UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

[Dan]

I totally get maybe getting a few extra verbal commits based on the facts you mentioned. I put zero blame on the kids that decommit - its a broken system and the kids are doing whats best for themselves and coaches leave, concentration of study may change, etc. - no harm there. However, Wisconsin seems to be grossly over recruiting with 30 commits in the 2018-2020 classes alone.

No, I'm agreeing with you. Don't misconstrue my explanation of the situation as an endorsement. It's quite the opposite. I think even a few extra verbals is both unethical and wrong. It's completely ruthless to sign up these kids, pull them off the market and then eventually cut bait with half of them right before they expect to sign. If you ask a lot of these coaches why why do it - they'll tell you it's because 'everyone' does it and they have to keep up. An excuse they'd never accept from their players or children but one they use to rationalize away all their bad behavior...

Evaluate the players, be honest with them, offer when you're convinced they're fits and if they turn out not to be fits go down with your ship. Don't screw 18-20 year old kids to save yourself...

BTW, another UW verbal was announced his commitment this morning...

[Dan]

Kids are going in with their eyes open, convinced that they will survive the purges. The kids want to play for a coach that will demand excellence and a dog-eat-dog environment. North Dakota has been doing the same, though hardly to the magnitude of Wisconsin, and cutting kids before they arrive. Yet, because they win, players want to play for them, despite the risks.

And that ulitmately is the "risk" point. Without any binding obligations, kids are taking risks, and the teams have no risk, so they can give out promises like skittles. Force teams to sign something, and those offers will shrink.

And the emphasis of midget hockey and elite camps create the culture in players at age 15 and 16 that they are competing not just in games, but to be recognized as an elite prospect. Committing early validates that mentality for them. Back in the good old days, there was less of a national pecking order, so players didn't need that validation. But once the hockey industry kicked in, emphasizing off season training (lest you lose a fraction of your lifting ability, or your Vo2 stamina) the whole field becomes a competition, with advisors stoking that drive. Hence, getting recognized by a top program by getting an offer, is validation that you are "winning" the off season.

I think there are certainly some kids - led by less than ethical advisors - who seek deals to get notoriety, leverage MJ offers or a safety net while they search for a better school. That's wrong, too. Still, there are far more kids who's main goal is to play in college for their 'dream' school, who eventually have the rug pulled out from underneath them by coaches who are supposed to be the honest and informed adults in the room.

Of course the kids think they'll survive the purge and make it to said schools - that's what the recruiters are promising them in exchange for a verbal. It's garbage behavior from these coaches. The kids are young. Most of their families are first timers in the recruiting process. They're often naive and often taken advantage of.

Yes there are kids who will verbal too early because their friends and teammates are doing the same and they want to keep up. That's let of the problem. But the real issue is coaches who whine about early recruiting, while excusing their own bad behavior and doing nothing to change the recruiting rules. The reality is, regardless of what they say, coaches like recruiting the way it is because they have all the power and can manipulate the lives of prospects for their own benefit.

I agree with you, while everyone looks to 'slow' down the process the ideal solution is to allow signings as soon as kids get to HS. If coaches like Granato were stuck with the kids they 'committed' too and couldn't recruit over them - they'd start to wait...

Though, it would only be a matter of time before coaches began to bully, threaten and ignore these 'entitled' and 'lazy' prospects and players in order to run them out of their program so they can make room for better talent...

[Lemonade]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

I think there are certainly some kids - led by less than ethical advisors - who seek deals to get notoriety, leverage MJ offers or a safety net while they search for a better school. That's wrong, too. Still, there are far more kids who's main goal is to play in college for their 'dream' school, who eventually have the rug pulled out from underneath them by coaches who are supposed to be the honest and informed adults in the room.

Of course the kids think they'll survive the purge and make it to said schools - that's what the recruiters are promising them in exchange for a verbal. It's garbage behavior from these coaches. The kids are young. Most of their families are first timers in the recruiting process. They're often naive and often taken advantage of.

Yes there are kids who will verbal too early because their friends and teammates are doing the same and they want to keep up. That's let of the problem. But the real issue is coaches who whine about early recruiting, while excusing their own bad behavior and doing nothing to change the recruiting rules. The reality is, regardless of what they say, coaches like recruiting the way it is because they have all the power and can manipulate the lives of prospects for their own benefit.

I agree with you, while everyone looks to 'slow' down the process the ideal solution is to allow signings as soon as kids get to HS. If coaches like Granato were stuck with the kids they 'committed' too and couldn't recruit over them - they'd start to wait...

