Madeline Caputo, Mitty and Stanford, Indiana
1 Like
Ellison Brush, Sacred Heart and Stanford, USC
2 Likes
Victoria Cordero, Foothill and SOCAL, USC
2 Likes
Penny Mauser - Mater Dei and Regency - Indiana
Nicole O’Neill (Oaks Christian/SB 805) to USC
Both of Mater Dei’s goalkeepers have made their decisions:
USC gets a commitment from Sienna Sorenson (Mater Dei, Regency)
Indiana gets a commitment from Sunny Brown (Mater Dei, Regency)
That’s quite a start for USC’s 2026 Class. Four verbal commitments already.
Is it common that women’s commitments are so early and ahead of the men?
Is USC recruiting itself or is their coaching staff outdueling its competitors?
It’s a little bit of both; on one hand, USC is a big name for a school beyond water polo so there is always going to be some type of interest.
That being said when an athlete goes on a visit, it’s on the coach to really pull the stops to provide the best experience. It’s meant to sell you on making a commitment. So it’s not that the coaches aren’t out working or the name sells itself but rather how do you market what you have to offer to make the idea of being at that school your number one choice.
That being said USC also got some flack at JOs for breaching communication rules to the Class of 2026 (cannot have full on in-person conversations until after Aug 1)
Makes sense, much appreciated.
It likely remains a reasonably safe assumption that the Big Four are always going to get most of the best available players with some exceptions here and there.
“USC also…breaching communication rules to the Class of 2026”…that institution doesn’t have a deep respect for rules and regulations it seems.
It’s my understanding that the August 1 date is for official and unofficial visits and that communications (including in-person) can start on June 15th for sophomores. But I accept I may not be reading the rule changes correctly.
That is correct interpretation and how we experieced the process.
The aspect that surprised me is the early date of commitments on the women side when the earliest commitments that I have seen in the past on the men side were around March/April of Junior year.
When you say USC “got some flack at JOs”, really it was just some other coaches/people who are involved at the NCAA level who witnessed it and were talking about it. Nothing ever happens to them. USC (and a few other schools) have always and will always do these things until someone actually reports them, and the violations are acknowledged. They know full and well what they are doing, but they are just willing to break rules that others aren’t, and they get rewarded for it.
Here is the bylaw:
“13.1.1 Contactable Individuals.
13.1.1.1 Time Period for Off-Campus Contacts – General Rule. Off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with an individual (or the individual’s family members) before August 1 at the beginning of the individual’s junior year in high school. U.S. service academy exceptions to this provision are set forth in Bylaw 13.16.1. [D] (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 7/1/91, 1/11/94 effective 3/15/94, 1/10/95, 1/14/97 effective 5/1/97, 10/28/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 4/28/05, 1/9/06, 2/26/07, 6/13/08, 4/30/09, 1/15/11, 10/30/14, 4/25/18, 5/1/19)”
Here is the definition of Contact:
“13.02.4 Contact. A contact is any face-to-face encounter between a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student- athlete’s family members and an institutional staff member or athletics representative during which any dialogue occurs in excess of an exchange of a greeting. Any such face-to-face encounter that is prearranged (e.g., staff member takes a position in a location where contact is possible) or that takes place on the grounds of the prospective student-athlete’s educational institution or at the site of organized competition or practice involving the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s high school, preparatory school, two-year college or all-star team shall be considered a contact, regardless of whether any conversation occurs. However, an institutional staff member or athletics representative who is approached by a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s family members at any location shall not use a contact, provided the encounter was not prearranged and the staff member or athletics representative does not engage in any dialogue in excess of a greeting and takes appropriate steps to immediately terminate the encounter. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, 4/25/18)”
1 Like
Don’t forget that a preexisting relationship can make many recruiting rules moot. Let’s not pretend that USC was the only school talking to players at JOs.
3 days too early… Coaches and Athletes co-mingling. Oh shoot don’t say hi to her she is only a junior… saying hello and how are you doing is not the same as “hey lets sit down over here and talk about what it could look like if you came to USC.” They have already been in contact via text and phone so what is the problem shaking the guy or gals hand and saying hello, putting a face with the name.
Kamryn Mccord ASU- Jserra and SET
2 Likes
Cali Craft - Orange Lutheran/Legacy to UC Irvine
My child was recruited to a Big 4 about 5 years ago and the rule had just changed for direct contact to June 15th (summer between sophomore and junior year). On the 15th he/she was immediately contacted by different coaches telling him/her they were interested and opening up the recruiting conversation. We found out the rule changed right before June 15th that year which was 2019.
2 Likes
Riley Johnson, Mater Dei and Regency, 1st team all-CIF Southern Section Open Division as a sophomore, USC
1 Like