I want to explain the offer/recruiting game, in the Spring, a little....

#26
#26
Quote:


It seems like there is a contradiction here. If you give a kid an official letter which means that they can take a scholarship if they choose to do, how can you tell them "no, not yet" if they want to come?

I find this area of recruiting quite grey. I've heard people say that the offer is not binding on the school and could be yanked at any time. The PR would be horrendous in that circumstance.

Anyway, according to the situation you've laid out, what happens if a kid with an offer says he wants to commit. The staff says lets wait and the kid comes back and says no....I don't want to wait....I want my spot reserved now. Does the kid have a "right" to commit? Or can the school say no....that offer letter doesn't give you the right to commit and reserve a scholly?

Any insights on this would be appreciated.

i think that you are correct in saying the school can pull it, and i think you are correct about the pr nightmare. I recall a few years ago, or maybe last year, spurrier offered some guys schollys to USC jr, and then the school didnt let them in, and it became a big story
 
#27
#27
i think that you are correct in saying the school can pull it, and i think you are correct about the pr nightmare. I recall a few years ago, or maybe last year, spurrier offered some guys schollys to USC jr, and then the school didnt let them in, and it became a big story

I understand what you are saying. It's just that it reflects a very strange situation.

In the business world, if you make a legal offer and someone accepts it, then you have a contract.

What you and others have described is a situation in which the "offer" to the recruit is not an offer at all in the legal sense. Meaning the recruit can't agree to it and create a contract until NSD and the university can't be bound by it until NSD.

Effectively, it seems like the entire process leading up to NSD is a elaborate and non binding courting ritual for both sides.

As a non-expert observer of the process, I had thought that offers were binding on the university and that the university had covered it's butt by including contingencies in the offer indicating that the offer would expire when a certain number of spots at a given position were filled.

I had always known that the word "committment" was a bad choice as it applied to a recruits verbal pledge. Now it seems the word "offer" is equally improper in terms of what the university provides to the recruit.

Thanks for your feedback. if anyone else has anything to add, feel free to chip in.
 
#28
#28
Fulmer missed more than he hit in the past 5 years though. That has to do with assistants as much as him as well.

I think too many assistants were simply going through the recruiting motions towards the end. It seemed like the only ones out beating the trail with energy was Adkins and the chest bumper. The new O staff seemed to bring some new life to recruiting, but we know how that worked out.
 
#29
#29
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolinDawgland
So what is an 'offer' really? What if a huge amount of the offered kids, more than we can take, commit? There's really nothing binding between either party until the LOI is signed. Is an offer nothing more than a letter that says we're very interested in you at this particular time, stay tuned?

No, it's an official letter stating that if they choose to come here they have a scholly reserved for when they come. The LOI ties into that by securing the funds for that particular student when they get here and keeps other teams from recruiting them and placing them under a blanket of protection, so to speak. That's why they are going to let out slowly and methodically who is committing and tell the players that want to commit "No, not yet" so they can C.T.A with respect to getting the best talent on the roster.
_________________________________________________________________________


It seems like there is a contradiction here. If you give a kid an official letter which means that they can take a scholarship if they choose to do, how can you tell them "no, not yet" if they want to come?

I find this area of recruiting quite grey. I've heard people say that the offer is not binding on the school and could be yanked at any time. The PR would be horrendous in that circumstance.

Anyway, according to the situation you've laid out, what happens if a kid with an offer says he wants to commit. The staff says lets wait and the kid comes back and says no....I don't want to wait....I want my spot reserved now. Does the kid have a "right" to commit? Or can the school say no....that offer letter doesn't give you the right to commit and reserve a scholly?

Any insights on this would be appreciated.

I'm a bit confused by it as well. All schools issue a lot more offers than they have room for and some of the schools are going to get more responses from the offers than they have room for. It's a numbers game and there must not actually be anything binding until NSD. The way the schools pull the offers is if a kid waits too long and their's no scholies left, then well sorry. So it is a two way dance...schools offer more than they can actually take because they know they won't get nearly all of their wish list, kids have to gamble between playing out the recruiting ritual or grabbing a spot early at the school of their choice. If the kid waits and the spots are gone, well too bad...this seems to happen every year except for us the past two years where we left scholies on the table.
 
#30
#30
Most of the time when schools send the letter though, they'll put a clause in saying that they'll only take so many of a certain position, and they reserve the right to pull it if they find other players, blah blah blah.
 
#31
#31
perhaps instead of verbally committing to a school, the recruits should just call the school their "fave"
 
#32
#32
then T-Moblie can sponsor recruiting at the UA and AA games with recruits picking one school from their "Fave 5"
 

VN Store



Back
Top