So many good points in your post. The system is broken and needs to be fixed but the only way that is going to happen is if the NCAA and coaches sit down and hash out a set of rules that they agree upon. Maybe limiting the # of verbals a team can have, maybe make offers/letter of intent to be signed earlier as you mentioned....something has to give.

[Dan]

So many good points in your post. The system is broken and needs to be fixed but the only way that is going to happen is if the NCAA and coaches sit down and hash out a set of rules that they agree upon. Maybe limiting the # of verbals a team can have, maybe make offers/letter of intent to be signed earlier as you mentioned....something has to give.

Coaches and conferences have to make those decisions - and they don't want to. It's not surprising to me that their only 'real' solution is to encourage MORE unethical behavior and eliminate the gentlemen's agreement on non-communication with other team's verbals. They claim this is done to help fight early recruiting - it's really done so the bigger schools can give themselves a pass for poaching recruits and cutting long term commitments. If that's all they can come up with than one thing is clear - they don't want change.

Over recruiting is a major advantage for Wisconsin. They'd probably tell you they 'hate' the process. They actually love it and they'll do NOTHING to limit their advantage...

The NCAA is really just an enforcement agency - they coaches, conferences and schools have to decide to do right by their athletes and prospective athletes. They need to decide ethical behavior trumps winning and that you can both behave yourselves AND win...

---

I'm often reminded of a prominent coach in my sport (softball) who rails against early recruiting and coaches searching for recruiting loopholes at every coaches' convention. She argues against early recruiting every year, yet she remains one of the worst offenders. The NCAA rule is that kids become prospects once they enter HS. That means that before they enter HS coaches can have all the contact they can dream of with prospects - and those are the ages that are now being recruited in college athletes. So what does this coach - so abhorrent of early recruiting loopholes - do? She starts a U14 team and begins hoarding all of the top junior high prospects on the West Coast. She coaches them. She calls them. She brings them on campus. She offers them and she builds her team with them...

This is the kind of coaching behavior that contributes to issues with early recruiting more than anything else. The whining you hear on Twitter or to reporters is nothing more than a 'confession'. A way to absolve themselves of their poor behavior. A way to say, 'everyone is doing it' and give themselves a pass. Its pathetic.

[NCAA watcher]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

So many good points in your post. The system is broken and needs to be fixed but the only way that is going to happen is if the NCAA and coaches sit down and hash out a set of rules that they agree upon. Maybe limiting the # of verbals a team can have, maybe make offers/letter of intent to be signed earlier as you mentioned....something has to give.

Well, by making the coaches sign something automatically limits the number of commitments, because a coach can only commit to spending X dollars. So an offer to recruit #20 means you can't also offer that same money to recruit #30.

[E.J. Smith]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

So many good points in your post. The system is broken and needs to be fixed but the only way that is going to happen is if the NCAA and coaches sit down and hash out a set of rules that they agree upon. Maybe limiting the # of verbals a team can have, maybe make offers/letter of intent to be signed earlier as you mentioned....something has to give.

The system isn't perfect but I wouldn't say it's broken. If the biggest problem is over recruiting at the verbal stage of the process, that doesn't equal a broken process.

Especially because, as was mentioned, the kids know what they're getting into. If they don't, someone - parent, adviser, or kid - didn't do even the barest of due diligence. If they've already verballed 9 defensemen over 2 years, you might not want to be the tenth. If you go ahead and verbal anyway, you signed up for whatever crap comes your way.

Beyond that, wouldn't it be self-correcting? If this was so bad and a particular school was notorious for doing it, wouldn't kids start to stay away?

Fwiw, I have much more of a problem with the rules against transferring. Sitting out a year is too much. I'd allow every kid one free transfer.

[Dan]

The system isn't perfect but I wouldn't say it's broken. If the biggest problem is over recruiting at the verbal stage of the process, that doesn't equal a broken process.

Especially because, as was mentioned, the kids know what they're getting into. If they don't, someone - parent, adviser, or kid - didn't do even the barest of due diligence. If they've already verballed 9 defensemen over 2 years, you might not want to be the tenth. If you go ahead and verbal anyway, you signed up for whatever crap comes your way.

Beyond that, wouldn't it be self-correcting? If this was so bad and a particular school was notorious for doing it, wouldn't kids start to stay away?

Fwiw, I have much more of a problem with the rules against transferring. Sitting out a year is too much. I'd allow every kid one free transfer.

