Ice Hockey DBoard

The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard 


Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page

email: icehockeydboard@yahoo.com

High School & Prep Hockey
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: 2002's

anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.



I love how you have zero clue about the process.
Thanks. I'll let our advisor know that he's clueless.

Re: 2002's

anon
anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.



I love how you have zero clue about the process.
Thanks. I'll let our advisor know that he's clueless.


Commitments arent binding but teams absolutely plan their scholarship money around them.

Re: 2002's

anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.

I love how you have zero clue about the process.
it appears my point was missed... PLAYER commitments have been well discussed on this board (do a search). you only need to read (eagle-tribune) about EH from AP to Brown to get a good take. my point is they are not only meaningless but downright stupid. they serve no purpose other than for the parent to crow about it. they are not binding on the school, in fact no doubt the school has not extended any offer of any type (ncaa violation). a coach expressing interest is not an offer. and considering the recent situation with college basketball --- . try this: a college scout watches then approaches your current coach --- 'what about x', 'sorry he is going to y' scout moves on. i assume we all watched the movie 'blind side' is which a constant parade of HEAD coaches sat down with the player and parents. which would you prefer? then add that nearly every player has to spend a year or two in juniors... and i ask why commit until the letter from the college is in hand. one should be expanding/opening doors not eliminating them.

Re: 2002's

beatcuff
anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.

I love how you have zero clue about the process.
it appears my point was missed... PLAYER commitments have been well discussed on this board (do a search). you only need to read (eagle-tribune) about EH from AP to Brown to get a good take. my point is they are not only meaningless but downright stupid. they serve no purpose other than for the parent to crow about it. they are not binding on the school, in fact no doubt the school has not extended any offer of any type (ncaa violation). a coach expressing interest is not an offer. and considering the recent situation with college basketball --- . try this: a college scout watches then approaches your current coach --- 'what about x', 'sorry he is going to y' scout moves on. i assume we all watched the movie 'blind side' is which a constant parade of HEAD coaches sat down with the player and parents. which would you prefer? then add that nearly every player has to spend a year or two in juniors... and i ask why commit until the letter from the college is in hand. one should be expanding/opening doors not eliminating them.


I am sorry but you are really uneducated on the subject. This is how it works for players (talking the high end) that get commitments early. Players all have advisors if they are deemed elite talents, advisors talks with player and gets list of interested schools or schools that are interested in them. Advisor then contacts coaches and notifies players of level of interest. Player then visits schools and meets with coaches etc. Offers are verbally discussed and terms (full scholarship, 2 for 4, 3 for 4) are absolutely given in visits...thus the "offer". Terms on when they would expect the player to arrive are also discussed. Players then "commit" to that program based on offer and general time frame of enrollment they discussed. College coaches all have depth charts and plan 4+ years out based on their rosters and scholarship dollars available. A commit although verbal and not binding gives groundwork that the player will be going there and the school can plan their roster accordingly. System isn't perfect for sure....sometimes waiting for an offer works sometime it doesn't...passing on an offer sometimes works and sometimes it backfires if a team no longer has scholarship money. Players commit to reserve a spot and to reserve scholarship slots...it isn't 100% but its a lot better than not having a spot or $$ allocated.

Re: 2002's

anon
beatcuff
anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.

I love how you have zero clue about the process.
it appears my point was missed... PLAYER commitments have been well discussed on this board (do a search). you only need to read (eagle-tribune) about EH from AP to Brown to get a good take. my point is they are not only meaningless but downright stupid. they serve no purpose other than for the parent to crow about it. they are not binding on the school, in fact no doubt the school has not extended any offer of any type (ncaa violation). a coach expressing interest is not an offer. and considering the recent situation with college basketball --- . try this: a college scout watches then approaches your current coach --- 'what about x', 'sorry he is going to y' scout moves on. i assume we all watched the movie 'blind side' is which a constant parade of HEAD coaches sat down with the player and parents. which would you prefer? then add that nearly every player has to spend a year or two in juniors... and i ask why commit until the letter from the college is in hand. one should be expanding/opening doors not eliminating them.


