|
Post by tripleoption61 on Jan 14, 2009 1:20:58 GMT -6
I agree with the hs coach. If a kid commits its a done deal. I know for our program we have two schools that are banned from recruiting our kids. Illinois State and Brock Spack, University of Illinois and Ron Zook. Not Welcome!
|
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Jan 14, 2009 1:26:14 GMT -6
what made your program decide to block these schools and coaches?
|
|
begreat
Junior Member
I don't have a bunch of hobbies, football is my hobby. They just pay me to do it. ---Mike Tomiln
Posts: 293
|
Post by begreat on Jan 25, 2009 2:09:59 GMT -6
I think it would be hard to "not" return calls or send film on my kids. I would feel like I may be hurting their future. Recruiting is a tough game. I do think SC was wrong for pulling it unless they have a good reason. There are alot of kids right now that are committed but will change on signing day.
|
|
|
Post by dal9000 on Jan 25, 2009 3:45:01 GMT -6
Illinois State and Brock Spack What a name, though! I too am interested in hearing what you consider a bannable offense for colleges -- I'm not asking for any of the messy details of what's happened in the past; I'd just like a general description of what a college has to do before you ban it.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 9:18:42 GMT -6
I think it would be hard to "not" return calls or send film on my kids. I would feel like I may be hurting their future. Recruiting is a tough game. I do think SC was wrong for pulling it unless they have a good reason. There are alot of kids right now that are committed but will change on signing day. Who said anything about not returning calls? What's the sense of banning somebody if you don't tell them why?
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jan 25, 2009 10:28:48 GMT -6
This stuff happens all the time. That doesn't make it right, but let's call it like it is. D1 college football is a business. And like in business one's word is meaningless(unfortunately). Until those dotted lines are signed, there is no legal agreement.
On a related note, I personally feel more empathy for the high school kid who changes commitments than I do for a college. I know this is going to make me sound jaded, and it is definitely not consistent with the values that we try to teach through football, but when it comes to the recruiting process, i think the kid has to look out for himself, because the sad truth is, that's what the colleges are doing....looking out for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bleefb on Jan 25, 2009 10:29:43 GMT -6
We had a situation like this years ago with Stanford. They were recruiting our All-American offensive tackle and our QB. Our QB dreamed of going to Stanford so he committed to them early and it was set. The tackle wasn't as sure so they pitched him as a package deal. He committed at the last minute. As soon as they had him signed they dropped our QB, telling him his grades weren't good enough. Since his grades hadn't changed, we thought it was a classic bait and switch. Fortunately he was able to get a scholarship to Colorado State and had a great career. The tackle, by the way, blew his knee and never played a snap for them. Karma, I guess. Fast-Forward several years later, Stanford wanted our QB again. Even though it was a different coaching staff, we almost threw them off the campus and explained why. This time they were very upfront during the process and our kid went there. Just a contrast in the right and wrong way to do things.
|
|
kw
Freshmen Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by kw on Jan 25, 2009 10:36:47 GMT -6
Major college football is a business! When there are jobs on the line it is a business regardless what you may think. It happens all the time.
kw
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 10:58:43 GMT -6
Major college football is a business! When there are jobs on the line it is a business regardless what you may think. It happens all the time. kw That's correct. It is a business. Reliability and honesty are important if a business is going to stay successful for long. Suppose you ordered chinstraps from a company based on their promise that they'd get them to you by the start of spring ball. The day before practice starts they call you, "Coach, we don't have your chinstraps. We made a mistake and ordered too many thigh pads and not enough chinstraps. Sorry.". Would you continue to order from that company? It's a business all right.
|
|
kw
Freshmen Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by kw on Jan 25, 2009 11:00:36 GMT -6
Like I stated it is a business. You may not like it. REGARDLESS!!
kw
|
|
kw
Freshmen Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by kw on Jan 25, 2009 11:04:50 GMT -6
Supply and demand. That will never change. 119 major colleges vs how many recruits. You can get upset but it happens. I am not saying it is right, but it happens.
kw
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 11:19:12 GMT -6
Supply and demand. That will never change. 119 major colleges vs how many recruits. You can get upset but it happens. I am not saying it is right, but it happens. kw Like I said, I agree that it's a business. That cuts both ways, though.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 25, 2009 12:15:57 GMT -6
Well, the ORIGIN of the problem is indeed with the schools combined with the recruiting calender They offer more scholarships than they have with too long a window to make decisions before anything is "binding" They are able to offer more scholarships than they have available because there really isn't any recourse to the action.
