Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any news on the verdict for the 28 person roster limit?

We may not know to the Spring or even the Summer. If then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I still have doubts that the 28 soccer limit will be in place next year. I think it is an antitrust violation in itself and will be challenged. Also there is not enough time to get this ready. I think this will not go next year.

I'm wondering how long verbal offers not being binding lasts. In most states, especially when confirmed by text, that's a contract. They aren't binding because of an NCAA rule. I'd like to see a player go after a school and a coach for breach just to see what happens

A verbal offer is not an offer of admission. It is conditional. So even if it was a contract, which it is not, it is not a contract that entitles you to a spot on the team and admission.

Anonymous wrote:Any news on the verdict for the 28 person roster limit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I still have doubts that the 28 soccer limit will be in place next year. I think it is an antitrust violation in itself and will be challenged. Also there is not enough time to get this ready. I think this will not go next year.

I'm wondering how long verbal offers not being binding lasts. In most states, especially when confirmed by text, that's a contract. They aren't binding because of an NCAA rule. I'd like to see a player go after a school and a coach for breach just to see what happens

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I'm sure Penn State is thrilled about this

https://x.com/marlee_raymond/status/1856697381967790479

Well if players are reclassifying to graduate early as a 2025 and going to Penn State now I'd say this ESPN article is way off. College coaches are after the best players and verbal commitments mean zero.
The end.

This whole situation feels icky. So the coach is crying (crocodile tears?) about having to reneg a year after offer due to roster limits- while the very next day offering that spot to a reclassified recruit. Feels really shady and I hope future recruits become educated about which schools pull this type of crap. Feels like the NCAA just gave coaches Carte Blanch to lie and screw over HS athletes with no brand /reputation repercussions. Lovely.

+1000

I recorded my kids verbal offer and detailed scholarship amounts. She was decommitted, I’ve been sitting on this recording what the right thing to do is.

DD has since signed to another school, but still feels like she was dun dirty by a huge State institution

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I'm sure Penn State is thrilled about this

https://x.com/marlee_raymond/status/1856697381967790479

Well if players are reclassifying to graduate early as a 2025 and going to Penn State now I'd say this ESPN article is way off. College coaches are after the best players and verbal commitments mean zero.
The end.

This whole situation feels icky. So the coach is crying (crocodile tears?) about having to reneg a year after offer due to roster limits- while the very next day offering that spot to a reclassified recruit. Feels really shady and I hope future recruits become educated about which schools pull this type of crap. Feels like the NCAA just gave coaches Carte Blanch to lie and screw over HS athletes with no brand /reputation repercussions. Lovely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I'm sure Penn State is thrilled about this

https://x.com/marlee_raymond/status/1856697381967790479

Well if players are reclassifying to graduate early as a 2025 and going to Penn State now I'd say this ESPN article is way off. College coaches are after the best players and verbal commitments mean zero.
The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing just happened with a U-17 YNT player who is a 2008 and just re-classified to be 2025 commit to USC. Very confusing landscape

Exactly why parents of 2025 players that get dropped don't need to run to espn and cry foul. Verbal commits mean nothing.

This. It's one thing to be upset that 2025 verbal commits are bring dropped. It's another to try telling the world - thru ESPN - that the reason your DD was dropped was not bc she was the last pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I still have doubts that the 28 soccer limit will be in place next year. I think it is an antitrust violation in itself and will be challenged. Also there is not enough time to get this ready. I think this will not go next year.

I'm wondering how long verbal offers not being binding lasts. In most states, especially when confirmed by text, that's a contract. They aren't binding because of an NCAA rule. I'd like to see a player go after a school and a coach for breach just to see what happens

nobody texts a verbal commitment. it's a phone call or conversation in person. verbal commitments mean nothing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I still have doubts that the 28 soccer limit will be in place next year. I think it is an antitrust violation in itself and will be challenged. Also there is not enough time to get this ready. I think this will not go next year.

I'm wondering how long verbal offers not being binding lasts. In most states, especially when confirmed by text, that's a contract. They aren't binding because of an NCAA rule. I'd like to see a player go after a school and a coach for breach just to see what happens

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this is really hard in the transition period, it is good for the sport overall. The huge rosters water down the teams. This is just simply raising the bar to make a college team and that is not a bad thing. Things change and they will continue to change. This is just one of those things. While it sucks for those impacted during the transition, it also creates tons of good. Better overall team skill/quality over time, coaches have to give more effort in recruiting to find the right players (less throwing darts on players 29-35 and hoping one pans out), etc. Other smaller schools and D3 schools can become stronger with new talent pools. Yes, there is also the chance some schools will get rid of soccer due this change. And that too can be a good decision if needed to be made for that school. Talent bars raise all of time, in sports and in our work lives. In the grand scheme of life, this is a small hurdle.

With all of this said, My DD was impacted by this change and had her scholarship taken away. Things don't always go exactly like you hope. So instead of playing victim, she was proactive and pushed through, reached out to coaches she had built relationships with in the recruiting process and found a new place to land. Yes, it could have ended with her not finding a new team and ultimately not playing or playing for a smaller or D3 school. Either way, building life skills learning to overcome a setback is not a bad thing.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42273737/college-athletes-face-national-signing-day-amid-uncertainty-new-roster-limits

I still have doubts that the 28 soccer limit will be in place next year. I think it is an antitrust violation in itself and will be challenged. Also there is not enough time to get this ready. I think this will not go next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing just happened with a U-17 YNT player who is a 2008 and just re-classified to be 2025 commit to USC. Very confusing landscape

Exactly why parents of 2025 players that get dropped don't need to run to espn and cry foul. Verbal commits mean nothing.

Anonymous wrote:Same thing just happened with a U-17 YNT player who is a 2008 and just re-classified to be 2025 commit to USC. Very confusing landscape