As the original poster questioning the veracity of the early verbal in instances of coaching changes, I do take well the point that this alone is not a reason to decline a spot IF the school is first rate and the kid and parent are decided on it. Offer me a spot for my 8 year old at any Ivy and I'd jump to secure it.

I only suggested it as a reason to evaluate. UVa is a good school, but is not an Ivy or a Stanford. The coach is in his 60s and that school has a recent history of running long tenured coaches out to rejuvenate a program. Women's basketball, baseball, swimming, track and field all had legendary coaches shown a door as they got to a certain age. Dom Starsia retires in 2 years, then what? At that point the new coach may look at the 2017, 2018 & 2019 commits and say you must be kidding me...I take over a program and can't have my own recruits on the field for the next 3-4 years?!? I am just saying it is an outcome all families need to handicap. I'd be pretty concerned if my family was offered some economics needed to have a kid attend a school, and then lose that in 2 years. I don't believe that a coach taking over a first flight NCAA program is going to risk his own job without at least re-evaluating the spot lacrosse and the money and possibly re-auditioning recruits to earn it from him. This is just a factor, and one that has NEVER BEEN ONE BEFORE because this is the first time 9th graders have committed verbally end masse. Just saying. Anyone in disagreement I can understand.

Does anyone know what happened at Penn State? Were kids and families told the deal is no longer the deal when Tamborini took over? If it is true, there is precedent to make that approach more comfortable for the next coaches taking over a Bucknell, UVa, Hop, Penn...you name it.