I am sorry but you are really uneducated on the subject. This is how it works for players (talking the high end) that get commitments early. Players all have advisors if they are deemed elite talents, advisors talks with player and gets list of interested schools or schools that are interested in them. Advisor then contacts coaches and notifies players of level of interest. Player then visits schools and meets with coaches etc. Offers are verbally discussed and terms (full scholarship, 2 for 4, 3 for 4) are absolutely given in visits...thus the "offer". Terms on when they would expect the player to arrive are also discussed. Players then "commit" to that program based on offer and general time frame of enrollment they discussed. College coaches all have depth charts and plan 4+ years out based on their rosters and scholarship dollars available. A commit although verbal and not binding gives groundwork that the player will be going there and the school can plan their roster accordingly. System isn't perfect for sure....sometimes waiting for an offer works sometime it doesn't...passing on an offer sometimes works and sometimes it backfires if a team no longer has scholarship money. Players commit to reserve a spot and to reserve scholarship slots...it isn't 100% but its a lot better than not having a spot or $$ allocated.
And, what you just described is about 10% of the verbal commits today. With the other 90% it's just so the kid can tweet about it and parents can brag to the other parents. That's why I said that if a kid has a "real" commitment, congrats.

So, which more accurately describes the verbal commitment process today?

I'm going with the 90%.

Re: 2002's

Anon
anon
beatcuff
anon
Anon
Anon
Except for the fact that you bought your house and car. Little bit different when someone says here is a 900k house and a 60k car you can have for $0 in 3 years....all u need to do is say u want them in 3 years. Without that commitment I can't guarantee you the house and car will be available to you. I need you to let me know within the month.
There's no money behind 90% of the commits today.

I love how you have zero clue about the process.
it appears my point was missed... PLAYER commitments have been well discussed on this board (do a search). you only need to read (eagle-tribune) about EH from AP to Brown to get a good take. my point is they are not only meaningless but downright stupid. they serve no purpose other than for the parent to crow about it. they are not binding on the school, in fact no doubt the school has not extended any offer of any type (ncaa violation). a coach expressing interest is not an offer. and considering the recent situation with college basketball --- . try this: a college scout watches then approaches your current coach --- 'what about x', 'sorry he is going to y' scout moves on. i assume we all watched the movie 'blind side' is which a constant parade of HEAD coaches sat down with the player and parents. which would you prefer? then add that nearly every player has to spend a year or two in juniors... and i ask why commit until the letter from the college is in hand. one should be expanding/opening doors not eliminating them.


I am sorry but you are really uneducated on the subject. This is how it works for players (talking the high end) that get commitments early. Players all have advisors if they are deemed elite talents, advisors talks with player and gets list of interested schools or schools that are interested in them. Advisor then contacts coaches and notifies players of level of interest. Player then visits schools and meets with coaches etc. Offers are verbally discussed and terms (full scholarship, 2 for 4, 3 for 4) are absolutely given in visits...thus the "offer". Terms on when they would expect the player to arrive are also discussed. Players then "commit" to that program based on offer and general time frame of enrollment they discussed. College coaches all have depth charts and plan 4+ years out based on their rosters and scholarship dollars available. A commit although verbal and not binding gives groundwork that the player will be going there and the school can plan their roster accordingly. System isn't perfect for sure....sometimes waiting for an offer works sometime it doesn't...passing on an offer sometimes works and sometimes it backfires if a team no longer has scholarship money. Players commit to reserve a spot and to reserve scholarship slots...it isn't 100% but its a lot better than not having a spot or $$ allocated.
And, what you just described is about 10% of the verbal commits today. With the other 90% it's just so the kid can tweet about it and parents can brag to the other parents. That's why I said that if a kid has a "real" commitment, congrats.

So, which more accurately describes the verbal commitment process today?

