WAG New NCAA rules on "unofficial visits"

[tomtnt]

that's a good point - perhaps why the proposal from the IVY was tabled.

Some of you have a misunderstanding of a verbal commitment. It is not a NCAA rule. It is simply a school saying we will give you a scholarship when you are eligible and the gymnast says ok I will (future tense) accept your offer when I'm eligible. That's it. It is not binding, it doesn't exist as a rule anywhere. That's why it's not addressed by the NCAA. There is nothing to "grandfather in". The NCAA is obviously trying to prevent early verbal commitments by making it difficult for schools and gymnasts to learn about each other. But they happen in all sports and the NCAA has decided to make an example out of gymnastics. They will still happen (even the great almighty NCAA can't legislate what people say). But they will commit in a poorly informed environment now.

 

[GymDad9.9]

Some of you have a misunderstanding of a verbal commitment. It is not a NCAA rule. It is simply a school saying we will give you a scholarship when you are eligible and the gymnast says ok I will (future tense) accept your offer when I'm eligible. That's it. It is not binding, it doesn't exist as a rule anywhere. That's why it's not addressed by the NCAA. There is nothing to "grandfather in". The NCAA is obviously trying to prevent early verbal commitments by making it difficult for schools and gymnasts to learn about each other. But they happen in all sports and the NCAA has decided to make an example out of gymnastics. They will still happen (even the great almighty NCAA can't legislate what people say). But they will commit in a poorly informed environment now.

On the flip side, with this rule schools will also be offering in a poorly informed environment as well so perhaps the rule is to deter to the best of the NCAA's ability to enforce, the whole cycle of very early offers and very early verbals.

Perhaps you can shine some light on this, I have a real hard time grasping the need for NCAA programs to provide early offers as part of some need to have roster stability going forward. These programs typically have four year gymnasts so there is little in the way of roster instability from that angle and considering how much can change over a 3-5 year period with an early verbal commit such as injuries or plateauing of skills, what is the necessity of the early offer?

 

[bookworm]

[QUOTE="gymgal, post: 507516, member: 2611"

1. They could easily be grandfathered in but moving forward, no more verbals until Jr year. It would not be difficult to roll out.

2.The difficulty would be the college coaches adhering to it - publicly and behind closed doors. It is all about integrity - being willing to follow the intent of the policy - no verbals means wait until junior year to give your program and the girls time figure out what will be a good fit.
.[/QUOTE]

Point 1 . I totally agree that this could happen, and many a coach talks the talk about wanting it but ....leading to ...

Point 2: I have a bridge to sell you if you think that there is integrity involved in this ....unless there are severe penalties that are concrete, such as "schools found to be in violation will lose 2 scholarships for the duration of the recruits 4 years " or something similar, they won't do it, it's not in them. And $$ fines won't work because it won't directly affect them because it''ll come out of the athletic budget.

In theory , it seems pretty doable but with the personalities involved in this sport, I don't see it happening at all schools. And I get that verbals are verbals but they effectively stop a recruit's looking after they have "accepted" one...

 

[Deleted member 18037]

This is not just a gymnastics thing...........

This is about young children having time to make life decisions.

http://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/ncaa-passes-new-recruiting-legislation

And as I said before the schools are looking out for themselves, not the athletes.
Always have and sadly always will.

 

[bookworm]

And as I said before the schools are looking out for themselves, not the athletes.
Always have and sadly always will.

This is it , in a nutshell.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

The problem with verbals, is there are many an athlete, who will hang their hat on that verbal. To the extent of not keeping or looking at other options. No point in a plan b or c or d.
Because I have a verbal to UofPlanA

The school on the other hand will drop them like a bad apple in a NY minute.

Its an attempt to protect the athlete.

 

[tomtnt]

The problem with verbals, is there are many an athlete, who will hang their hat on that verbal. To the extent of not keeping or looking at other options. No point in a plan b or c or d.
Because I have a verbal to UofPlanA

The school on the other hand will drop them like a bad apple in a NY minute.

Its an attempt to protect the athlete.

