PDA

View Full Version : Verbal commitment process needs change?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

slowe
05-04-2013, 02:37 PM
Good article from Andy Johnson I thought could use some discussion.

Time to drop college hockey's gentlemen's agreement? (http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2013/5/3/4297876/time-to-drop-college-hockeys-gentlemans-agreement)

In short he suggests coaches and student athletes should not place much importance on the verbal. Coaches should recruit right up until the student athlete signs a NLI.

Interesting points made. In my opinion committing to young kids is a lot riskier. Wait until they are older and more of a known quantity. Plus the kid will have a better idea of what he is committing to. Almost like shifting from drafting talent to free agency.

solovsfett
05-04-2013, 03:20 PM
Good article from Andy Johnson I thought could use some discussion.

http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2013/5/3/4297876/time-to-drop-college-hockeys-gentlemans-agreement

In short he suggests coaches and student athletes should not place much importance on the verbal. Coaches should recruit right up until the student athlete signs a NLI.

Interesting points made. In my opinion committing to young kids is a lot riskier. Wait until they are older and more of a known quantity. Plus the kid will have a better idea of what he is committing to. Almost like shifting from drafting talent to free agency.

it's an excellent article to be sure. my problem nixing the gentlemen's agreement is this: do we really want hockey coaches acting in the same repugnant fashion that football coaches do?

mookie1995
05-04-2013, 03:34 PM
Can a kid sue the coach and school for stalking then after he verbals to another school and the rejected coach keeps calling anyway.... And calling.... And calling??

5mn_Major
05-04-2013, 03:39 PM
I'm not that close to it...but have been watching recruiting for a good decade.

I would guess its a big net positive for the upper half of college hockey (and maybe the lower half as well). One of the biggest downsides is decommits. I would guess that decommits are somewhere south of one in ten (a relatively small percentage). What it does is allow programs long term strategic planning and give some help to kids on development. And therefore it is a net positive for programs and kid development in all probability. I would imagine it even helps second tier programs by knowing who is off the board so they can focus their scarce resources at kids for whom they have a chance. So personally disagree with Andy's POV.

Drew S.
05-04-2013, 04:03 PM
Good article from Andy Johnson I thought could use some discussion.

http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2013/5/3/4297876/time-to-drop-college-hockeys-gentlemans-agreement

In short he suggests coaches and student athletes should not place much importance on the verbal. Coaches should recruit right up until the student athlete signs a NLI.

Interesting points made. In my opinion committing to young kids is a lot riskier. Wait until they are older and more of a known quantity. Plus the kid will have a better idea of what he is committing to. Almost like shifting from drafting talent to free agency.

I didn't read the article but don't think things should be changed. Stability is good high for kids and schools and I'm sure the last thing 17 or 18 year old kids need is to be harassed non stop from coaches trying to get them to bail on their commitment. What happens to the kids lower down the totem pole? If a team gets someone better to commit does the coach pull their money? I think the whole system would be a disaster and there would be a lot of sour grapes. I think a better solution would be a stronger NLI with more rights for the students. If they stop playing the money they were supposed to get should not count against the teams limit.

WIrinkrat
05-04-2013, 04:15 PM
IMO, the best way to fix recruiting is to only allow D1 hockey teams to offer 12 scholarships instead of 18. Teams will have to be more careful with who they make these early offers to and while the best of the best will still end up at the same schools it might open up a lot more competition for that 2nd tier of player which would increase parity across the board.

as15
05-04-2013, 04:27 PM
IMO, the best way to fix recruiting is to only allow D1 hockey teams to offer 12 scholarships instead of 18. Teams will have to be more careful with who they make these early offers to and while the best of the best will still end up at the same schools it might open up a lot more competition for that 2nd tier of player which would increase parity across the board.

Then fewer and fewer top end players will come to the NCAA. With 12 scholarships, there would be no such thing as a full-scholarship player, which also means we will lose a lot of full-scholarship talent to Major Juniors.

WIrinkrat
05-04-2013, 04:36 PM
There can certainly still be full scholarship players, there just won't be as many. The overall product will still be very high. If fewer Canadians come down and more US kids get the opportunity, so be it. I think a slight drop in overall high end talent would be a small price to pay in that regard. The games would still be competitive, exciting, and we'd all still enjoy going.

fangers
05-04-2013, 04:49 PM
From a parents perspective: absolutely horrible idea!

Having a verbal takes so much pressure off both players and parents, allowing them to focus on schoolwork and hockey skills to prep for their school. No longer do they have to stress about which coaches in the stands there, which showcase events have to go to ( big $$$), and keeps the hounds at bay.

Chuck Schwartz
05-04-2013, 05:02 PM
From a parents perspective: absolutely horrible idea!

Having a verbal takes so much pressure off both players and parents, allowing them to focus on schoolwork and hockey skills to prep for their school. No longer do they have to stress about which coaches in the stands there, which showcase events have to go to ( big $$$), and keeps the hounds at bay.

You can still verbal and focus on schoolwork and hockey skills. It's also easy to tell schools that call after you've already given a commitment that it's a firm commitment and you're not interested in their school.

