It is a meeting place for all lacrosse meatheads. Is there another kind?

Is this thread just a conversation between two LAX meatheads?

I don't believe the counseling technique will work. The whole world to a kid who committed early is going to that school if it is a top program. Not belonging on the field when they get there is something a kid can live with. Whether the new UVA coach accommodates that is anyone's guess. It's going to be a very interesting summer after this season for that program.

I don't know the history here, but did this get anywhere?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-26/sports/bal-ncaa-proposals-would-deregulate-college-lacrosse-recruiting-20121225_1_forry-smith-ncaa-proposals-contact-recruits

Anonymous wrote:What happens to all the UVA 2017, 2018 and 2019 commits when Starsia is out after this season? His contract is up and the AD didn't renew him with a year left. In recent 15 years a lame duck contract year is a polite pink slip in Charlottesville. Do the commitments count or can the new coach release the recruits?

It's a good question. They'll probably honor most of them, but may also use "new coaching staff, wouldn't you rather go play somewhere where the coaching staff is more invested in you but we'll honor the commitment to you if you insist on coming here and by the way did we mention the coaching staff is not invested in you? But we'll honor the commitment." And they may just straight up say, sorry, prior coaching staff, we're not bound to still others. In my view, the more direct message is better. If an early bloomer is now better suited for a low Division I program or a Division III program where he can play or even excel, better than being treated as excess baggage.

What happens to all the UVA 2017, 2018 and 2019 commits when Starsia is out after this season? His contract is up and the AD didn't renew him with a year left. In recent 15 years a lame duck contract year is a polite pink slip in Charlottesville. Do the commitments count or can the new coach release the recruits?

I think you are wrong on that. There already is a rule; no contact with a recruit until Sept 1st of junior year. The ways around the rule have been to communicate with kids or families via third parties and on campus events for underclassmen. which you could argue are not 'contact' and are 'instructional camps' but that's a bridge too far considering they're called prospect days. This legislation simply states no formal or informal recruiting until Sept 1 of junior year. All that remains are the new definitions to the no contact rule in place to prohibit these indirect forms of direct recruiting.

Compliance costs won't change. NCAA required colleges to have a compliance director employed on their own dime. The NCAA has no 'feet in the street' so it also doesn't involve more manpower on the NCAA side. The NCAA brings direct manpower and resources in motion when rule violations are reported. That could happen when NCAA members self report or if a third party reports an infraction. The first would be a compliance director at an NCAA member reporting a violation. The second would be a tip from anyone else and if credible the NCAA has discretion to investigate and sanction. The NCAA isn't in the business of getting it's shoes on to investigate lacrosse programs. That is trusted to the compliance directors to self police for non revenue sports. To the NCAA the stakes are too low to bother, but this issue is too much a bother to keep humoring.

The compliance directors at these colleges deal with the minor sports coaches closely enough. The coaches are told to quarantine any emails or other written communications into a compliance folder if they have any reason to believe responding to them would lead to a rule infraction. The compliance director will review those to decide which correspondences the coach could respond to with or without qualifiers. If this rule passes the added burden will be a beefier email folder filled with notes from club guys, kids and dads until those groups get the hint they won't be responded to. I suppose the badlands would be coach at XYZ talking to Cabell or Trig or whomever else about juniors and seniors and the club guy starts going on about the young stars in the program. But with a little common sense that isn't a big deal at all. Listening to that before hanging up isn't engaging a process to solicit or communicate with the kids or their brokers, and I am reasonably certain that these NCAA lacrosse coaches will be trained by compliance to read the riot act out to club guys or other third parties who call and attempt to engage a rule violation. Club guys will clam up quick because it will be in their self interest do to so otherwise the coaches will stop taking their calls.

Anyone who thinks this rule proposal will not be adopted in some form is either misinformed or is getting their info from 'a club guy who knows a guy'. If you'd like to think those guys are credible or can be trusted, you're on an island as it were.

You love to post your knowledge on this mom's forum, but the other guy is right. This is unlikely to be adopted. Although everyone wants it, the NCAA for years has moved away from LESS regulation. Putting these rules in place means the NCAA has to dedicate more resources to investigating possible recruiting infractions, prosecuting people who would violate these rules, etc.

They don't have the manpower and resources to do it, especially for a lesser sport like lacrosse. This proposal is not going to be adopted.

How do you figure that? The determination from here will be made by the SEA Committee headed by Scalise -- the same guy who wrote the anti early recruiting letter that got this whole referendum moving. He is the AD at Harvard and head of the committee that will recommend a rule change for vote this month at the NCAA convention. This isn't something the college lacrosse coaches have a vote on. After the convention there is a comment period, but those comments are open to other ADs. Not sure how you're seeing it as very unlikely. Is there more to this than what is in front of the NCAA now?

Anonymous wrote:It's looking fairly certain that the NCAA will adopt recruiting contact rules after their convention this month and implement it in April when rules committee vote comment period ends. If I were a 2020 parent I'd look forward to just club tournaments and a normal summer for kids with summer vacation and other activities. They're no even in high school yet. The early recruiting circus is going to get buried by new rules and I for one say never too soon for that. Let your son enjoy sports. He doesn't need to worry about college in 8th grade or do you need to.

Untrue this measure is unlikely to pass.

It's looking fairly certain that the NCAA will adopt recruiting contact rules after their convention this month and implement it in April when rules committee vote comment period ends. If I were a 2020 parent I'd look forward to just club tournaments and a normal summer for kids with summer vacation and other activities. They're no even in high school yet. The early recruiting circus is going to get buried by new rules and I for one say never too soon for that. Let your son enjoy sports. He doesn't need to worry about college in 8th grade or do you need to.

Anonymous wrote:Blue Chip used to be one of the better ones 5 years ago for juniors. Now, just not sure but I would not that now there are well over a dozen showcase brands out there competing with each other and are also pushing down to kids summer after 8th grade. With so many of them I question how any can boast all he coaches are here. The better ones in my opinion are Adrenaline and Maverick Showtime, but neither has it for rising 9th graders. Jake Reed used to be the big one but is now just a chain of expensive 3D retail camps.

You are getting two different ones mixed up. The previous poster was talking about Blue Chip 225, NOT Jake Reed Nike Blue Chip. Blue Chip 225 is ok, but not a top tier event. But to your point, the field is extremely crowded now and there is not one event that is at the top of the mountain. Agreed that Jake Reed Nike Blue Chip, Maverik Showtime and Adrenaline are the 3 biggest right now.

Blue Chip used to be one of the better ones 5 years ago for juniors. Now, just not sure but I would not that now there are well over a dozen showcase brands out there competing with each other and are also pushing down to kids summer after 8th grade. With so many of them I question how any can boast all he coaches are here. The better ones in my opinion are Adrenaline and Maverick Showtime, but neither has it for rising 9th graders. Jake Reed used to be the big one but is now just a chain of expensive 3D retail camps.

Thoughts on blue chip 225 for 2020 kid

Easiest way to dump, drop or get rid of a recruit or a current player is change the deal. Lots of college kids drop out or transfer when their scholly money gets reduced or get cut off. Pretty soon a lot of the deals that kids and parents were told 2-3 years ago will change or drop out later. There will be kids who were offered 50% by Maryland, UVA, etc in 9th grade who will get a take or leave it $500 for books when it get to NLI time. That's the way coaches operate to get you to decide to leave or stay away rather than them cutting you or dropping you. The happy endings are when you are a great player later.