|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 10:38:29 GMT -6
As coaches what are your thoughts on this? Please don't post fan-type stuff like "That's typical of ____ University"".
>>>Steve Spurrier “no longer welcome” to recruit Tucker prospects
By Michael Carvell | Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:00 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Steve Spurrier and the South Carolina Gamecocks are “no longer welcome” at Tucker High, one of the state’s top producers of college football prospects.
Tucker coach Franklin Stephens told the AJC of his proclamation after speaking with Spurrier on Sunday night. It had to do with Tucker linebacker Jonathan Davis, who had committed to South Carolina but was told on Friday that the Gamecocks had withdrawn the scholarship offer.
“The bottom line … what South Carolina did to Jonathan was wrong,” Stephens told the AJC. “Coach Spurrier accepted blame for the situation … [but he] is not going to do anything to fix the situation, therefore South Carolina will not be recruiting any more Tucker players.”
On Friday, Stephens had a “heated” conversation with Gamecocks assistant Shane Beamer, who ultimately said “South Carolina had to do what was in South Carolina’s best interests when it came to recruiting,” according Stephens. How did the Tucker coach respond? “I am … not even going to say. It was a heck of a phone call. I’ll just leave it at that.” Stephens held off on commenting until he heard Spurrier’s side of the story on Sunday night.
“It’s not fair what happened to Jonathan,” Stephens said. “When he committed to South Carolina, he turned down scholarship opportunities to other schools. And then those other schools moved on to fill that spot. What South Carolina did was wrong, and the timing of it, so close to signing day [Feb. 4], is worse. It’s just a bad deal.”
After being shocked by South Carolina on Friday, Davis scrambled for college options and made an official visit to Alabama-Birmingham over the weekend. When Davis committed to South Carolina on Dec. 17, he said he had also considered offers from Georgia Tech, Boston College, Central Florida, Oklahoma State, and Louisville. Stephens said he had made some phone calls, but was unaware if any of those schools would offer again.
What really went wrong between South Carolina and Davis? The Gamecocks, per NCAA rules, are not allowed to comment on prospective-student athletes. The 5-foot-7, 205-pound Davis said he was told South Carolina withdrew the offer because it needed to recruit cornerbacks. The Gamecocks projected Davis to play safety.
Everything began to unravel after South Carolina assistant Ron Cooper was hired away by LSU on Jan. 6. Cooper coveted Davis and was the catalyst behind South Carolina’s offer.
What other factors may have contributed?
Stephens said South Carolina’s switch had nothing to do with academics. “Based on his grades and an ACT score, [Davis] is on track to qualify.”
Also, South Carolina is loaded up on commitments, with 25 players saying they intend to sign with the Gamecocks, and scholarship offers still out to several elite prospects, including defensive tackle Kwame Geathers of Carver’s Bay, S.C., and Garden City Junior College wide receiver Cameron Kenney, who is from Dacula. UGA has also offered both Geathers and Kenney.
Stephens is not setting any precedents with his stance toward South Carolina. For example, Carver-Atlanta coach Darren Myles Sr. told the AJC earlier this year that he has banned one Conference USA school from recruiting at his school because it offered scholarships to two of his players last spring, then pulled them when the players were considering a commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 13, 2009 10:56:16 GMT -6
I don't like it when kids get screwed over. It needs to be exposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiaa3 on Jan 13, 2009 10:57:23 GMT -6
This type of stuff happens all of the time. Kids always get their scholarships pulled. It isn't the first time and it isn't the last time this will happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jan 13, 2009 11:01:57 GMT -6
When I first read it the article I thought, you know, good for the coach that is a bunch of BS ...but then as I thought of it... how many kids pull their commitment? Does a college have more of an obligation to honor a committment? Yes you say. well what about the colleges that try to talk kids out of commitments. It's a 2 way street no? I am in favor of an early signing date like in BB. Does it push everything back. Colleges are offering sophomores now.. how much further back can/will they go. The college might be banned from the school but there are ways around that. Is a coach really going to tell guidance not to send transcripts? Sounds like a lawsuit. Coach won't give film... somebody else will. This is the ugly side of recruiting that happens on at least a weekly basis.. it just never gets reported
What are your thoughts Phantom?? You guys always have a "few good recruits"
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 11:16:08 GMT -6
When I first read it the article I thought, you know, good for the coach that is a bunch of BS ...but then as I thought of it... how many kids pull their commitment? Does a college have more of an obligation to honor a committment? Yes you say. well what about the colleges that try to talk kids out of commitments. It's a 2 way street no? I am in favor of an early signing date like in BB. Does it push everything back. Colleges are offering sophomores now.. how much further back can/will they go. The college might be banned from the school but there are ways around that. Is a coach really going to tell guidance not to send transcripts? Sounds like a lawsuit. Coach won't give film... somebody else will. This is the ugly side of recruiting that happens on at least a weekly basis.. it just never gets reported What are your thoughts Phantom?? You guys always have a "few good recruits" Given the facts as presented in the article I completely agree with the HS coach. |
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 13, 2009 11:20:39 GMT -6
jgordan I agree with you kids pull their commitments all the time. another example of this kind of thing is the whole robert marve situation. After he decided to transfer and UM gave him a bunch of stipulations the coach over at his old school Tampa Plant (FL) said he will not allow UM to recruit one of his kids. Plant is considered one of the powerhouse schools here in florida, QB after marve Aaron Murray is going to Georgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 11:25:30 GMT -6
jgordan I agree with you kids pull their commitments all the time. another example of this kind of thing is the whole robert marve situation. After he decided to transfer and UM gave him a bunch of stipulations the coach over at his old school Tampa Plant (FL) said he will not allow UM to recruit one of his kids. Plant is considered one of the powerhouse schools here in florida, QB after marve Aaron Murray is going to Georgia. So, as a HS coach, you're saying that you wouldn't mind a college pulling your kid's schollie a month before signing day because of what happened at Miami? |
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 13, 2009 11:36:52 GMT -6
I didnt say that. I said that I agreed with him that kids pull their commitments from schools all the time. The thing with Miami was just another example of a HS coach not allowing a school to recruit his kids.
