"commitment" in college recruiting

#1
V

Volunteeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
981
Likes
0
#1
College recruits take a lot of grief for commiting to a school and then changing, sometimes multiple times. People wail about broken promises and kids not keeping their word. But I don't blame the kids, i blame the NCAA. The NCAA calls what the kids do a "commitment", but by definition it is nothing of the sort. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think scholarship offers can be pulled until a kid "commits.". Once they do, even if they blow a knee, the offer can't be withdrawn. Kids "commit" to a school early to make sure they have a scholarship. The NCAA is sending a bad message to the kids when they call this choice a "commitment" because there is no penalty if the kid changes to another school and it sends a subtle message that breaking real commitments is ok. The "commitment" should be called what it is, it's the athlete locking in a scholarship offer. Nothing more. The commitment comes when the athlete sign the loi and not a moment before and any terminology to the contrary just erodes the definition of a commitment.
 
#2
#2
Volunteeer said:
College recruits take a lot of grief for commiting to a school and then changing, sometimes multiple times. People wail about broken promises and kids not keeping their word. But I don't blame the kids, i blame the NCAA. The NCAA calls what the kids do a "commitment", but by definition it is nothing of the sort. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think scholarship offers can be pulled until a kid "commits.". Once they do, even if they blow a knee, the offer can't be withdrawn. Kids "commit" to a school early to make sure they have a scholarship. The NCAA is sending a bad message to the kids when they call this choice a "commitment" because there is no penalty if the kid changes to another school and it sends a subtle message that breaking real commitments is ok. The "commitment" should be called what it is, it's the athlete locking in a scholarship offer. Nothing more. The commitment comes when the athlete sign the loi and not a moment before and any terminology to the contrary just erodes the definition of a commitment.
Click to expand...

Scholarships are not guaranteed until they sign a LOI. Verbal commits does nothing except allow the school to plan their class. Otherwise Kiffin would not have offered the 13 year old.

They can be pulled any time before or after that, but I think the LOI guarantees at least one year of financial aid.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
volstexans said:
Scholarships are not guaranteed until they sign a LOI. Verbal commits does nothing except allow the school to plan their class. Otherwise Kiffin would not have offered the 13 year old.

They can be pulled any time before or after that, but I think the LOI guarantees at least one year of financial aid.
Click to expand...

thats it exactly. committ is like sitting down to buy a car even after discussing payment plans. You can walk away with no repurcussions unless you sign your name to the contract,then you are locked in.
 
#4
#4
volstexans said:
Scholarships are not guaranteed until they sign a LOI. Verbal commits does nothing except allow the school to plan their class. Otherwise Kiffin would not have offered the 13 year old.

They can be pulled any time before or after that, but I think the LOI guarantees at least one year of financial aid.
Click to expand...

got it. Thanks, I didn't know that. But the same principal is involved, we are pushing kids to make what is not a commitment and heck, why should they commit if the schools have no commitment at all? I'm wrong on the mechanics of the situation, but the real situation still encourages "commitment" when it isn't one, by either side. It still sends a horrible message to the kids. Thanks for correcting me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
Volunteeer said:
got it. Thanks, I didn't know that. But the same principal is involved, we are pushing kids to make what is not a commitment and heck, why should they commit if the schools have no commitment at all? I'm wrong on the mechanics of the situation, but the real situation still encourages "commitment" when it isn't one, by either side. It still sends a horrible message to the kids. Thanks for correcting me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

A lot of times, kids commit before they are ready because they are worried about a signing class filling up at a particular school.
 
#7
#7
Volunteeer said:
got it. Thanks, I didn't know that. But the same principal is involved, we are pushing kids to make what is not a commitment and heck, why should they commit if the schools have no commitment at all? I'm wrong on the mechanics of the situation, but the real situation still encourages "commitment" when it isn't one, by either side. It still sends a horrible message to the kids. Thanks for correcting me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You think NSD is crazy now. If the NCAA somehow forbid verbal commits, it would be a madhouse, and LOIs would clog the fax machine at midnight to get into the top schools.

