WAG 8th Grader Verbally Committed Today. Class of 2023

[ann1245]

There are rules around camps though aren’t there? I didn’t think coaches could do more than coach. They aren’t supposed to talk recruiting at all — or did I make that up? (Which is entirely possible )

They can talk on the phone after. I’m sure Aburn is following the rules.

 

[gymbeam]

There are rules around camps though aren’t there? I didn’t think coaches could do more than coach. They aren’t supposed to talk recruiting at all — or did I make that up? (Which is entirely possible )

The camps are where they get seen and get to work with the coaches. Colleges can then follow up with the club coach about offers. And athletes can call the colleges at prearranged times and the coach can pick up the phone.

 

[FlippinLilysMom]

There are rules around camps though aren’t there? I didn’t think coaches could do more than coach. They aren’t supposed to talk recruiting at all — or did I make that up? (Which is entirely possible )

I believe they can interact with the gymnast but are not supposed to talk recruiting with them. But they can talk to the club coach and make the offer through them.

 

[gasrgoose]

If the gymnast, her parents and the university think its ok, what is the problem. They are the only ones who actually have something to gain or lose in this.

Regarding the on campus contact. I saw a Facebook that was worded to indicate there was possibly some improper contact/discussion at the camp. I was actually really surprised to see the post. Clearly the person posting is unaware of NCAA rules and was excited about the camp and Auburn. It's also possible that the post wasn't factual and was an interpretation by someone who wasn't there. But it didn't sound like what was described would be ok with the NCAA rules.

 

[FlippinLilysMom]

If the gymnast, her parents and the university think its ok, what is the problem. They are the only ones who actually have something to gain or lose in this.

Regarding the on campus contact. I saw a Facebook that was worded to indicate there was possibly some improper contact/discussion at the camp. I was actually really surprised to see the post. Clearly the person posting is unaware of NCAA rules and was excited about the camp and Auburn. It's also possible that the post wasn't factual and was an interpretation by someone who wasn't there. But it didn't sound like what was described would be ok with the NCAA rules.

I think I know the post you are referring to and from what was posted I think it's ok, the gymnast was just getting advice on how keep coaches updated on her skills. And the advice may not have come directly from the college coach to the gymnast, but from the college coach to the club coach who then relayed that information to the gymnast.

 

[FlippinLilysMom]

If the gymnast, her parents and the university think its ok, what is the problem. They are the only ones who actually have something to gain or lose in this.

And I couldn't agree more with this statement!

 

[Flyaway]

If the gymnast, her parents and the university think its ok, what is the problem. They are the only ones who actually have something to gain or lose in this.

I believe the problem is that it sets a poor precedence.

 

[gymbeam]

Like I said upthread, I feel the main problem is the craziness it encourages in pushing to level 10 soooo early

 

[gasrgoose]

I think I know the post you are referring to and from what was posted I think it's ok, the gymnast was just getting advice on how keep coaches updated on her skills. And the advice may not have come directly from the college coach to the gymnast, but from the college coach to the club coach who then relayed that information to the gymnast.

Good! I like Auburn and love that they have Brian Raschilla. He seems to be one of the good guys.

 

[gasrgoose]

I believe the problem is that it sets a poor precedence.

Like I said upthread, I feel the main problem is the craziness it encourages in pushing to level 10 soooo early

Ok, neither of these bother me. The precedence doesn't seem poor to me because the vast majority of these early commitments work out great. And I don't think the craziness to reach level 10 is driven by NCAA recruiting. I believe it's driven by a desire to reach the top of JO and by so many thinking they have a shot at elite.

 

[gymbeam]

Ok, neither of these bother me. The precedence doesn't seem poor to me because the vast majority of these early commitments work out great. And I don't think the craziness to reach level 10 is driven by NCAA recruiting. I believe it's driven by a desire to reach the top of JO and by so many thinking they have a shot at elite.

I totally think those are additional reasons. I also know our gym, which has no goals of elite, wants girls in level 10 by 7,8 or 9 grade for best shot at college. It’s definitely a reason, just not the sole reason.

 

[Flyaway]

Ok, neither of these bother me. The precedence doesn't seem poor to me because the vast majority of these early commitments work out great.

Well, not to be nitpicky, but you can't actually know if the majority work out "great". Maybe the commitments come to fruition, but no one really has any way of knowing if the school that a gymnast committed to as a 13 year old turns out to be the best fit for her as a 19-22 year old, aside from the gymnast herself. And I think that's what a lot of the concern mentioned above stems from, as well as the aforementioned contribution to the frenzy to progress quickly.

