Player in Limbo

Discussion in 'General Softball Discussions' started by Strohbro, Aug 26, 2018.

  1. Strohbro

    Strohbro Active Member

    coachtomv likes this.
  2. 22dad

    22dad Member

    There may be a lesson here for all of us. What may have been done differently to avoid signing with the wrong school?
  3. LineDrive

    LineDrive New Member

    Signed way too early!
  4. Stedman00

    Stedman00 Active Member

    signed in fall of senior year. not really that early.
    Tam H and Strohbro like this.
  5. 0203bbmom

    0203bbmom Member

    Verballed too soon, but with the new rules, hopefully that helps to eliminate these issues.
  6. tjsmize3

    tjsmize3 Active Member

    Just curious how???

    With the old system a kid could at least get on campus for an unofficial visit prior to 9/1 of their junior year which may help pick these sorts of things up a little earlier. Coaches were permitted to talk with the commit whenever they saw fit (during the appropriate time periods), so if there was radio silence you would think that might have raised a red-flag. With the new rule changes, no one can speak with a college coach or come on campus (other than a camp) in any sort of recruiting capacity whatsoever. So, essentially the amount of information you can glean from a softball program prior to making your decision (at the absolute earliest) on 9/1 of the junior year is severely limited. I think if anything kids will be more rushed when they have 20 schools making them time sensitive offers on 9/1 and feel pressured to make a quick decision or lose the offer. No way 1 year will be enough time to vet each program and coaching staff unless you are getting only a couple offers... and even then scheduling unofficial visits and phone conversations with the coach will not happen quickly.

    These issues happen every year with recruits albeit a very small amount. This just happens to be one of those cases where this particular athlete would have been better off had she not had to sign an NLI.
    Olentangy Joel likes this.
  7. 0203bbmom

    0203bbmom Member

    I would think that if a 14/15 year old verbals, their interest in pursing other schools, getting to know other programs lessens. So if my DD verballed at 14, I highly doubt she would have allowed herself the opportunity to explore more options. The early verbal is a way to hook these young kids. Without the early verbal being a reality now, these KIDS are forced to keep options open longer. I am a fan of the new rules and now the players are able to explore options longer. This is my opinion.
    CARDS and City Slicker like this.
  8. tjsmize3

    tjsmize3 Active Member

    bbmom, honestly time may prove your view/opinion to be the correct one. Who knows?

    I'm definitely old school lol and used to the old system having been through it twice now with my daughters and multiple other times with my players. What I liked was the ability to have real conversations with the coaches at an early stage of the recruiting process and not have to try to navigate through 3 yrs of research in 1 year. Prior to 9/1, the amount of real information you are going to be able to get from these programs to determine your fit is really limited... no matter how motivated you may be. There is something about looking a coach eye to eye and hearing how they handle questions that are important to you that gives you a very good idea of how they will treat you when you become part of their program. Interacting with players during unofficials was another great way to see if the coaches words matched up to what they players were saying about the program. Although I never saw what you allude to ("hooking" young players and overzealous conduct by coaching staffs) I'm not denying that it exists... maybe the changes will help in that capacity. I'll give you that.

    Bottom line though is that in this case the player did not investigate the committed program more in depth during a time period when she could have and also could have backed out... i.e. the verbal commitment period. No one should commit to any program at any time until they have done enough research to make that commitment comfortably. Having less time to do that (less time between committing verbally and signing) I don't think leads to more informed decisions. I think until you have been through this process a time or two it's easier to see college coaches as reckless and all 14-15 year old girls (and their families) as sheep being lead to the slaughter. After going through it you will see this is the vast minority of cases. Recruiting is always going to have a good side and a bad side. Here you see a rare and unfortunate case where the NLI did not help the athlete. Hopefully, she will be allowed 4 yrs eligibility.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
    0203bbmom and Olentangy Joel like this.
  9. manitoudan

    manitoudan Active Member

    Bad look for a struggling program. I dont know all the facts , just looks bad on the surface . Akron gains close to nothing by not releasing her .
    wboggs54, b lesh, Strohbro and 3 others like this.
  10. snoman76

    snoman76 Member

    Is this standard practice to not release a kid or just Akrons?
  11. City Slicker

    City Slicker Active Member

    Yes and no is it bad for Akron. It looks bad but who can blame them? They're trying to build something and put lots of time, energy, money, etc of recruiting a kid that they feel can help build the program. And to see her back out and commit to a school in their conference.

    This is not uncommon when kids de-commit or transfer within the conference.

    I may be in the minority on this but I can't blame Akron in this situation. If the player had chosen a school outside of the MAC and Akron still didn't release her, I'd have a different opinion.
  12. Long Baller

    Long Baller Active Member

    I wonder what this young lady is going to major in? Hopefully, Miami's program is as highly regarded as Akron's, and she took that into consideration as well.
  13. Strohbro

    Strohbro Active Member

  14. Strohbro

    Strohbro Active Member

    She was given the opportunity to look at other schools per Akron. They did not put a limit on where she could look. If they didn't want her to be in the MAC, they could have stipulated that. This is nothing but a frickin joke.
  15. CARDS

    CARDS Active Member

    All good points.
    Also as the ladies are exploring they do need guidence from parents or guardians. The HS will allow college visits as excused AB if paperwork is completed correctly.

    Over the years I have seen this happen a lot. Sometimes its the schools bad, other times the player/parent.
    It looks like it will work out for her even if she has to sit a year Miami is an upgrade all the way around.
    0203bbmom likes this.
  16. Run26

    Run26 Active Member

    I don't condone players drinking but don't be naive and assume this isn't going on. Most of these girls could be of age and legally doing nothing wrong. Heck if I only won 4 games I'd probably drink too.

    If this is one of the main reasons she decided to back out of her NLI then she's probably in for a big surprise. It goes on everywhere and probably occurred on her recruiting trip. Just because its going on it doesn't mean she has to partake.
    HITTER23, lewam3, PJM and 3 others like this.
  17. Stedman00

    Stedman00 Active Member

    Drinking alcohol immediately prior to games is wrong at any level of play.
    Strohbro likes this.
  18. finfan365

    finfan365 Active Member

    I believe this was the image submitted in the appeal.


    In all seriousness, good luck to the young lady in her appeal. I don't see what Akron has to gain, unless they feel it will reinforce their prospects commitments in the future.
    tschromm3 likes this.
  19. Stretch

    Stretch Member

    The drinking is common at every school, some worse than others. Miami was in the news last year about it. Isn't Miami kind of in Lakota West's back yard ? Sounds like someone didn't want to be that far from home.
  20. Bean2019

    Bean2019 Member

    Well it certainly will give some nice motivation when they play each other over the coming years!!

    Nothing for U. of Akron to gain here, but to punish a student-athlete who scorned them. They are not upholding the policies and principles of the NLI. In fact they are very hypocritical if they claim they are. They just committed to a player that got out of her NLI with St Francis University (SFU). Glad to see SFU took the high road. Can't say the same for U of Akron.

    I doubt this is the case but I would hope Akron would be accountable for the athletic scholarship money that was committed and can't redistribute it if they hold her to the NLI (should work both ways).

Share This Page