That would also lead to uneven classes (loaded WRs but no DTs, for example) since you could only overoffer by a few.

It would be a crazy day for all involved. Scholarship offers would be pulled on NSD, etc.
 
#8
#8
volfan4evr said:
Good point.......maybe it should be called "Verbal Intent" instead.
Click to expand...

Better. Maybe I'm just being picky, but anything that contributes to the erosion of the value of keeping promises and the need to be accountable is aweful, especially if it's sanctioned by the NCAA
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
no. Not my point. My point is that calling it a commitment is doing a disservice to the kids the NCAA is suppose to be there to help. It sets up a system that requires kids to commit when what they are doing is far from the real definition of the word. Quite simply, we are teaching kids that it's ok to break commitments.

volstexans said:
You think NSD is crazy now. If the NCAA somehow forbid verbal commits, it would be a madhouse, and LOIs would clog the fax machine at midnight to get into the top schools.

That would also lead to uneven classes (loaded WRs but no DTs, for example) since you could only overoffer by a few.

It would be a crazy day for all involved. Scholarship offers would be pulled on NSD, etc.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
Actually if the system should be changed in any way, it should be to make whatever is called a commitment, binding. On both parties. You want to offer a 13 yr old? Great! But if he's not what you expect five years later, your school will still have to pay for his education. Bet that would stop the trend that keeps getting younger and younger
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#11
#11
At this point, it's all a matter of semantics. Despite the fact that it called a commitment, none of the parties involved really view it that way. There is little the NCAA could do to remedy this.

I understand that you don't like them using the word "commit," but it really isn't that big of a deal to me.
 
#13
#13
Of course, you cannot hold a minor to any contract legaly. You could maybe insist that they tatoo your school logo on their cheeck when they "commit". The only reason this matters at all today is becuase none of our employers have adequate filter/firewall on our work computers.
The whole thing is a mess. Find a teenager and see you if you can get him to "commit" to what his/her hair style will be in 2 years, or what they want for dinner next wednesday. I do like the sound of verbal intent.
I think most kids "commit" to get everyone to STFU about where they are going so they can concentrate on breasts, X-box and youtube....which I certainly can't blame them for.
 
#15
#15
This is a pet peeve of mine. For those of us who are old school, the word "commitment" is not something to be taken lightly. It does not simply mean "the team I am most interested in right now." If, as a recruit, you are genuinely torn between competing programs, there is nothing wrong with taking all of your official visits and then deciding to whom you will commit. Saying that I am "firmly committed to program X," while continuing to take official visits to other schools, makes about as much sense as being engaged to your fiance but choosing to continue dating other people.
 
#16
#16
Its a commitment thats not a commitment, really just a phrase, 17-18 year old kids have just gone through high school which is a confusing time for most and then have to make a decision, sometimes under pressure, later they have more information with which to make a better decision. There was a big kid from Cullman that commited to Auburn today, 6'6" 330 I think, been a big Bama fan his whole life, just last week he and his family celibrated at Dreamland when Bama offered saying it was his dream come true, today he decided on the Tigers, do you think he may do a lot of thinking between now and next February? Who knows where he ends up.
 
#17
#17
Ben said:
At this point, it's all a matter of semantics. Despite the fact that it called a commitment, none of the parties involved really view it that way. There is little the NCAA could do to remedy this.

I understand that you don't like them using the word "commit," but it really isn't that big of a deal to me.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying. But it's really true that the words we say affect how we think. When I think of college football recruiting commitment, I immediately in my mind say "joke!". I'm sure it does in these kids mind as well. I just don't think we should set up a system that is made to tie together the words "commitment" and "joke" in kids minds. If they are going to "commit" then there should be consequences to both sides if they don't live up to it. If not, then don't call it commiting.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
IMO, there should be a half way signing day, maybe in September. This would lock up kids that want to play for the university no matter what. It would also make the coaches job alot easier. Once signed, they would no longer have to worry about recruitng them. Example would be Jacques Smith. He would have signed last September.

Or you could just go the Mack Brown approach. If commitments want to take other visits he drops them. He tells kids do not commit unless they are 100% sure.
 
