What do you think the NCAA should do about verbals?

[NumeroUno]

Let's hear what you think

[Blind Squirrel]

The NCAA should continue to not acknowledge verbals. Any action on their part would just demonstrate how powerless they are WRT verbals. Year after year parents/kids across the nation aren't going to band together and agree on a verbal date. The only way things will change is if college coaches agree and then honor that agreement. The irony is that the coaches of the top programs would likely have the most to gain if verbals started later and on a specified date. Less risk. Fewer mistakes. Especially if scholarships become guaranteed 4 year deals.

Cynical Squirrel

[ontheblack]

The NCAA should continue to not acknowledge verbals. Any action on their part would just demonstrate how powerless they are WRT verbals. Year after year parents/kids across the nation aren't going to band together and agree on a verbal date. The only way things will change is if college coaches agree and then honor that agreement. The irony is that the coaches of the top programs would likely have the most to gain if verbals started later and on a specified date. Less risk. Fewer mistakes. Especially if scholarships become guaranteed 4 year deals.

Cynical Squirrel

I am now in agreement with the Blind One. Over the weekend the kid's coach had a discussion with the coach from a West Coast D1 school about verbals. Coach laughed and said he saw online recently that a kid verbaled to his school, but his only comments to the kid's coach and/or family have been that they were watching her - no verbal offer was ever extended by the coach to anyone with regard to the kid.

[jonriv]

The NCAA should continue to not acknowledge verbals. Any action on their part would just demonstrate how powerless they are WRT verbals. Year after year parents/kids across the nation aren't going to band together and agree on a verbal date. The only way things will change is if college coaches agree and then honor that agreement. The irony is that the coaches of the top programs would likely have the most to gain if verbals started later and on a specified date. Less risk. Fewer mistakes. Especially if scholarships become guaranteed 4 year deals.

Cynical Squirrel

I am now in agreement with the Blind One. Over the weekend the kid's coach had a discussion with the coach from a West Coast D1 school about verbals. Coach laughed and said he saw online recently that a kid verbaled to his school, but his only comments to the kid's coach and/or family have been that they were watching her - no verbal offer was ever extended by the coach to anyone with regard to the kid.

I have heard about that kind of thing too- besides stroking egos, I can not see why anyone would do that?

[artomatic]

Coach laughed and said he saw online recently that a kid verbaled to his school, but his only comments to the kid's coach and/or family have been that they were watching her.

Oh crap, that doesn't count?

[anonlooker]

The NCAA should continue to not acknowledge verbals. Any action on their part would just demonstrate how powerless they are WRT verbals. Year after year parents/kids across the nation aren't going to band together and agree on a verbal date. The only way things will change is if college coaches agree and then honor that agreement. The irony is that the coaches of the top programs would likely have the most to gain if verbals started later and on a specified date. Less risk. Fewer mistakes. Especially if scholarships become guaranteed 4 year deals.

Cynical Squirrel

I agree, but don't think the coaches will police this on their own. They created it and continue to work the system as-is with no sign of backing off. It's unlikely they will agree to some kind of honor system that mandates JR year verbals, as it would only take one (or the mere suspicion of one) cheater to bring the whole thing down again.

While the NCAA can't really prevent the verbals, they can set standards with regard to NLI's and scholarships. They could, and should, enact rules that would effectively cause coaches to become more prudent in their dealings with recruits.

A few things they should do, IMO:

Allow scholarship guarantees up to 5 years - 100%, 93%, 50% etc etc. School can increase the amount but can not decrease the amount.

If a player with a multi-year guarantee is cut, the school still pays the scholarship amount, but only half of the guarantee counts against the total number of allowed scholarships.

On deals less than 4 years, say 1 year, the school may elect to renew the deal for a 2nd, 3rd 4th year at the same (or better) terms as the original deal. If the school does not renew the deal, or offers less than the original deal, the player may agree to the lesser deal, or elect to opt out and switch schools without restriction. IOW if you agree to 50% you are locked in at 50%, you can't transfer to take a 100% offer from another school.

Increase the number of scholarships. Coach's salaries are going up, and facilities are being upgraded across the country at a cost well into 6 and 7 figures. So trade a few (mostly empty) new bleacher seats for more education funds.

Allow official visits beginning the summer between HS Soph and Jr year. Schools should recruit on their own dime, not on the parents.

[hit4power]

Just for some more debate...

1) Why not make softball a "head count" sport a la football, basketball, volleyball, tennis, gymnastics, where roster size is capped and more/most? of the scholarships are full rides. IMO, one thing that makes recruiting more complicated in softball is trying to compare offers from various schools of differing amounts and makeup. If all the offers were the same or closer to the same, would this simplify the system?

2) Why not move up the signing date? One reason verbals exist is b/c the NLI signing date is fall of senior year and coaches want to lock up their players sooner than that. Let's move it up to end of sophomore year and put some teeth in it, like anonlooker suggested.

[Kirt]

I think the problem with early verbals is that you're asking kids who have barely (maybe) figured out how to get to class in high-school to make a decision about where they want to finish their education six or seven years in the future. It's a tough enough choice when you're starting your Senior year! And hey, I even got it wrong then!

I don't think there is much the NCAA can do to stop early verbals, but moving it into the Sophomore year just seems to benefit the schools more than the kids. What I would support is allowing official visits to be taken in the student's Junior year, as perhaps this would allow some $$$ challenged kids who end up verbaling sight unseen to hold off a bit longer and at least get to see the place before making that commitment.

In the long run, I think the softball early verbal is going to be just like it is in football; you commit, you uncommit..., and if you're lucky you end up with three LOIs at the early signing period and you'll pick one just like the old days. So I think the problem will eventually correct itself.