Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
While intentions are good, I'm not seeing this passing as it is near impossible to enforce. What if a kid has a brother or sister that plays for a school (Junior, go stand over there)? What if a kid is visiting a school and runs into the coach (Sorry, kid, you're ineligible and I'm gonna be sanctioned)? How can a coach run a camp with kids who haven't entered their junior year (uh, they can't. . .good bye assistant coaches!!!)? If a coach isn't returning your call, it's for a reason and for a reason that may change down the road...no amount of rules is ever going to level the playing field. Look at the list of kids who have committed in the 19s and 20s. Have you seen these "kids?" They are not going to get worse, they are going to try harder, they are not going to get smaller, they are going to hit the gym and challenge themselves to be the best. Educationally, they are going to some of the best schools in the country. I don't know one kid who is lacrosse only, in fact, this has freed up our son's time to play other sports because we're NOT going to every single event, esp. in the fall. I don't know one kid (or parent) who hasn't enjoyed the entire process from start to finish, including their commitment. The "no contact at all" crowd either aren't aware of how this works, or are being blinded by perceived injustices they've endured ("injustices" that may correct themselves down the road), all so that "someone will remember the children." Will kids change commitments? Sure. . .but it will be for reasons that you and I really don't need to care, worry and fret about, i.e. mind your own business. The kids are alright, and are doing pretty darn well for themselves. . .let's keep the nanny-ism to a minimum, please.


I'd say that the fact that it will go before the NCAA for consideration pretty much counters all of your outright dismissal of the idea - while there are clearly those that are on the extreme end of the either side, there are plenty in the middle that are weighing the pros and cons (and BTW, not being able to enforce such a policy is not a "pro"). Add in that there are plenty of notable figures deeply involved in the sport at levels that exceed the average parent and their friends et al, and it is apparent that many consider it a problem worth dealing with.


I'd put it passing at medium to low. The NCAA has no intentions of actively policing a non-revenue generating sport beyond what is already in place. And agreed, inability to enforce is not a "pro," but if you're going to say "no contact at all" until junior year, then you have to go the full monty: no calls, no visits, no camps (the poster above is wrong, camps are allowed), no scouting at tournaments, nothing (except your club coach being the liaison because that's not contact!). I don't think that's unreasonable. Isn't that what happened pre-club? Otherwise, you are now creating a system in which club lacrosse becomes the liaison between coaches and players at tournaments and camps and Xander's twitter feed is miraculously blowing up the first three weeks of junior year. . .and the players and coaches have had one, maybe two conversations before they're bumping up against the NLI signing day. Of course, you could do away with club, but they how would coaches know who to scout? And who would take our money???