Should Commitments be binding?

#126
#126
Orangekush423 said:
Yeh.I feel the same now as I do in my 1st post on the topic. (Page 1, maybe 3 or 4 down) The system is fine. The media/net/fans are the ones with the issue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The central problem with an early signing period,especially in basketball, is if the coach leaves should the player opt out of his LOI.

You are now seeing a new trend with the financial aid package route.
 
#128
#128
robvols said:
This is why I use the word "verbal" than the word "commitment" more often. Verbals are subject to change. Once they have faxed in the papers, "commitment" is the more appropriate word to use.
Click to expand...

That's retarded.

When a player faxes in an LOI, they are "SIGNED". They commit when they commit.
 
#135
#135
robvols said:
The central problem with an early signing period,especially in basketball, is if the coach leaves should the player opt out of his LOI.

You are now seeing a new trend with the financial aid package route.
Click to expand...

If anything, it would/could be only the HC. Otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#136
#136
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I think the point is that the recruiting world needs to use words that accurately describe what a prospect actually is.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should use a color code system like the Department of Homeland Security. Seriously, what difference does it make which word you use? Everybody knows that until they are signed nothing is official and that there are different degrees of "committed" based on strength of relationships and the makeup of the kids. Why does it need to be more complicated?
 
Last edited:
#137
#137
GAVol said:
Maybe we should use a color code system like the Department of Homeland Security. Seriously, what difference does it make which word you use? Everybody knows that until they are signed nothing is official and that there are different degrees of "committed" based on strength of relationships and the makeup of the kids. Why does it need to be more complicated?
Click to expand...

I like the Ron White version of the Heightened State of Awareness system the best. :)
 
#138
#138
nickknx865 said:
First of all, my avy is Stafon Johnson, who's playing for the Titans now, who are my NFL team. You probably remember him as the guy who had his throat crushed while bench pressing, and lived to tell the tale.

Second of all, I'm a Tennessee fan first, and most likely always will be. If Tennessee played USC tomorrow, I'd definitely be rooting for Tennessee, no question about it.
Click to expand...

You don't need to explain youerself and anyone who asks you to needs to get a life...
 
#139
#139
Sabanocchio said:
This. Much has been said about convincing coaches to lay off of committed recruits, but you're never going to get all of these recruits to not take visits either.
Click to expand...

Truth. If I have "verbally" commited to another school and another big name school wanted me to come visit them and have the red carpet rolled out for me I'd be all about it. It would be an injustice to yourself not to...
 
#141
#141
To me recruiting has gone way over the top. To me they should allow them to sign LOI anytime after the 1st of the year of their junior year. If they sign they are committed, if they don't they are not committed, none of this verbal crap should be reported. You are either committed or you are not.
 
#142
#142
It would be hard to make the commitments binding, but I am in favor of an early signing period. If a kid is ready to sign the LOI then I think he should be able to sign early. This would allow the coaches to stop recruiting him and move on to other guys they are trying to get.
 
#143
#143
The problem with this thread and with mandating that a player's verbal/oral commitment to a college be binding is much broader than college sports recruiting. It really has nothing to do with football, or even college sports, at all. This comes down to contract law.

An agreement between a university and a student-athlete, whereby the student plays a sport for the university in exchange for a college scholarship, is a contract. In order to be legally enforceable, a contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (the value in connection with the contract).

During the recruiting process, a coach, acting as an agent of the university, makes an offer to a prospect. This terms of this offer basically state that the university agrees to foot the bill for tuition, books, room and board, etc., in exchange for the student agreeing to participate in whatever sport he/she is being recruited for.

Here is why this thread and the argument are pointless to debate. The terms of the contract specify a particular way in which the student must accept the offer. It must be signed by the student and delivered to the university before a specified date, otherwise it is void. It CANNOT be accepted orally. Once the offer is signed by the athlete and returned to the university, a legally enforceable contract comes into existence between the university and the student. Because the method of acceptance -- signing and delivering of the offer -- has been detailed in the contract, an oral commitment means nothing. Therefore, until the offer has been SIGNED by the athlete, any verbal statement, including verbal commitments, means NOTHING.

Basically, for a commitment to be binding, as the thread asks, one of two things must occur. Either a century's worth of contract law precedence must be thrown out in the name of inconvenience to the fans and coaches of college football (highly unlikely), or the scholarship offers must be worded to indicate that an offer may be orally accepted (also highly unlikely).

Either way, it's just something that we're going to have to deal with, because it isn't going away anytime soon.

Oh, and Go Vols! :)
 
#144
#144
VOLinthaATL said:
They do. The term "verbal commitment" is not binding whatsoever. Signing the LOI is. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

That's the key question here, I think. What is the problem?

Picking a school is a choice. You cannot regulate a decision. If a recruit wants to change his mind, then he has every right to do so. These kids are under a lot of pressure to commit to a school -- from coaches, from fans. Sometimes they will commit just to quiet things down so that they can focus on school and have a moment to breathe. Who has the right to tell them they cannot do that? No one has that authority over a guy that isn't even in a program yet.
 
#145
#145
Sabanocchio said:
That's the key question here, I think. What is the problem?

Picking a school is a choice. You cannot regulate a decision. If a recruit wants to change his mind, then he has every right to do so. These kids are under a lot of pressure to commit to a school -- from coaches, from fans. Sometimes they will commit just to quiet things down so that they can focus on school and have a moment to breathe. Who has the right to tell them they cannot do that? No one has that authority over a guy that isn't even in a program yet.
Click to expand...

These kids aren't even commits, IMO, they are "if things work out" guys. The word commitment means nothing in today's recruiting world.
 
#146
#146
g8terh8ter_eric said:
These kids aren't even commits, IMO, they are "if things work out" guys. The word commitment means nothing in today's recruiting world.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A commitment doesn't mean jack until they sign their name on the dotted line. That's why I think they should have the early signing period for those kids that really do have their mind made up and truly know where they want to go to school.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top