Other than a kid falling for a hard sales pitch and committing , would there be any danger of going to system of "On ____ day of September a school may contact a kid, and starting from that day, the kid may commit to a binding NLI?
|
|
|
Post by coachjimmer on Jan 25, 2009 13:30:59 GMT -6
Can we go back to the original question of this thread? Should we have an early signing period for football?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 25, 2009 13:50:00 GMT -6
coachjimmmer---I wasn't aware that this was the original question. That is just the question on the top of page two.
Now, I would ask, what would an early signing period do to alleviate this? I am not extremely familiar with the early signing period in basketball, but I DO see the recruiting of pre HIGH SCHOOL kids in b-ball....
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 14:32:34 GMT -6
Can we go back to the original question of this thread? Should we have an early signing period for football? That wasn't the original question.
|
|
|
Post by coachjimmer on Jan 25, 2009 16:20:18 GMT -6
Yep you are right. I clicked on the thread and the coach cathey's post appeared first.
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 25, 2009 16:40:41 GMT -6
Stuff like this happens all the time, but you usually don't hear about it. Coaches tell recurits that if they visit other schools they lose the offer, it happened this year in SC to a kid that was getting big interest from So Cal and said that he wanted to visit other schools. Carroll came in to visit the other day, so they must still want him.
The issue at SC is that Ron Cooper wanted the kid for his secondary, then he left the program on his own to take another job. The other coaches didn't feel like he fits with what they want to do. What should they have done, gave him the scholarship and let him sit the bench until he finally got the idea that he wasn't going to play and transfered or tell him now and let him find somewhere else?
How is this wrong when the kids do it to the programs all the time? They tell them for weeks and even monthes that they are coming, only to pick someone else on signing day. But when a coach does it he is a no good a-hole for doing this to a player.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 17:04:18 GMT -6
Stuff like this happens all the time, but you usually don't hear about it. Coaches tell recurits that if they visit other schools they lose the offer, it happened this year in SC to a kid that was getting big interest from So Cal and said that he wanted to visit other schools. Carroll came in to visit the other day, so they must still want him. The issue at SC is that Ron Cooper wanted the kid for his secondary, then he left the program on his own to take another job. The other coaches didn't feel like he fits with what they want to do. What should they have done, gave him the scholarship and let him sit the bench until he finally got the idea that he wasn't going to play and transfered or tell him now and let him find somewhere else? How is this wrong when the kids do it to the programs all the time? They tell them for weeks and even monthes that they are coming, only to pick someone else on signing day. But when a coach does it he is a no good a-hole for doing this to a player. I've heard the "kids do it" argument all the time in defending the coaches as though I said that that was OK. Should they have honored the offer? Yes or they shouldn't have offered in the first place. If they decided that the player suddenly didn't fit their system they should have explained his probable lack of playing time under the new system but kept the offer on the table. As I've said earlier these coaches would have some 'splainin to do before they'd be welcome back at our place.