Article wasn't saying you should eliminate the verbal agreement.

slowe
05-04-2013, 05:17 PM
Pros for allowing coaches to continue to recruit despite a verbal:

Prevents schools from taking way too many verbals to hoard players.
Fewer 14 year olds committing. Lets be honest, its weird.
Easier for teams to adjust or add someone else if they lose a commit.
Teams get a better assessment of talent rather than potential
Kids can make a better decision on their school. Team mates, coaches, possible playing time, etc.


Cons:

Likely fewer verbal offers. More kids bail to CHL?
Harder to project future roster
Harder for smaller schools to find a diamond in the rough. Talented kids naturally go to bigger school. Rich get richer.
More vicious recruiting practices


What do you think? Something missing? Agree or disagree with anything? I'd be curious to know how things woul actually change.

Slap Shot
05-04-2013, 05:19 PM
Sounds like something Barry Alvarez would write. What is it with cheeseheads?

fangers
05-04-2013, 06:29 PM
You can still verbal and focus on schoolwork and hockey skills. It's also easy to tell schools that call after you've already given a commitment that it's a firm commitment and you're not interested in their school.

Article wasn't saying you should eliminate the verbal agreement.
I read the article and know that, and my opinion still stands. You're a fool if think simply telling a coach no will stop them. Doing away with the no contact after verbal makes the verbal useless.

Chuck Schwartz
05-04-2013, 06:30 PM
Pros for allowing coaches to continue to recruit despite a verbal:

Prevents schools from taking way too many verbals to hoard players.
Fewer 14 year olds committing. Lets be honest, its weird.
Easier for teams to adjust or add someone else if they lose a commit.
Teams get a better assessment of talent rather than potential
Kids can make a better decision on their school. Team mates, coaches, possible playing time, etc.


Cons:

Likely fewer verbal offers. More kids bail to CHL?
Harder to project future roster
Harder for smaller schools to find a diamond in the rough. Talented kids naturally go to bigger school. Rich get richer.
More vicious recruiting practices


What do you think? Something missing? Agree or disagree with anything? I'd be curious to know how things woul actually change.

I would agree with most with the exception of more kids bailing to the CHL because of fewer verbal offers. The top end kids who will get CHL opportunities are still going to be getting love from NCAA schools. Should have no effect there in terms of a kid going in that direction.

Chuck Schwartz
05-04-2013, 06:35 PM
I read the article and know that, and my opinion still stands. You're a fool if think simply telling a coach no will stop them. Doing away with the no contact after verbal makes the verbal useless.

I think there are greater things to be gained if the biggest turnoff is kids getting phone calls from people who say they are good at hockey and should consider their school. Take control of the situation, don't let the coaches take control of you.

fangers
05-04-2013, 06:52 PM
I think there are greater things to be gained if the biggest turnoff is kids getting phone calls from people who say they are good at hockey and should consider their school. Take control of the situation, don't let the coaches take control of you.

I disagree, you've obviously not been thru the process recently, if ever.

FlagDUDE08
05-04-2013, 07:25 PM
There can certainly still be full scholarship players, there just won't be as many. The overall product will still be very high. If fewer Canadians come down and more US kids get the opportunity, so be it. I think a slight drop in overall high end talent would be a small price to pay in that regard. The games would still be competitive, exciting, and we'd all still enjoy going.

Hey Malcolm Portera, there's no limit to how many Americans can play in MJ. We need every advantage we can against them. In addition, MJ already tries to poach away verbal commits, and the NCAA limits shoot us in the foot on that front. I understand the rules were set with the football/basketball monopoly in mind, but that doesn't exist in hockey.

Chuck Schwartz
05-04-2013, 07:34 PM
I disagree, you've obviously not been thru the process recently, if ever.

No, I've never personally gone through the process as an athlete. But I know enough people who have, and advisors who have advised players through the process to speak knowledgeably on the subject. If the biggest concern is kids getting too much attention from college recruiters, maybe that kid isn't mentally tough enough to play division one college hockey. Basketball and Football recruit until the letter of intent is signed, I don't hear them whining about coaches showing them love.

joecct
05-04-2013, 07:37 PM
No, I've never personally gone through the process as an athlete. But I know enough people who have, and advisors who have advised players through the process to speak knowledgeably on the subject. If the biggest concern is kids getting too much attention from college recruiters, maybe that kid isn't mentally tough enough to play division one college hockey. Basketball and Football recruit until the letter of intent is signed, I don't hear them whining about coaches showing them love.And some hoops stars have figured out that if they accept the scholarship offer, but don't sign the NLI (apparently 2 separate documents), they can still bolt before they show up at Enormous U for Ginormous U.

mnstate0fhockey
05-04-2013, 07:37 PM
I think this would be an advantage to the larger programs in the country, and hurt the smaller programs. If a kid who was committed to a larger school decommit and heads to major junior, or if they get an some unexpected departures, they can try and poach kids who are committed to smaller schools who might not have gotten a look from a larger program initially. Not saying every kid would want to take advantage, but I don't like this idea for that reason.

Don't get me wrong, as a Gopher fan I would love it if our coaches could target kids that they may underestimated or missed at first, or kids that are late bloomers who may have committed elsewhere early. I don't think that would be fair to other programs though.

So, I'd vote no if I had a vote.