I think when recruits commits, I think they should be a agreement set in stone that you can't decommit unless H/C is fired or some kind of major family crisis dealing with mother or father or legal guardian. If coaches decided to leave on their own, they should have a hefty buyout that the coaches pay and not the university or college. That should cut down on coaches leaving and recruits decommitting.
commitment
- Thread starter tom927
- Start date
That is stupid. Not trying to insult you but you didn't think that through. What do you think would happen if you told recruits that? Hardly any of them will commit until NSD. Then what are the coaches going to do? Some teams like Alabama will have like 70 people try to sign with them. Some teams might not get any commitments. It would be a big mess. The way it is, teams are not guaranteed to sign all their commitments, but it at least gives coaches an idea of what they have and as long as there is still time left before signing day they can still recruit to make up for their losses.
And coaches do have buyouts in their contracts. Usually the new employer pays it. If the contract is up though, they have no obligation to resign at a school. That is basically contract law. It's an anti-trust issue and nothing can be done about it.
This post was edited on 1/28 11:09 PM by ReadR00ster
No one ever feels this way when we flip a guy?
With that logic we shouldn't have possibly our biggest commitment this year, Dexter Wideman....who was committed to FSU
These guys are 18 years old....and people eat up the recruiting game - it's not going to change any time soon. It becomes a choice YOU have to make to not follow it so closely if it bothers you. Honestly, that is what I do...when I start feeling anxious over something to do with the football team i literally force myself to not come on here and read and engage in it.
With that logic we shouldn't have possibly our biggest commitment this year, Dexter Wideman....who was committed to FSU
These guys are 18 years old....and people eat up the recruiting game - it's not going to change any time soon. It becomes a choice YOU have to make to not follow it so closely if it bothers you. Honestly, that is what I do...when I start feeling anxious over something to do with the football team i literally force myself to not come on here and read and engage in it.
I agree kids should be allowed to decommit from a school, but 18 year olds do make life choices. sign up for the military at 18, no decommitting from that.
A
anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7
Guest
When they sign their letter of commitment, it is.
Another option would be to stop following the recruiting process so closely. Especially if it gets you wound up too tight. Some times the more you know, the more there is to worry about.
Another option would be to stop following the recruiting process so closely. Especially if it gets you wound up too tight. Some times the more you know, the more there is to worry about.
... and that's at best. Half the kids are 17 when they graduate. Meaning many commit when they're 15 or 16. And aside from the fact that teenagers think they know everything, none are truly educated and still have much to learn.
First of all, when you commit, you are supposed to commit to the team, not the coach. So I don't really feel sorry for the players when the coach takes another opportunity somewhere else. It is to always to be considered as a possibility. Second of all, the reason why a lot of kids commit and then decommit is the fault of the coaches for putting so much pressure on them to commit early before they go on their visits and are really sure.
This post was edited on 1/29 9:42 AM by ReadR00ster
This post was edited on 1/29 9:42 AM by ReadR00ster
The kids have the right to change their minds that is the reason they have a offical sigining day, kids are just
kids 18 years old some of them commit just to please someone on the staff,
I think they should not be allowed to say where theya re going to sigining day that way it would be real quite for
everyone. People change their minds about things a hundred times a day, why can't a kid change his mind ?
Fan's forget their just 18 or 20 year olds still trying to figure things out for themselves.
kids 18 years old some of them commit just to please someone on the staff,
I think they should not be allowed to say where theya re going to sigining day that way it would be real quite for
everyone. People change their minds about things a hundred times a day, why can't a kid change his mind ?
Fan's forget their just 18 or 20 year olds still trying to figure things out for themselves.
One way to get away from the whole "is he with us, is he not" is to the kids sign whenever they want to after October or so with the final day to sign in February. You'll have guys that "commit" but don't sign. Those aren't really commitments.
Hina, the do once they're " official" in college as well. National signing day. Yeah, no critial thinking on this one.
That's what the whole point of National Signing Day is about. The point of no return as far as commitment becoming contractually obligated. Otherwise its a strong indication of intent to commit. As far as coaching changes are concerned its part of basic contract law.
Let's be clear... SCHOOLS invented the process of asking for commitments, not the players. National Signing Day IS set in stone... everything else has been invented out of thin air and is totally out of control, as is anything with this much profit at stake.
The problem with that is, the school wants to be able to change their mind too, if the player signs the school is bound. It's best the leave this as it is. Think of it this way. ... ___________preliminary negotiations______________|NSD (Contract)_________.
It's a good system. I don't know why people whine about it so much.
This post was edited on 1/29 2:11 PM by ReadR00ster
I also think there is a lot of confusion about who is making the offer and who is the one accepting it. Basically recruiting is when coaches ask recruits to offer them their services by sending them a letter of Intent on NSD. The school than look at the grades, test scores and signing limits and whether the coaches still want the player and they decide whether to accept the recruit or not. So the recruit can't accept any offers, because the school has the final say. None of the promises that coaches or recruits make prior to both parties signing the NLI matter because the NLI is the instrument that both parties intend to be bound by since that is the binding instrument by NCAA rule.
It's a free country until you sign on the dotted line. One can get engaged, yet decide they don't want to walk down the aisle. A recruit can change his mind as many times as he wants. And what someone above posted is true. Sometimes the university who supposedly so valued their commitment, suddenly doesn't have any slots open, wants them to gray shirt, or walk on. So the street runs both ways. D1 football is a sport, but is equally a business. Both recruit, and the schools, have to do what is in the best interest for themselves.
Totally agree with the pressure thing. Don't necessarily agree with you about committing to the team though. Coaching styles can be so drastically different from one coach to the next that it can really have a big impact on a kids future. An extreme example would be a qb committing to some one like Spurrier, who later retires and is replaced by someone like Paul Johnson.
I think what he means (or the way I took it) is they should follow the NCAA's strict advice.
One of the first things they do when a kid registers with the NCAA is they specifically warn against picking a school based on the coaches in place. And the decision to attend should always be based on the school itself. Mainly because a coaching change is not a good enough reason to transfer in their eyes.
Now we know that's not usually the way it works, but that's the way it's supposed to be.
This post was edited on 1/30 11:22 AM by bucketdad
In your scenario there would not be a single committment until signing day. It would all happen on one day...next Wednesday. Why would a player commit early in your scenario? I'd hate to see the ramifications of something like that. We could end up with a team full of wide receivers and no linemen.....we wouldn't know until all the guys signed. Surprise, surprise you don't have enough players!
Commitments are a good thing as it gives our coaches an idea of who they need to go after. When we had decommitments last month from some O-linemen and D-linemen, our coaches started pursuing other players and were able to land some other good linemen to make up for the decommitments.
We shouldn't get our feelings hurt so bad about whether a recruit likes us one day and doesn't the next day.
Commitments are a good thing as it gives our coaches an idea of who they need to go after. When we had decommitments last month from some O-linemen and D-linemen, our coaches started pursuing other players and were able to land some other good linemen to make up for the decommitments.
We shouldn't get our feelings hurt so bad about whether a recruit likes us one day and doesn't the next day.
In principle, I agree with you. The problem is that the word "commitment" is the wrong word to use in recruiting wars.
Commitment means that you will follow through on that which you say you will do. Better a recruit state that "I favor USC at this point," or some such.
In truth, a recruit has not committed until s/he has signed and faxed back the NLI. REGARDLESS OF SPORT.
If we use a more appropriate term than "commit," most of the comments, valid/real/legit though they are, become moot.
This post was edited on 1/30 12:24 PM by atl-cock
Or maybe people should just learn what a "term of art" is and stop complaining about the words all together.
