, etc. But all those calls and letters mean a little less when there isn't a written scholarship offer involved, so the pressure is relieved a little bit.
But regarding having an "offer in hand," USC just picked up its second commitment for the Class of 2012. Technically, that kid won't have a written offer in hand until AT LEAST August 1, 2011. That's still about 14 months away. So some kids are going to commit to a school no matter what time of year it is or whether they have an offer or not. That David Sills kid is like 13 years old and already committed to USC.
It's all somewhat ridiculous, but if a coach is pressing a kid for a commitment right now, the kid can at least say, "I don't have a written offer, so I'm not committing until I get one next August." Coaches can be shady about it, but that's nothing new...
Hey i was wondering about the possible effects this has on big ten schools?
will this prevent the SEC from nailing out those offers so soon?
This is really going to cramp Lane Kiffin's style. How's he supposed to get commitments from 8th graders now?
TomVH seems to have roughly 10,400 points.
Considering the content he provides, shouldn't he have 10,400 Billion points? Or even better, where it says joined and points, perhaps it could read:
Points: Oh, yes! Numbers aren't enough to measure!
Well done TomVH, many thanks for the truth.
...have chosen to eschew the power granted to you by our fearless leader -- the power to upvote this diary. You too can be a part of the solution -- it takes so little to make a difference.
Do you feel empowered?
It will get more confusing for a recruit to keep track of "verbal" offers, than written ones.
Well, if a recruit gets an offer from Michigan, why would he need to keep track of any others?
Comments