MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:50 pmI'd not be surprised by that scenario either, and sure, there's a technical violation with that phone tag...but "deal is done" would imply that the athlete knows he'll be accepted academically, knows he can obtain the release academically, knows what scholarship is or isn't offered, etc...which would involve a lot more than saying 'yeah, we'd love to have that player' casually to a player on one's own team.jersey shore lax wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:27 pmI think that a lot has to do with the school more so than the NCAA particularly when a "potential" rule violation is being investigated, school A might have an over abundance of caution and make the kid sit while another school may let the kid practice while investigation is going on.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 12:57 pm
Really? No teeth? My son got caught up in a misunderstanding back in 2016 that prevented him from practicing for over a month (fortunately partly during Xmas break) because of purported non-compliance with an NCAA regulation against his identifying himself as a lax player at his school in making an introduction to other coaches at the school... with no compensation involved...he was found totally blameless and in compliance, but even a question had real 'teeth' in repercussions. NIL now obviates that particular issue, but schools want very much to remain in compliance with the NCAA. They certainly don't want to violate for a non-revenue sport!
If it's as rampant as you suggest, I'd warn anyone doing so to hope like heck they're not the one who gets caught and made an example of...
It's one thing for someone to say 'Joey has an extra year of eligibility (a fact) and may want to use it somewhere closer to home or at a more competitive program...' and the response is, 'yeah, Joey would get a lot of interest', (that exchange itself would be a violation), but if someone then discusses with a coach what the 'deal' would be, say scholarship money, etc...you betcha that heads would roll over that.
And why risk it?
That's what the portal allows to happen without a problem.
As to the other point, anybody that thinks that contact is not being made prior to a kid entering the portal also believes that no college lacrosse player gambles college lacrosse including his own teams games. players talk to players and recruit them, I would imagine with someone on the coaching staffs knowledge, Ie: team A needs a SSDM and a kid on team A played travel with a ssdm on team B, kid on team A asks his DC if they might be interested in his friend, the DC says hell yes and now the player on A texts the player on team B and says "yo, what's up? ever think about coming here?" ..... not sure any violations have occurred but there is a pretty good chance that the deal is done before the kid puts his name in the portal.
Yes, schools may well have varying degrees of being uptight about potential violations...some may want to avoid absolutely, not give any excuse for a scandal, whereas others may have seen so many violations they're inured to the petty ones...possible.
But my point is that schools don't want to put their reputations at risk, programs don't want to be sanctioned, coaches don't want to lose their jobs...and players shouldn't be willing to risk their own eligibility.
totally agree about schools being cautious but I will say that I have had two sons playing at two different schools with totally different attitudes, one school, even at a hint of a violation would sit the kid out until they did their internal investigation while the other coach/school took more of a let the kid continue to play and deal with it if and when it NCAA sanctions happens. also it is a huge difference as to what happens in the fall vs. the spring and what may involve forfeiting games etc.