#19
#19
exactly. So if it isn't a commitment don't call it one. Don't erode the concept of commitment any further in the young, impressionable, confused minds. Don't put the kids in a position where they are going to get blasted for breaking their commitment when there really isn't one.

BamanTn said:
Its a commitment thats not a commitment, really just a phrase, 17-18 year old kids have just gone through high school which is a confusing time for most and then have to make a decision, sometimes under pressure, later they have more information with which to make a better decision. There was a big kid from Cullman that commited to Auburn today, 6'6" 330 I think, been a big Bama fan his whole life, just last week he and his family celibrated at Dreamland when Bama offered saying it was his dream come true, today he decided on the Tigers, do you think he may do a lot of thinking between now and next February? Who knows where he ends up.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
Volunteeer said:
exactly. So if it isn't a commitment don't call it one. Don't erode the concept of commitment any further in the young, impressionable, confused minds. Don't put the kids in a position where they are going to get blasted for breaking their commitment when there really isn't one.


Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I also like the idea of an early signing day that another poster refered to.
 
#21
#21
BamanTn said:
I also like the idea of an early signing day that another poster refered to.
Click to expand...

The counter I have heard to that is late coaching changes. More kids might get caught in a situation like x & o leaving.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
Volunteeer said:
I understand what your saying. But it's really true that the words we say affect how we think. When I think of college football recruiting commitment, I immediately in my mind say "joke!". I'm sure it does in these kids mind as well. I just don't think we should set up a system that is made to tie together the words "commitment" and "joke" in kids minds. If they are going to "commit" then there should be consequences to both sides if they don't live up to it. If not, then don't call it commiting.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The NCAA nor the schools have no bearing on your objection.

The student athletes do not have to ever commit anywhere, at any time.

They have the free will to weigh all their options, and fax their LOI on NSD to the school of their choice.

Further, they can weigh their options until they make a final decision, make a commitment, and stick with that decision until NSD.

This is an argument to the parents of the kids raising these kids.

There is no pressure on these kids to commit. If my son was a top recruit, and I lived in a perfect world, he would make up his mind before committing, then he would stick by his word.

The human element comes into play, and we don't live in a perfect world.

There's the extremes (A. Dixon) who obviously need help (read: parenting), and there's the game players (see Ambles, Markeith), but for the most part, I think you want the student athletes to be more mature and professional.

This ain't gonna happen, especially by any NCAA rule.
 
#24
#24
wrong. There is huge pressure on them to commit. Fans of schools, coaches trying to gauge their recruiting classes, the list goes on. Plus making sure the class does fill up and that they have a slot. There isn't any enforcable commitment on either side. It is not a commitment by definition other than the NCAA giving it that erroneous name. It is completely the fault of the NCAA. Why should we force the kids to stay with a "commitment" when the team on the other side has made no commitment to them? How fair is that to the kid? The terminology and the rules of the system make joke of commitment and should be equal. You want a kid to commit, then the school should have to as well.

volstexans said:
The NCAA nor the schools have no bearing on your objection.

The student athletes do not have to ever commit anywhere, at any time.

They have the free will to weigh all their options, and fax their LOI on NSD to the school of their choice.

Further, they can weigh their options until they make a final decision, make a commitment, and stick with that decision until NSD.

This is an argument to the parents of the kids raising these kids.

There is no pressure on these kids to commit. If my son was a top recruit, and I lived in a perfect world, he would make up his mind before committing, then he would stick by his word.

The human element comes into play, and we don't live in a perfect world.

There's the extremes (A. Dixon) who obviously need help (read: parenting), and there's the game players (see Ambles, Markeith), but for the most part, I think you want the student athletes to be more mature and professional.

This ain't gonna happen, especially by any NCAA rule.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
BamanTn said:
Well I guess it backs to "If they gonna shop, We gonna shop"
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if that's what it is, stop calling it a commitment and blasting the kids for not sticking to their commitments. Stop sending the message it's ok to commit, then change. Call it what it is, and stop calling the kids wrong for what they are doing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top