When is too early, too early?

I can understand wanting to play for a major D1. Don't get me wrong. But why commit so early? Is this more of the Daddy's doings?

His stats don't appear to be overwehlming. Are his tools that much better? What happens if he doesn't progress over the next couple of years? Did his dad play for Georgia?

There's a stud in Florida who verballed to UF after frosh year. But the kid is a stud and his parents both went to Florida.

Projectability is the answer to that one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Georgia one of the programs that historically overrecruits as bad as anyone?

Yep. IMO, they lead the country in that area.

While I strongly oppose (my opinion) very early verbals, who are we to say if this was a good or bad decision for this player?

So that would mean the verbal only means something to the player. With Georgia's history, they can walk away from the kid like they do many others each fall and spring. Just business as usual for them.

That takes the fun out of the recruiting process. There is an ego in this somewhere.

Interesting, a sophmore commit last year at one ACC withdrew his commitment and verballed to another ACC school. I find this odd as the recruiting process is supposed to stop after commitment.

Obviously the first choice was not the right fit for the player.

So I guess, in some cases, early committ can mean nothing.

I saw a lot of this last year in Central FL with kids my son's age. (Son is now a JR). Numerous high profile Sophs verbally commited to UCF after 10th grade.
My take?... there are few of these guys who will likely never step on a campus. Either that or they start the process all over again next summer before SR year.
I think it is just press coverage for the player. (I do NOT say this with any negative connotation)

Whether right or wrong... The recruiting cycle has changed and it will probably continue to change even more.

Regarding over recruiting at Georgia and other programs...

Georgia had 11 players drafted in 2009. Also, 6 of the high school players in their signing class were drafted. I would expect all of those who didn’t sign pro contracts to be on the UGA roster this year, unless they are injured or have other problems.

Not trying to stick up for anyone, but the programs that lose the most to the draft almost have to cover in case they lose a lot. Otherwise they would have a problem maintaining a top program. Also, have to count seniors from last year’s UGA roster (6 seniors last year), injuries, transfers, etc.

UGA has about 40 on their fall roster this year, that includes walk-ons. Their entire 2009 fall roster includes only 10 juniors and seniors. 30 or more are freshman and sophomores. Guess it looks like it was the right thing to have recruited so many. They needed them!

I think sometimes people see these big recruiting classes and automatically think the school is over-recruiting. Also, it should be mentioned that going to UGA is very much an economical choice for many, due to state help. So some might walk-on there, because it doesn’t cost much to do so.

I only mention this stuff, so that people might see two sides of the issue.

quote:

So I guess, in some cases, early committ can mean nothing.

I think that's the main jest of this whole "early commit" issue. It can be a one sided love affair and we all know a one sided love affair doesn't make for a happy marriage. As a parent I was excited about my son wanting to commit to a college but not nearly as excited as when a college committed to my son.

Georgia doesn't recruit anyone because of who their Dad might be. No doubt the kid is very good. As far as verbals changing, it happens all the time. Some programs respect them, others not so much -- and I know of no program that will not recruit a kid if the kid indicates he is still interested in overtures.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I find this odd as the recruiting process is supposed to stop after commitment.

There is no rule that states the recruiting process stops at any time other than after the NLI is signed.

Ever since the 80's signature phrase, "it's only business", there has been no regard for ethics ( a sliding scale with no begin point), or traditions. Only the letter of the rule/law, which obviously opens up a great deal of loophole and envelope edge finding.

PG is right though. There are a number of schools that turnover their rosters at a higher rate than others, and it's not always nefarious.

Just to be fair... We see many kids who end up decommitting from verbals and go elsewhere. In fact, we actually see that more often than the college changing their mind. Then again the player changing his mind is much more obvious to everyone.

I know that there is no rule that says the recruiting process must stop after verbal is given, but this is usually a message sent, I've decided where I want to go, stop calling.
This is an instate student going out of state, so not sure of all of the circumstances, plus there was a coaching change.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Just to be fair... We see many kids who end up decommitting from verbals and go elsewhere. In fact, we actually see that more often than the college changing their mind. Then again the player changing his mind is much more obvious to everyone.

That was really my thought as I was reading through this thread. Regardless of the sport, early "commits" are becoming more common. It's rare that I've seen schools back out, but fairly common that I've noticed players doing so. In my mind, committing early is similar to a player saying "you're my top choice right now.... subject to change". Personally, I don't care for the lesson that teaches a young person. You don't commit until you're committed and being a sophomore allows a whole lotta time for a change of mind.

College recruiters are starting earlier because someone, somewhere started doing it and the rest don't want to find all the top players already committed by the time they start. So they start early as well.

I think a part of that is access to information about the best players at a younger age than ever before. Players are showcased, scouted, and graded at younger and younger ages and the information is available to those who want it. It has become easier for coaches to identify the potential best of the best at a younger age. It follows that colleges will try to get those players to commit before their competition does.

I'm not necessarily against early committment, but I am strongly against decommittment. If a player asks himself, "would I switch if a better offer comes along?" and the answer is anything other than "I wouldn't switch for any other offer", then early committment would be the wrong thing to do IMO.

At some point, many players have to commit to less than their ideal situation, but I don't think that should ever happen before they play their junior year season.

When my son committed to his colleges there was NO public communications from the college indicating what had taken place UNTIL after the NLI was signed and back in their possession. I don't know if that was just his college or if all colleges did that. Is that still the way it is?

In D1 and D2, Bylaw 13.10.2 allows no public statement by a college other than to confirm that the player is being recruited until the NLI is signed. Since the college can't be present (it's a dead period) at the signing, it seems to me that it cannot know that the NLI has been signed until the NLI is returned to the college.

So I'd say the situation hasn't changed from your son's experience.