I'm going with the 90%.


So 90% of verbal commits are just for press and have zero validity? Thats your claim?

Re: 2002's

anon
Anon
And, what you just described is about 10% of the verbal commits today. With the other 90% it's just so the kid can tweet about it and parents can brag to the other parents. That's why I said that if a kid has a "real" commitment, congrats.

So, which more accurately describes the verbal commitment process today?

I'm going with the 90%.


So 90% of verbal commits are just for press and have zero validity? Thats your claim?
If you'll follow along (tough, I know) I said earlier that 90% don't have money attached to them. If they don't, then I suppose yes, you could say that it has very little validity. I'm sure some - many? most? will attend the school they committed to. I don't know how many will get $$$.

Last stat I saw was that the decommit rate is already over 10% - one in eight or nine, from memory. And the number of commits has absolutely exploded. How many are "valid?" We'll see what it looks like on NLI Day for the 2000s next year. My guess is the rate will soar every year for the next several.

Re: 2002's

Anon
anon
Anon
And, what you just described is about 10% of the verbal commits today. With the other 90% it's just so the kid can tweet about it and parents can brag to the other parents. That's why I said that if a kid has a "real" commitment, congrats.

So, which more accurately describes the verbal commitment process today?

I'm going with the 90%.


So 90% of verbal commits are just for press and have zero validity? Thats your claim?
If you'll follow along (tough, I know) I said earlier that 90% don't have money attached to them. If they don't, then I suppose yes, you could say that it has very little validity. I'm sure some - many? most? will attend the school they committed to. I don't know how many will get $$$.

Last stat I saw was that the decommit rate is already over 10% - one in eight or nine, from memory. And the number of commits has absolutely exploded. How many are "valid?" We'll see what it looks like on NLI Day for the 2000s next year. My guess is the rate will soar every year for the next several.



So 10% decommit (and I bet 90% of that 10% commit to another program)...90% is probably about the commit success rate of a player committing and attending that school.

Might want to check your math - NCAA allows 18 scholarships per team. Most teams carry about 24 players. That means 75% of the players are getting some form of scholarship at least. Realistically, some of the bottom players are splitting $$$ so essentially every player is getting something.

Re: 2002's

anon
Anon
anon
Anon
And, what you just described is about 10% of the verbal commits today. With the other 90% it's just so the kid can tweet about it and parents can brag to the other parents. That's why I said that if a kid has a "real" commitment, congrats.

So, which more accurately describes the verbal commitment process today?

I'm going with the 90%.


So 90% of verbal commits are just for press and have zero validity? Thats your claim?
If you'll follow along (tough, I know) I said earlier that 90% don't have money attached to them. If they don't, then I suppose yes, you could say that it has very little validity. I'm sure some - many? most? will attend the school they committed to. I don't know how many will get $$$.

Last stat I saw was that the decommit rate is already over 10% - one in eight or nine, from memory. And the number of commits has absolutely exploded. How many are "valid?" We'll see what it looks like on NLI Day for the 2000s next year. My guess is the rate will soar every year for the next several.



So 10% decommit (and I bet 90% of that 10% commit to another program)...90% is probably about the commit success rate of a player committing and attending that school.

Might want to check your math - NCAA allows 18 scholarships per team. Most teams carry about 24 players. That means 75% of the players are getting some form of scholarship at least. Realistically, some of the bottom players are splitting $$$ so essentially every player is getting something.
Still struggling with the reading, I see.

I said the decommit rate is already over 10%. The 2000s - which is when the current nonsense really started to happen - are only now reaching their actual decision point. They still have 2 - 3 years of Juniors ahead of them, during which they may - or may not - keep their commitment. If you talk to D-3 coaches, they are losing commits left and right to D-1 schools, before the kid ever sets foot on campus.

And every kid that is decommitted from Northeastern or decommits because he finds out he isn't getting $$$ - or even a roster spot - is going to land somewhere else. Which means someone at THAT school is going to get decommitted. When the music stops, a lot of kids are left without a chair, or $$$.

