[quote=Anonymous]Waaa waaa waaa ... It's all politics, the players will not do well in college... None will be 1st Team All Americans (therefore they are not major contributors) other players will surpass them... bla Bla bla... The lists mean nothing, school girls is a joke, Under Armour is all political, u19 is political, Northwestern is terrible , how can a team be picked without yellow jackets... You people are insane . [/quot
I think its been stated many times on here that its simple math - 8-12 kids per class for the top 25 programs is 200+ kids, i'll bet most if not all were the best on their HS team,all state, all county, ua/Nike whatever else you want to throw in, the reality is half of them will not play any significant roll on at the college level, half the roster doesn't see the field in any meaningful way - simple math and if your not getting money (Ivy's) or money isn't an issue they don't stay for more than two years if they're not playing - three current Ivy rosters have only 4 seniors on them.. there was plenty of buyers remorse for programs racing to get 13-14 year old kids committed before the rule change (not speculation, was told this by several coaches)
Curious about " buyers remorse" as none of the kids affected by the rule change are in college yet.
The early recruiting started a many years ago, I believe the poster is referring to some that are now in college and are not the standouts they may have been when recruited back in 8th grade. And there still can be remorse as these coaches come watch current early commits that still play summer and school ball. Many of the current 10-12 graders have been committed for 1-4 years now. Not all finish their high school careers strong much less enter freshman D1 in the pecking order they were recruited in. Coaches are very happy the early recruiting crap shoot is over.
Reply
Quote