To be fair, most schools won't just completely drop the gymnast when a better prospect comes along down the road. If they do, word gets around and those coaches will find it harder to recruit down the road. That's not to say it doesn't happen. For example, Cal recently announced Maleah Pearson on their team for next year. She announced her verbal offer in 2014 but was injured a lot since then not competing at all in 2017. They still honored their commitment to her.

On the other hand, it happens the other way around as well -Gymnasts will switch commitment for one reason or another. Bailey Key to Alabama instead of Florida.
http://www.insidegymnastics.com/news-features/interview-bailie-key/

 

[tomtnt]

It's one of those things where most coaches will say they hate the game but have to play it since everyone else is doing it.

IE, if all your top programs are committing girls as 8th and 9th graders, the worry is that if you wait until Jr. year, all the best girls will be gone.

On the flip side, with this rule schools will also be offering in a poorly informed environment as well so perhaps the rule is to deter to the best of the NCAA's ability to enforce, the whole cycle of very early offers and very early verbals.

Perhaps you can shine some light on this, I have a real hard time grasping the need for NCAA programs to provide early offers as part of some need to have roster stability going forward. These programs typically have four year gymnasts so there is little in the way of roster instability from that angle and considering how much can change over a 3-5 year period with an early verbal commit such as injuries or plateauing of skills, what is the necessity of the early offer?

 

[Deleted member 18037]

To be fair, most schools won't just completely drop the gymnast when a better prospect comes along down the road. If they do, word gets around and those coaches will find it harder to recruit down the road. That's not to say it doesn't happen. For example, Cal recently announced Maleah Pearson on their team for next year. She announced her verbal offer in 2014 but was injured a lot since then not competing at all in 2017. They still honored their commitment to her.

On the other hand, it happens the other way around as well -Gymnasts will switch commitment for one reason or another. Bailey Key to Alabama instead of Florida.
http://www.insidegymnastics.com/news-features/interview-bailie-key/

I am sure there are examples on either side.

And I am also sure the power and scales are on the schools side to the point of unfairness.

 

[wallinbl]

On the other hand, it happens the other way around as well -Gymnasts will switch commitment for one reason or another. Bailey Key to Alabama instead of Florida.
http://www.insidegymnastics.com/news-features/interview-bailie-key/

To be fair, Florida had a coaching change in between her commitment and decommitment.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

To be fair, Florida had a coaching change in between her commitment and decommitment.

Again, pointing out early commitment is not a good thing. Yep change can happen at any time but the more time passing increases the likelihood of change happening.

 

[tomtnt]

wow, the Lacrosse rules are even more strict going 1 step further than the gymnastics one.

"The rule blocks all recruiting contact — including in-person, phone and electronic communications — between college lacrosse coaches and prospective student-athletes and their families until Sept. 1 of their junior year."

I guess at camps, they can instruct but not recruit.. lol, good luck with that.

This is not just a gymnastics thing...........

This is about young children having time to make life decisions.

http://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/ncaa-passes-new-recruiting-legislation

And as I said before the schools are looking out for themselves, not the athletes.
Always have and sadly always will.

 

[mndl]

This is not just a gymnastics thing...........

This is about young children having time to make life decisions.

http://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/ncaa-passes-new-recruiting-legislation

And as I said before the schools are looking out for themselves, not the athletes.
Always have and sadly always will.

Two of my boys play lacrosse and this has been a huge concern for several years among high school, club and college coaches. I'm not surprised they passed the rules, most seemed to be on board with it.

 

[MyrtleWarbler]

Earlier this spring I attended a conference gym meet at my alma mater which was hosting a big gym alum reunion. For my class, it had been exactly 20 years so a bunch of us who graduated around that time made plans to go. It was amazing to see them all. First morning in the hotel a young girl comes down the steps with a MyUniv Gymnastics shirt on. I said "oh wow, are you a younger sibling of a team member?" She said no, she was verbally committed. Visiting campus for the first time. Sophomore. Say what? All of us has-beens agreed that things sure have changed and that seemed crazy! So much can change in a few years. What if she gets hurt or loses interest or skills drop? This was an interesting thread to read. I don't coach at a gym cranking out NCAA girls. (Yet!) But I've been on the other side. I don't like early commitment at all.