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 25, 2009 17:17:25 GMT -6
Stuff like this happens all the time, but you usually don't hear about it. Coaches tell recurits that if they visit other schools they lose the offer, it happened this year in SC to a kid that was getting big interest from So Cal and said that he wanted to visit other schools. Carroll came in to visit the other day, so they must still want him. The issue at SC is that Ron Cooper wanted the kid for his secondary, then he left the program on his own to take another job. The other coaches didn't feel like he fits with what they want to do. What should they have done, gave him the scholarship and let him sit the bench until he finally got the idea that he wasn't going to play and transfered or tell him now and let him find somewhere else? How is this wrong when the kids do it to the programs all the time? They tell them for weeks and even monthes that they are coming, only to pick someone else on signing day. But when a coach does it he is a no good a-hole for doing this to a player. I've heard the "kids do it" argument all the time in defending the coaches as though I said that that was OK. Should they have honored the offer? Yes or they shouldn't have offered in the first place. If they decided that the player suddenly didn't fit their system they should have explained his probable lack of playing time under the new system but kept the offer on the table. As I've said earlier these coaches would have some 'splainin to do before they'd be welcome back at our place. Maybe the school that Cooper left to go to should be forced to take the player. He was the one that wanted him so much, and then he leaves SC making them look bad for pulling the offer. If he had any idea that he was going to leave he should have never pressured them in offering the boy. Come on, he know somewhere along the course of things that he was leaving, but he doesn't tell the player? Trust me Spurrier has all kinds of problems at SC. I am a gamecock fan, and he has a lot that he needs to work on as far as dealing with HS coaches. There is a reason that the top players in this state are going to clemson and it ain't that they beat SC a lot. It's that IMO spurrier hasn't built a base with HS coaches here and the coaches may not trust him. Should they have offered the boy in the first place, if they honestly wanted him. Should people ban them for pulling the offer, no. It is part of the business. Who knows, what if the kid decided on signing day to go to GA or something and SC was depending on him to come there. Would he be a bad guy and would spurrier ban players from that hs from playing a SC?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 25, 2009 17:29:30 GMT -6
I've heard the "kids do it" argument all the time in defending the coaches as though I said that that was OK. Should they have honored the offer? Yes or they shouldn't have offered in the first place. If they decided that the player suddenly didn't fit their system they should have explained his probable lack of playing time under the new system but kept the offer on the table. As I've said earlier these coaches would have some 'splainin to do before they'd be welcome back at our place. Maybe the school that Cooper left to go to should be forced to take the player. He was the one that wanted him so much, and then he leaves SC making them look bad for pulling the offer. If he had any idea that he was going to leave he should have never pressured them in offering the boy. Come on, he know somewhere along the course of things that he was leaving, but he doesn't tell the player? Trust me Spurrier has all kinds of problems at SC. I am a gamecock fan, and he has a lot that he needs to work on as far as dealing with HS coaches. There is a reason that the top players in this state are going to clemson and it ain't that they beat SC a lot. It's that IMO spurrier hasn't built a base with HS coaches here and the coaches may not trust him. LOL. Why do you think that is? Think pulling offers will help?
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 25, 2009 17:40:43 GMT -6
No, but neither will bringing kids on campus to sit the bench because a coach that offered him a scolly left the program for another job.
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 27, 2009 7:30:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 27, 2009 9:59:29 GMT -6
The first thing that I want to say is that my intention was not to attack USC. I have no feelings for or against them. Not a fan, not an anti-fan. We take pride here in not being a fan site but in being a site for coaches to discuss coaching issues. This was intended to be discussed as a coaching issue. My intetntion here was to discuss whether HS coaches were justified in banning recruiters of programs who they felt had treated their kids unfairly. If possible I would have preferred to have posted the article without references to a specific school. That wasn't possible. The question still stands- should HS coaches ban recruiters of schools that they believe have acted unethically? I still say yes.
|
|
|
Post by dal9000 on Jan 27, 2009 12:58:11 GMT -6
The question still stands- should HS coaches ban recruiters of schools that they believe have acted unethically? I still say yes. I agree, but let me play devil's advocate: what if you have a kid who's academically marginal AND hurting for money, so that you think football is his best chance to get a 4-year degree? Why would you turn away ANY coach that was interested? What if it was late in the recruiting cycle, and a school you'd banned called you and said it was interested in taking the kid?
|
|
|
Post by teachcoachwm on Jan 28, 2009 0:17:43 GMT -6
If you were a college head coach and one of your coaches was specifically told NOT to offer this kid yet.....but the assistant went ahead and did it anyway, what is the right move then? This seems like a no-win situation for everybody involved, with the exception of Ron Cooper who got his salary just about doubled by LSU........
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 28, 2009 9:24:47 GMT -6
The question still stands- should HS coaches ban recruiters of schools that they believe have acted unethically? I still say yes. I agree, but let me play devil's advocate: what if you have a kid who's academically marginal AND hurting for money, so that you think football is his best chance to get a 4-year degree? Why would you turn away ANY coach that was interested? What if it was late in the recruiting cycle, and a school you'd banned called you and said it was interested in taking the kid? Is this one question or two?
|
|