Also how come nothing was said last year when Florida (I think) pulled a schollie from a O-lineman becuse he took to long to make up his mind? By the time he made up his mind they had already moved on and filled their limit of OL.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jan 13, 2009 11:39:09 GMT -6
WOW.
IMO the ban should be against Spurrier-run programs though, not necessarily SC.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 11:40:32 GMT -6
WOW. IMO the ban should be against Spurrier-run programs though, not necessarily SC. I definitely agree with that. |
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 13, 2009 11:52:58 GMT -6
ahhh i see it now, guess I skipped over the part where it said he had already committed. darn ADD.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 13, 2009 12:05:56 GMT -6
SC had the problem a few years ago of kids being offered and then the university told them they wouldn't get in like two weeks before they were to enroll. They had the grades and test scores, but they were turned away.
When Spurrier first came here he took some schlorships away from players which caused an uproar with some hs coaches in the state. From what I hear here in SC, the only reason they were after this kid was Ron Cooper wanted him and when Cooper left they told him he no longer had an offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 12:19:20 GMT -6
ahhh i see it now, guess I skipped over the part where it said he had already committed. darn ADD. Yes and that makes all the difference. This is NOT about a kid who hasn't committed yet. That would be a different situation and not one that I could complain about. It's also not about academics. If the player does not hold up his end and either does not qualify or has a problem with admissions then that's a different story. There's no indication that there's a character issue. If a player gets arrested the college probably should pull his offer. For purposes of this discussion lets keep it at the facts as presented: the college offered, the kid accepted, then the college decided that they wanted to recruit some different players and pulled the offer. Under those circumstances I'll repeat what I said earlier- I agree with the HS coach. This college would have a hard time getting back into our school while that HC is there. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 13, 2009 12:21:28 GMT -6
SC had the problem a few years ago of kids being offered and then the university told them they wouldn't get in like two weeks before they were to enroll. They had the grades and test scores, but they were turned away. When Spurrier first came here he took some schlorships away from players which caused an uproar with some hs coaches in the state. From what I hear here in SC, the only reason they were after this kid was Ron Cooper wanted him and when Cooper left they told him he no longer had an offer. Sounds like Spurrier needs to put down the golf clubs and know what is going on with his program. If not that, then it shows very poor character on Spurrier's part. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 13, 2009 12:35:06 GMT -6
The fact that the athlete had already committed is what makes the situation such crap. I agree completely with what the HS coach is doing; signing day is less than a month away.
|
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 13, 2009 12:45:34 GMT -6
But isnt signing day only the first day that kids can sign not the last? why should that have any effect on the importance of this situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 12:55:26 GMT -6
But isnt signing day only the first day that kids can sign not the last? why should that have any effect on the importance of this situation? Once the player tells the other schools that he's committed to ___ University they move on. They may have commitments from other players and no longer have a spot for this kid. |
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 13, 2009 13:04:36 GMT -6
To people talking about how players pull commitments so what? As a HS coach I don’t give a {censored} what some kid in Tampa did. My loyalty and concern is 100% with my players. If a college program thinks it okay to screw over my players they are no longer welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjamerson on Jan 13, 2009 13:38:34 GMT -6
Was it ever confirmed on why South Carolina pulled the scholarship?