If it was self-correcting the schools that have gotten away with it for a while now would be paying the price. I see no reason Wisconsin will be the exception. They know they can get away with it - that's why they're so aggressive in taking advantage of the process.

Also, they're not telling kids that they already have 9 defenseman and by verbaling they are entering a competition. They're flatly telling kids they're different. They're the real deal. Theyre a lock. They're future difference makers. Along with whatever else they need to say to get the commitment. That's why the kids commit.

Then when someone better comes along they completely reneg on their promises...

Should the kids 'know' the coaches are likely being less than genuine? Maybe. But when a coach is selling you on your ability to be a major part of national championships at UW, that's all they're going to hear because they're kids. They have always been the best in their teams. They and their parents have no doubt they're the best and will make it to their dream school and the NHL. And that's what these coaches prey upon...

The evaluation process is the evaluation process. When a kid and school verbal to each other that's a commitment. When kids back out coaches lament their lack of honor or the value of keeping your word. It's a millennial thing.

When coaches do the same it's part of the process. Everyone's doing it. The kid didn't work hard enough and was entitled. They are actively taking kids out of the recruiting process so they can continue to evaluate them without competition and with no intention of actually commiting to them. That's wrong. Saying early-teen kids and parents with stars in their eyes should know better is simply excusing the coaches bad intentions and behavior...

[E.J. Smith]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

If it was self-correcting the schools that have gotten away with it for a while now would be paying the price. I see no reason Wisconsin will be the exception. They know they can get away with it - that's why they're so aggressive in taking advantage of the process.

Also, they're not telling kids that they already have 9 defenseman and by verbaling they are entering a competition. They're flatly telling kids they're different. They're the real deal. Theyre a lock. They're future difference makers. Along with whatever else they need to say to get the commitment. That's why the kids commit.

Then when someone better comes along they completely reneg on their promises...

Should the kids 'know' the coaches are likely being less than genuine? Maybe. But when a coach is selling you on your ability to be a major part of national championships at UW, that's all they're going to hear because they're kids. They have always been the best in their teams. They and their parents have no doubt they're the best and will make it to their dream school and the NHL. And that's what these coaches prey upon...

The evaluation process is the evaluation process. When a kid and school verbal to each other that's a commitment. When kids back out coaches lament their lack of honor or the value of keeping your word. It's a millennial thing.

When coaches do the same it's part of the process. Everyone's doing it. The kid didn't work hard enough and was entitled. They are actively taking kids out of the recruiting process so they can continue to evaluate them without competition and with no intention of actually commiting to them. That's wrong. Saying early-teen kids and parents with stars in their eyes should know better is simply excusing the coaches bad intentions and behavior...

Sorry, I disagree with most of that.

I get that a kid might get overwhelmed by the allure of a big program. But his adviser shouldn't. And 90% of these kids have advisers. The adviser knows where each kid stands talent wise, particularly in relation to the talent level and ages of the kids already at or committed to a school. That's also part of the self-correction, if a coach screws over an adviser he's burning a bridge, or at least making that part of the talent pipeline narrower. That adviser is going to have more kids coming along, and he's going to be less inclined to send kids to a coach who already burned him. Not something any coach wants to do too much.

Beyond that, all these kids know each other. Yes, they all have huge egos but they also know where they stand in their birth year compared to others. That pecking order has been forming for years by the time they get to commit age. It's a meritocracy, with a few exceptions. If it weren't, then I'd say the system is broken. But that's not the case, it's the second tier kids who are getting de-committed, well, guess what, it ain't youth hockey anymore, it's big business. What's next, we're going to outlaw trades in the NHL because it's mean?

Finally, don't verbal. Verbals are primarily just ego strokes for the kid and Dad anyway.

[Dan]

Sorry, I disagree with most of that.

I get that a kid might get overwhelmed by the allure of a big program. But his adviser shouldn't. And 90% of these kids have advisers. The adviser knows where each kid stands talent wise, particularly in relation to the talent level and ages of the kids already at or committed to a school. That's also part of the self-correction, if a coach screws over an adviser he's burning a bridge, or at least making that part of the talent pipeline narrower. That adviser is going to have more kids coming along, and he's going to be less inclined to send kids to a coach who already burned him. Not something any coach wants to do too much.