In the end, you're right, it ultimately only concerns the gymnast, her family and coaches. Hopefully for this particular gymnast things do work out great.

 

[gymgal]

It's disheartening to hear that people think that someone will have the exact same academic experience at one school vs another one. The mission of universities is to provide an education and to further knowledge, not to support athletics. It's truly horrifying that anyone thinks a 12 or 13 year old can make an informed decision about what university will best support her future mental/academic development and potential career choices.

While you won't get the same exact experience in two different colleges, the experiences are more than likely going to be similar, particularly when considering the majority of the D1 gymnastics schools are large, state universities. Students all around the country choose colleges based on location, cost, particular activities or ability to get them into graduate school. I don't see any reason why athletics can be on that list as well. I agree that most students under 15/16 really don't have the knowledge base to truly pick the best school for them but often times it is a "dream" school for them in terms of gymnastics and they are willing to take the chance on the school in order to be part of their team. I don't think I would have allowed my dd to commit that early if she was poised for that possibility but I can see why other girls do.

If the gymnast, her parents and the university think its ok, what is the problem. They are the only ones who actually have something to gain or lose in this.

While I understand the families' decisions, as they feel the pressure to get that offer solidified just in case something happens (bad season, season ending injuries), I do feel they are not the only ones affected. Allowing colleges to offer so early closes the door to late blooming gymnasts who may be just as good/better than the early bloomers by the time jr/sr years roll around. Yes, the young ones usually have a lot more experience with their routines/skills but they also have the potential for more injuries and burn-out. I just don't see why the colleges, as a whole community, are so eager to make offers so early. Why not make a policy to continue to observe from a distance until jr year when you have a larger group of potentials?

Ok, neither of these bother me. The precedence doesn't seem poor to me because the vast majority of these early commitments work out great. And I don't think the craziness to reach level 10 is driven by NCAA recruiting. I believe it's driven by a desire to reach the top of JO and by so many thinking they have a shot at elite.

But do they really work out? On the surface, it seems like they do but would these girls make the same decision if they were encouraged (by the system) to wait until they are closer to graduation and know more about what they want? Do these girls have regrets? Would they admit them if they did?

Given that there are, on average, over 250 gyms represented at JO Nationals and only a fraction of which are elite gyms, I am not buying that the push to get to L10 as early as possible is for elite. Most gyms have no desire to produce elites. From talks here on CB both from coaches and parents, the rush to L10 is both for college recruiting (4 years at 10) and to learn the big skills as young as possible to reduce fears, be able to spot smaller gymnasts on their skills, and not have to combat the social options that begin in middle school - dances, hanging with friends, parties, other sports school events...

 

[gasrgoose]

You both are correct, it is difficult to know "they work out great". I should have said they work out fine or something along those lines. Or they don't seem to work out any differently than other athletes or other college students. College is tough, a huge transition and athletics adds to that so it's not unusual if it doesn't work out in general. But I don't hear or know of many early commits who drop out, switch teams/schools or have a terrible experience (all the ones I know have flourished). That leads me to believe there isn't a problem. I have a child who is a D1 athlete (different sport) and another child who's a regular college student. Both of these have seen teammates/friends who's college decisions (made while seniors) have not worked out. In my small circle I would say early commits have a higher percentage of success than regular college students and than other athletes (particularly football players).

I don't see the rush to level 10 as a problem regardless of the reason. But I do believe the rush to level 10 seems at least partially driven by the dream of elite, even at gyms that don't have elite programs. Look at all the kids participating in TOPS, why would they participate if they didn't have a dream/desire of elite. In our area some of the largest TOPS programs are gyms that haven't produced elites. So many think they have the hidden gem that will be their first elite. And it might happen every year with a gym or 2. But with gymnastic's levels system it seems natural for there to be a desire to get the top of the levels. Maybe I'm wrong about this assumption. In men's gymnastics is there a rush to level 10? I'm not sure if it's a good comparison because of the strength component needed for men's and that doesn't develop until boys are older. Men also seem to compete at a higher age than women (excluding Oksana Chosovitina).