Above all else, if the kid did nothing to warrant the offer being taken away, then that is just a big mess. This kid has committed his future to a school that couldn't do the same. Talk about a raw deal...I imagine he'll have trouble trusting the "establishment" from now on.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jan 13, 2009 15:35:29 GMT -6
This is our rival school and there is more to the situation than is listed in the player. South Carolina never should have offered JD a scholly if they weren't going to be patent enough to wait on a few things some on there end and some on his.
|
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 13, 2009 16:39:24 GMT -6
This is our rival school and there is more to the situation than is listed in the player. South Carolina never should have offered JD a scholly if they weren't going to be patent enough to wait on a few things some on there end and some on his. So give us the inside scoop, Whats going on? |
|
|
|
Post by rattfink on Jan 13, 2009 16:40:15 GMT -6
Also how come nothing was said last year when Florida (I think) pulled a schollie from a O-lineman becuse he took to long to make up his mind? By the time he made up his mind they had already moved on and filled their limit of OL. Urban has a track record of slow playing kids. |
|
|
|
Post by lilbuck1103 on Jan 13, 2009 18:10:37 GMT -6
Part of it is the nature of the beast. There are so many athletes that can play at that level and now there are so many schools recruiting the US, not just their surrounding states. It can be tough for a school to wait and wait for a kid to decide and then lose out on other athletes who could be contributors. Kids also get in trouble because programs do not always keep their words, change coaches or set transfer rules that are not always fair.
Either way, if a school did this at the place where I am coaching, that would be the last time we would do business. As Lou Holtz said, "Treat others how you would like to be treated." That and the ole what goes around comes around comes to mind
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 13, 2009 18:19:55 GMT -6
I don't think I would have banned SC if I were teh HS coach. ALl you guys backing him are only thinking of the present time and this one player. By not allowing SC to recruit at the school you may be hurting several future players of your program that couldve have a shot at playing there......But then again if a player from that HS wants to play for SC there's no stopping him.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jan 13, 2009 18:34:50 GMT -6
But isnt signing day only the first day that kids can sign not the last? why should that have any effect on the importance of this situation? Because the kid was already committed and other schools moved on and filled their available scholarships. If someone came to you in Dec. and offered you a job starting Feb 4, you accepted then, made plans to relocate, and then for weeks you told several other very good prospective employers who called you back that you'd found something else and politely refused their offers, would you really think it was perfectly acceptable for that employer to come back to you 3 weeks before you were set to go and tell you they were pulling their job offer back because they'd just decided they didn't want you anymore? What if this was your friend or son? That's the issue at stake here. Just saying "well the kid could have changed his mind so why not the school?" misses the point. Besides, SC brings in a bunch of players in each recruiting class, but the recruits can only pick 1 school. I'm with Phantom on this. The kid just plain got screwed over. The HS coach has every right in the world not to work with anyone on Spurrier's staff to protect his players from being ripped off like this again. It's not like SC had to handle things this way. At Tennessee there was just a coaching change and almost the entire staff got fired. Lane Kiffin came in and decided that several of the kids who had committed to the previous staff were not the sort of players that he wanted. He called those recruits up and told them as much. Yet the key difference is this: HE STILL PROMISED TO HONOR THE SCHOLARSHIPS THE KIDS HAD ACCEPTED IF THE KIDS STILL WANTED THEM!!! Yes, he was up front and let them know they'd probably not fit well with his systems and that he didn't expect them to ever see much playing time, but he never actually pulled a scholarship out from under some kid planning out the next 3-5 years of his life. A much better way to handle things, IMO. Hasn't Spurrier pulled this kind of crap before? I hate when schools offer more scholarships than they actually have. I understand it's because they don't expect all those kids to commit, or expect to be able to pull offers from those who've dragged their feet, but this is classless and just plain unprofessional. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 13, 2009 19:26:24 GMT -6
I don't think I would have banned SC if I were teh HS coach. ALl you guys backing him are only thinking of the present time and this one player. By not allowing SC to recruit at the school you may be hurting several future players of your program that couldve have a shot at playing there......But then again if a player from that HS wants to play for SC there's no stopping him. If South Carolina wants him then others will want him, others who we can trust. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 13, 2009 19:33:51 GMT -6
One thing it does, if SC and Spurrier start recruiting your kid and offer him a scholly, no reason for that kid to blow off everyone else and commit solely to SC. Why risk getting hosed?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcathey on Jan 13, 2009 20:56:11 GMT -6
So should football have an early signing period? Would this help or hurt football? I know that they are tossing the idea around. So how could this effected this situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jan 13, 2009 22:10:23 GMT -6
A 17 year old kid doing something does not make it right for an adult professional to do the same thing. As an institutionn and program if you make an offer your word should be your bond period, no exceptions, or explanations given. It's January and they just figured out they need to recruit corners? Please- are they really that disorganized and pathetic? The best thing that may have happened is this kid does not end up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer5 on Jan 13, 2009 23:46:40 GMT -6
This is just another reason why there needs to be an Early Signing Day.
|
|