Beyond that, all these kids know each other. Yes, they all have huge egos but they also know where they stand in their birth year compared to others. That pecking order has been forming for years by the time they get to commit age. It's a meritocracy, with a few exceptions. If it weren't, then I'd say the system is broken. But that's not the case, it's the second tier kids who are getting de-committed, well, guess what, it ain't youth hockey anymore, it's big business. What's next, we're going to outlaw trades in the NHL because it's mean?

Finally, don't verbal. Verbals are primarily just ego strokes for the kid and Dad anyway.

Those are common perceptions - not really reality and it certainly doesn't make it right. These coaches jump on kids they want and when they're wrong screw the kid and accept zero responsibility. They jump on kids they 'want' to take them off the table for all other teams while they finish evaluations. If you think that's OK we have different standards, period. If it's all a meritocracy, these coaches could try simply being good at their jobs in the first place...

Second tier kids like Max Gildon? He was dumped the summer before he was set to enroll at UW because they thought they found someone better. It's likely they knew he wasn't a fit when they took over (hence his "suspicions") - but they didn't let him go until they had a superior (in their eyes) replacement lined up. That's BS.

The second-tier kids getting dropped were first tier when they verbaled - that's why the coaches jumped on them. When their evaluations prove wrong they wash their hands of it all at the expense of the kid.

If the coaches thought what they were doing was right, they wouldn't spend so much time lamenting the recruiting landscape through social platforms and the media. They know exactly what they're doing and why it's wrong...

Advisors and club coaches all want kids committing ASAP - so they can get more clients and players. They're absolutely not clean in this either. Assuming they're all looking out for the kids best interests and not their own is foolish.

Yes college sports have become a business - more about money than the athletes. That's not a good thing. It's not the NHL. There's a big difference between trading a 25 year-old and not honoring promises to 16 year olds. It's a bad look when Granato manipulates teenagers because UW demands he wins immediately or gets fired. Or when UMass has such high expectations that Carvel is allowed to cut half his team. Some might be happy to sell their souls for success - Im glad Umile isn't one of them.

Don't verbal? Its hard not to verbal when Wisconsin tells you the offer exists for a week, take it or leave it! Or don't leave your unofficial visit without verbaling or the offer is gone.

You did a good job listing the excuses and rationalization they make to defend themselves though.

[Dan]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

Don Lucia hates early recruiting - then turns around and lands himself two 13 year old prospects. In doing so, he basically admits why...

“It’s become a race to see who can get a younger kid committed before someone else sees them and knows how good a player they are,” Lucia said. “So, let’s get kids locked up so they can’t be recruited by somebody else.”

Now he can continue to evaluate and communicate with these two, while now one else can. If they don't pan out, he knows he can cut bait and face no consequences in recruiting the next young prospects, because people will say the kids, families and advisors should have known better. Because its a meritocracy. Because everyone's doing it and they have to 'compete'. Because its a business.

UM will paint the picture that they didn't develop - maybe they were entitled or stopped working hard when they committed. The adults will buy it because young generations are awful. The next group of prospects and families will buy it because they'll be promised it won't happen to them, "That won't be you young prospect. You'll be a star for the Gophers!!"

http://www.twincities.com/2017/09/15...ts-to-gophers/

----

Another practice that is prevalent in softball and likely happens in hockey as well, is verbaling players for large sums and then taking money away late in the process when options are limited (including as late as signing day). So a team commits a player with an 80% ride, then waits until all other classes are full, before going back to said player and claiming they didn't develop as expected and can only receive a 25% offer. The real reason being that money now needs to go to someone else. Is that meritocracy?

[NCAA watcher]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

Since we're debating recruiting theory, in the six month absence of any recruiting news from UNH, I thought I'd add Coach Souza's views on early recruiting, from Mike's interview today:

Charlie verbally committed to UNH quite a bit before your time, back in August 2012, and he was 15 and a half at that point.

Coach Mike Souza:: Wow.

[C-H-C]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

Since we're debating recruiting theory, in the six month absence of any recruiting news from UNH, I thought I'd add Coach Souza's views on early recruiting, from Mike's interview today:

"Charlie verbally committed to UNH quite a bit before your time, back in August 2012, and he was 15 and a half at that point.

Coach Mike Souza:: Wow."

To clarify, Souza wasn't commenting on the pros and cons of recruiting 15-year-olds. He was impressed that Kelleher, who is now 20 and 1/2 years old, remained committed to UNH for 5 years.

