Thank you Quint for adding some common sense to the equation
Are these questions significantly easier to answer for a 17 year-old than a 15/16 year-old?
Originally, the concern with early commitments was that a freshman or sophomore could not effectively decide on a college as they were not sufficiently developed to know their academic interests.
Now, we have to worry about things from a coach's perspective? If a coach does not believe he or she cannot sufficiently analyze a recruit, isn't the better choice to back away from the recruitment wars for freshmen and sophomores?
Oh, wait, we cannot allow our program to fall behind. But what about Quint's questions? Ah heck, they don't matter anyway.
Get the point?
I think the coaches view recruiting a kid at 15 or 16 as a free option. If the kid develops into the player/student that they anticipate, great. If not, they can terminate the offer or throw the kid onto the roster where he will never see the field. Most schools carry a roster of 40+ kids, many of whom are receiving no money from the program; hence the free option concept. It is probably safer for a coach to recruit a younger kid and gamble on their success rather than miss someone.