 

[raenndrops]

I think the only thing that will stop the rush to level 10 and thus early verbals would be if the NGB (USAG at this point) would change the minimum ages for levels.
Currently:
L1 = 4
L2 = 5
L3 = 6
L4, L5, L6, and L7 = 7
L8 and L9 = 8
L10 = 9
To prevent 8th grade or earlier recruiting (we are talking 12-13 year olds), change these minimum ages:
L1 = 4
L2 = 5
L3 = 6
L4 = 7
L5 and L6 (because they are allowed to be competed at the same time or L6 can be skipped) = 8
L7 = 9
L8 = 10
L9 = 11
L10 = 12

 

[josie55]

I think the only thing that will stop the rush to level 10 and thus early verbals would be if the NGB (USAG at this point) would change the minimum ages for levels.
Currently:
L1 = 4
L2 = 5
L3 = 6
L4, L5, L6, and L7 = 7
L8 and L9 = 8
L10 = 9
To prevent 8th grade or earlier recruiting (we are talking 12-13 year olds), change these minimum ages:
L1 = 4
L2 = 5
L3 = 6
L4 = 7
L5 and L6 (because they are allowed to be competed at the same time or L6 can be skipped) = 8
L7 = 9
L8 = 10
L9 = 11
L10 = 12

I'm not sure that would change anything, actually. A 12 y/o is/can be in 6th grade, so they could still be in their 3rd year of L10 by 8th grade. Plus, I'm not sure I think it makes much sense to arbitrarily hold someone back, plus it would probably just put elite kids that much further ahead for college recruiting, and/or push more kids into elite.

I'm not sure I'm *that* bothered by early recruiting, or at least any more than anything else as it relates to the college admissions process. While I understand that it's frustrating and maybe stressful for "late bloomers," seems like qualified athletes still find a way to get scholarship spots on NCAA teams. Perhaps balancing out the downside of younger kids having to think about college early, might be the upside of them NOT having to think about it as much later on? Maybe it actually takes some pressure off?

While I love the idea of kids being so mature as seniors in HS that they can carefully select just the right school for them in terms of fit, programs, location, etc. I have to wonder if it's not sort of just as much of a shot in the dark for the average HS senior as it is for mature 9th grade gymnasts? Who knows.

 

[raenndrops]

Plus, I'm not sure I think it makes much sense to arbitrarily hold someone back,

We arbitrarily hold kids back from Level 4 even if they have a kip and a beam cartwheel by the age of 5. Pretty much any minimum age is arbitrarily holding kids back ... in gymnastics and in other sports and in school.
I was arbitrarily held out of kindergarten because I was too young when I was ready. Instead, they had to find something to do with me for another year. I was almost held out of football because I was 17 days too young. It took a petition to get me in (and I ended up being quarterback of the year that year against BOYS who were up to 4 years older). In baseball, our little league said a kid had to be at least 8 to play. If they were younger, they had to play minor league. One of my friends was good enough for little league when he was 7-1/2, but he had to wait because he wouldn't turn 8 by the arbitrary cut off date.
"Arbitrary" ages are set for a variety of reasons. These gymnasts could still train higher than they compete and move up as soon as they are age eligible. In addition to putting gymnasts at L10 a little later, it would prevent coaches (who just don't want to "deal with compulsories" ... and yes, they do exist) from scoring a 7 year old out of both L4 and L5 to have them compete L7 at 7 ... whether they are physically, emotionally, and mentally ready for that or not.

 

[2G1B]

For the guys, they aren't even allowed to compete L10 until they are "15" (in quotations because some of the boys get caught by the cut off, so they are actually 14 for the entire season, but USAG considers them 15 since the cut off is May 31 of that season). I don't agree with the upper end age limits that they have in MAG, but the lower end actually seem pretty good IMO. For the most part a boy can't be a L10 until 8th grade at the earliest (while an 8th grader isn't 15, many parents decide to hold boys back to start kindergarten a year later when they have a summer birthday, even May. So you have some boys who do turn 15 at the tail end of 8th grade. Those boys would be able to do L10 as 8th graders).

 

[skschlag]

For the guys, they aren't even allowed to compete L10 until they are "15" (in quotations because some of the boys get caught by the cut off, so they are actually 14 for the entire season, but USAG considers them 15 since the cut off is May 31 of that season). I don't agree with the upper end age limits that they have in MAG, but the lower end actually seem pretty good IMO. For the most part a boy can't be a L10 until 8th grade at the earliest (while an 8th grader isn't 15, many parents decide to hold boys back to start kindergarten a year later when they have a summer birthday, even May. So you have some boys who do turn 15 at the tail end of 8th grade. Those boys would be able to do L10 as 8th graders).

True. The 15 yo 8th grader would be rare. We waited a year to put D in school, so he turned 15 the summer before 9th grade,and competed 10 then. for 99% of boys, 4 years of L10 is the max.

 

[doubleback9999]

I know this early recruiting happens at many of the D1 schools, and that it is a systemic problem rather than an isolated incident. However, with this recruit and the Hailey John announcement earlier, Auburn is standing out as the biggest offender. I wish all the best to this young recruit but condolences to those who are trying to play by the rules and contact schools for opportunities that remain when their athletes are juniors in high school.