[E.J. Smith]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

Those are common perceptions - not really reality and it certainly doesn't make it right. These coaches jump on kids they want and when they're wrong screw the kid and accept zero responsibility. They jump on kids they 'want' to take them off the table for all other teams while they finish evaluations. If you think that's OK we have different standards, period. If it's all a meritocracy, these coaches could try simply being good at their jobs in the first place...

Second tier kids like Max Gildon? He was dumped the summer before he was set to enroll at UW because they thought they found someone better. It's likely they knew he wasn't a fit when they took over (hence his "suspicions") - but they didn't let him go until they had a superior (in their eyes) replacement lined up. That's BS.

The second-tier kids getting dropped were first tier when they verbaled - that's why the coaches jumped on them. When their evaluations prove wrong they wash their hands of it all at the expense of the kid.

If the coaches thought what they were doing was right, they wouldn't spend so much time lamenting the recruiting landscape through social platforms and the media. They know exactly what they're doing and why it's wrong...

Advisors and club coaches all want kids committing ASAP - so they can get more clients and players. They're absolutely not clean in this either. Assuming they're all looking out for the kids best interests and not their own is foolish.

Yes college sports have become a business - more about money than the athletes. That's not a good thing. It's not the NHL. There's a big difference between trading a 25 year-old and not honoring promises to 16 year olds. It's a bad look when Granato manipulates teenagers because UW demands he wins immediately or gets fired. Or when UMass has such high expectations that Carvel is allowed to cut half his team. Some might be happy to sell their souls for success - Im glad Umile isn't one of them.

Don't verbal? Its hard not to verbal when Wisconsin tells you the offer exists for a week, take it or leave it! Or don't leave your unofficial visit without verbaling or the offer is gone.

You did a good job listing the excuses and rationalization they make to defend themselves though.

Hey Dan, I had an almost line by line response - full of stunning insights - but the board ate it when I tried to post, so everyone will just have to suffer along without!

A couple highlights though:

• You make it sound like these coaches lasso these kids and abduct them off to some warehouse. It takes 2 to tango.
• All advisors aren't about committing ASAP. Some are, some aren't. Some are good guys who actually have the kids' best interest in mind. Plus as good as a commit at 14 is for business, a decommit at 17 is bad for business. They can't be totally shortsighted.
• Maybe a kid was first-tier at 14, that doesn't mean a free pass for life. Yes, sometimes the coaches got the eval wrong, but sometimes the kids just don't progress. It's the downside of early commits, for both parties. Don't like it, don't play the game.
• If a school is pressuring you into a commit, maybe you ought to re-think who you're about to spend 4 key years of your life with, shotgun weddings aren't the greatest start to a relationship.
• Agreed, UW treated Gildon very poorly. Not sure why you think things like that don't lead to self-correction. Word does get out. How many coaches have badly abused the process for a long period of time and gotten away with it?
• It is admirable that Umile hasn't abused this, that said I'm sure not every player and family to ever come through his program is sending him Christmas cards thanking him for his honesty and forthright approach.
• I'm certainly not defending hockey coaches - plenty to despise among that group - but decommitting verbals is WAY down my list of crap they pull.

[Dan]

Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond

EJ -

You make some fair points, but I still think the onus of responsibility falls much more to the adult coaches doing the selling from a point of power and experience than the teenager (who is the ultimate decision maker in their commitment - usually from an emotional POV). If a kid doesn't progress - thats still a bad eval and the ethical thing to do would be to own it and get the next one right.

I'd like to think schools and coaches would eventually pay the price for their actions, but I haven't seen that happen yet. Not in hockey, softball or otherwise. I think coaches behave the way they do in recruiting because they know it works and they know there wont be repercussions as long as they win. They whine about early recruiting because it's good PR, but they know it benefits them and they don't want to lose their advantages. Its far easier to take advantage of the situation than to make consistent good evaluations. So, that is unfortunately what they do.

I don't think it's too much to ask for coaches to live up to the same standards they're constantly spouting outwardly to players, fans and anyone who will listen. Unfortunately it's a reflection of many people's perspective in life - X is the right way to do things, and that applies to everyone else but me...

[Dan]

Fwiw, I have much more of a problem with the rules against transferring. Sitting out a year is too much. I'd allow every kid one free transfer.

I don't necessarily have an issue with allowing transfers either - but be prepared for coaches to abuse this policy as well. It's already very prevalent in sports without transfer penalties for college coaches to contact club coaches and recruit players of other college rosters during seasons of competition. Which is bad enough on it's own, but the next domino is a kid on the current roster getting cut or bullied off the team to make room...