The entire "game" has changed in the last five years. We won't really know the impact for another five. LAX has changed their rules, IMO hockey will do the same, sooner versus later. It can't keep going like this.

Re: 2002's

How does a Hockey East school have 30+ commits ? The same way the other top dog Div I schools do it - they have scholarship players playing on their CLUB teams. That is their "pool" to pull from for injuries, academic problems, etc.

Re: 2002's

Anon
How does a Hockey East school have 30+ commits ? The same way the other top dog Div I schools do it - they have scholarship players playing on their CLUB teams. That is their "pool" to pull from for injuries, academic problems, etc.
That may be, but it wasn't like that until recently. I have a friend whose son was at a Hockey East school, is now in the NHL, and when he committed they had maybe 20. Even then Dad was nervous about the numbers. So 30+ is a huge increase.

Re: 2002's

Hockey East teams have 18 full scholarships per season, to be split between 23-24 players, players either get full rides, some are split like 2for4 or 3for4, etc., and some of walk-on's who get nothing and are happy to be there (they also don't play). Head coach's are like general managers, they have to mange their monies (scholarships), and also manage who is coming in and when. Some kids will be pushed back, some kids even get de-committed by the school if they don't develop like the team expected. Nothing is guaranteed until you sign your NLI, and even after that, your scholarship award goes one year at a time. How do I know this? My kid committed at 15, played Prep, USHL, and now Hockey East. Any parent that is in the middle of this right now, come into this with your eyes wide open, choose a school that you think he will like and where you think he will play.

Re: 2002's

Darn! So I never played more than high school hockey, never coached a college team, never played in the NHL and have never held an NHL front office job and I don't have any relatives who did any of these things either! So for my kid I guess BC is out.

Re: 2002's

anon
Darn! So I never played more than high school hockey, never coached a college team, never played in the NHL and have never held an NHL front office job and I don't have any relatives who did any of these things either! So for my kid I guess BC is out.
There's academic money in the equation too. If a player has good grades and high SAT score, that makes life easy for the coach because the player will get academic money and will need less athletic money. Thus more athletic money (from 18 hockey scholarships) will be available for the coach to use to acquire other players.

But the University isn't giving out academic money to 16 year olds. That comes later.

Re: 2002's

anon
Here you go http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php
sort by starting year and will have to look through the 20-21 year to find them, but there are a bunch.



Thank you for sharing,
looks like the great Fed only has the two kids listed in the original post so far,

couple of others were part time Westchester players

Re: 2002's

Zero... None, Nada. College commit? 02? Really...? Means nothing, check the college rosters, almost no one under 21 is playing, and that's as a freshman... So a commit to a 15 year old? Play the lottery, same chance of winning.

Re: 2002's

PA- Leese
Zero... None, Nada. College commit? 02? Really...? Means nothing, check the college rosters, almost no one under 21 is playing, and that's as a freshman... So a commit to a 15 year old? Play the lottery, same chance of winning.


Funny how clueless you are...avg at BC/BU is 20yr 4 months. Thats average.

Re: 2002's

Here is a helpful reminder on some of the posting limitations we view as acceptable here on the Ice Hockey DBoard. Obviously we would like to keep the DBoard open for informative and honest discussion, we do not want to keep policing the posts for every derogatory or childish detail.

It is O.K. to be critical of programs, venues and in some cases adult players and coaches but we do hope you refrain from using names. What is NOT ACCEPTABLE are slanderous posts, accusations of unfound illegal activity, calling-out individuals by name, posting hearsay or damaging opinions.

Once again we would like to remind posters that many good people have worked very hard for the game and championed the sport of hockey for many years in the region and they often have a large percentage of their net worth, personal lives and reputations tied to their efforts and they do not deserve to have anonymous posters potentially ruin what they have worked for and/or accomplished.

Thank you,

DBoard Administrator