US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys 2017 Fall 2013/Summer 2014

Now that this sport has reached a lowest common denominator recruiting kids before they enter high school, it would not be a bad suggestion for the NCAA to make a rule on commitments timetables like they have with NLI's.

A committed kid in any sport cannot sign a National Letter of Intent until December of his/her senior year. That is when it becomes official with a grant-in-aid student athlete scholarship.

I would propose that the NCAA place into rule that member institutions cannot formally or informally offer out scholarships or commitments of any kind until one calendar year before the NLI date for the class. December of their junior year.

Before the lunatics jump in with calling everyone who is not in for early recruiting a loser, etc., think about what this really does and what impact it will have. For starters you can't tell NCAA lacrosse coaches to not evaluate kids early, and they'd be doing it with your talented 2017 and now 2018 kids anyways. At the coaches' convention in Baltimore this past Fall, all of the usual suspects were preaching for some curbing on early recruiting. The most vocal were the worst offenders starting with Starsia and Petro. In summary, they debated and generally agreed early recruiting extremes were getting too extreme without defining what extreme is and agreed something had to be done. Then they all agreed that the biggest problem is they could not trust each other to abide by a gentlemen's agreement because they were all admittedly terrible about following that in prior attempts. They they got tired and were hungry and wanted to retire to adjourn to lunch, and that was the end of it.

What we are seeing now will continue no matter what reforms eventually come. This the coaches in lawn chairs at tournaments and showcases, the NCAA campus prospect team camps, the NCAA campus prospect days, kids doing highlight videos and sending them in, "unofficial" visits of kids to the campus and athletic facilities and NCAA coaches being tethered to the club and HS coaches via text and calls to speak on kids would continue at this or a worse rate. Again, if the coaches want to evaluate early they will one way or next anyways and the clubs, high schools and families all encourage that through consumer behavior.

But if you put in one plain rule stating no OFFERS can be made until December of the junior year, it would be good for the sports and the business of sports. This includes at least the following benefits:

1. Clubs can remain relevant. Right now, if I were the owner of a strong club like Dukes, LI Express, Crabs I would be really concerned if I will be relevant in a year or two. If kids commit as rising ninth graders, who needs the club? It will start to look silly when club websites show lists of freshmen commits who dropped their club for their prep school Summer team which has been a trend in recent 2 years, or to just do showcases and train in the Summer.

2. Hotbed area prep schools / coaches can look like less of a joke. Right now if I were the coach of a $30K a year or more prep school in Philly Main line, MIAA or IAC school, I would be really concerned if my lacrosse families would really want to pay that freight for prep school to help place their kids at NCAA programs if for the best players it is happening in ninth grade before they hit the field. Public school teams are lifting country wide and in hotbeds, and let's face it the Philly, MIAA and IAC schools are not Deerfield or Andover type places academically. Lacrosse keeps the money till running.

3. College coaches win big money wise. Team camps and prospect days are a gold mine for NCAA programs and coaching staff compensation. But really, if UNC and UVa are "full" for rising tenth graders and have long since been full for rising eleventh graders, what lacrosse consumers are bone stupid enough to shell out cash and time to enroll their kid in these things. UNCA and UVa each have had very lucrative Summer team camps for years. Now who would want to go? Teams or families that bite on those camps stating other NCAA coaches will be there watching too? Those same coaches go to everything else, so that value proposition is worth nothing to the lacrosse consumers.

4. The NCAA admissions offices retain integrity and a standard. UPenn committed kids with one semester of high school grades. Princeton committed a kid just out of ninth grade. The bargain is not solid enough for the admissions offices to do this for non-revenue sports. Some kids let grades slip or can't score on SATs and the commitment is gone, so why make one without the baseline data needed? And that is the least of it. What admissions director wants some lacrosse coach asking him/her to look past something else God forbid like a drug or alcohol related incident or arrest, suspension or expulsion from a prep school, etc.? What admissions officer would even want to risk being in that position?

5. The families and kids don't lose. It is still a 12.5 scholarship sport with roster spots to give each year. Instead of a verbal commitment, a talented 2017 would be getting indications from his club and HS coaches that he is on track for a spot and is being recruited by schools. The best players will take the scholarships and the spots anyways in the end. If you are one of the best there is not a need to worry reform is coming to take your dream spot.

6. Mandating that OFFERS cannot go until December of eleventh grade would, I believe, greatly reduce the "reclassified" game theory families are buying into for eighth and ninth grade. Ok, we all reach Malcolm Gladwell's book with keen attention to the chapter about the hockey players being born in January through March and having an age advantage. The book was referring to 5-7 year old hockey players getting a permanent advantage by being able to play for clubs and get coaching early. Lacrosse has no such limitations. All kids can play somewhere, and being a year older makes less difference in the later parts of high school and beyond. Families also save that extra year of $30K-$50K prep tuition or can save that option for a PG year if an NCAA coach really wants them a year later.

Who loses if this happens? Who does not win if this does not happen?