|
Post by airraider on Feb 20, 2017 20:23:28 GMT -6
I coached for this guy for 3 seasons as his OC. I coach in the same district that this took place, and it has been a wild weekend trying to process what took place Friday. Long story short, Alabama offered Brandon Harris... Harris ended up going to LSU for 3 years and earned and lost the starting QB job. He has just recently announced that he will be transferring this season. Well, after Bama offered him, they were told while on campus that they had some other kids they wanted to look at and his offer was not committable at that time. So, in 2015 Feaster made a comment on a local radio station that Alabama was not welcomed back on their campus, as he felt this was an unethical recruiting process and he was not going to help them do another Parkway kid like that. So, it came up again right after the news of Harris transferring and it made national news. The current principal is in his first year... Feaster is in his 6th... Supposedly the negative impact that the comments has brought the school was the reasoning for the firing... www.arklatexhomepage.com/sports/full-interview-with-david-feaster/659482387
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 20, 2017 21:15:30 GMT -6
The "ban" was what sunk him. Just tell future kids what happened and let nature take its course.
|
|
|
Post by 3rdandlong on Feb 21, 2017 12:01:57 GMT -6
Why in the heck would you ban a college from your campus? Any college visiting is a good thing, ESPECIALLY Alabama!
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 21, 2017 16:42:25 GMT -6
Why in the heck would you ban a college from your campus? Any college visiting is a good thing, ESPECIALLY Alabama! I don't see it that way. He felt that his kid had been treated unfairly. He was protecting his kids. Sounds fair to me. I'm guessing that if Alabama was willing to sort of offer the kid he isn't going to get left out in the cold.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Feb 21, 2017 17:19:44 GMT -6
He was defending his player in a way he saw fit. Can't fault him for that.
|
|
|
Post by macdiiddy on Feb 21, 2017 20:10:33 GMT -6
If he is good enough for Alabama then there are 120 some other D1 schools that would love to have him. This is how change occurs. His ban made national news. If the principle would have backed the coach it would have sent a larger message to all College Football Recruiters and could potentially help kids across the country and not just one high school in Louisiana or wherever this high school is.
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Feb 23, 2017 7:36:34 GMT -6
Multiple D1 coaches have been banned from our campus over the past several years, for that same reason...offering kids, pulling the offer, then (literally) yelling at the kid for showing a lack of commitment to the college. We have gotten calls and offers by other schools, simply because they are willing and eager to work with my straight-shooting HC.
I agree, this was a HUGE missed opportunity by the principal over there. A little bit of support would have done more good for his high school than finding someone who kowtows.
|
|
CoachSP
Sophomore Member
Posts: 212
|
Post by CoachSP on Feb 24, 2017 7:55:57 GMT -6
Not sure if I am allowed to put this here, but here is the classified ad for that school from the LHSAA website. Go to the "Job Openings" tab. lhsaa.org/classifieds
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 24, 2017 8:13:41 GMT -6
Not sure if I am allowed to put this here, but here is the classified ad for that school from the LHSAA website. Go to the "Job Openings" tab. lhsaa.org/classifiedsCan't wait to apply for that one. Everybody loves a job where the principal has your back.
|
|
|
Post by B-gap-attack on Feb 25, 2017 2:26:25 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies.
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Feb 25, 2017 7:39:31 GMT -6
No, you don't get it, when you make an offer then pull it why should I trust you. One of the things we teach athletes and students is trust and loyalty. They lost my support of them when the school promises to give one of my kids a scholarship then pulls it. It's like a friend of mine, he gave a ring each to three or four girls to get married, but those girls either ran around on him or said they didn't want to get married after leading him on for a while. You think I would want anything to do with those girls or that I would say anything nice about them.
|
|
|
Post by macdiiddy on Feb 25, 2017 8:19:36 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies. I agree with freezeoption , I think you may be missing the fact that they offered his kid. Alabama gave their word saying I am going to offer you a scholarship. While they may have someone one better, they are still going back on their word. Real life analogy would be you marry a woman and then found another one who was "better" so you divorce your wife for an "upgrade". Your word and commitments mean something.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 25, 2017 8:25:34 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies. Curious as to how much you have been involved in the recruiting process as well as how much understand what reportedly happened here
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 25, 2017 8:35:30 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies. I agree with freezeoption , I think you may be missing the fact that they offered his kid. Alabama gave their word saying I am going to offer you a scholarship. While they may have someone one better, they are still going back on their word. Real life analogy would be you marry a woman and then found another one who was "better" so you divorce your wife for an "upgrade". Your word and commitments mean something. I think this is just an indication as to how bizarre and, quite frankly, foolish the current recruiting process is. I agree with your sentiments entirely macdiiddy but keep in mind the same thing happens in the opposite direction. Kids "commit" to schools, then de commit, then commit to other schools, then give a soft commit, etc. It is a result of the commercialization of the recruiting process combined with the intense pressure placed on 17,18 year olds. As far as the analogy, I don't think yours is spot on. The "real life" analogy of the recruiting process would be a guy proposes to several women, some accept, and then when the wedding day comes he ends up not marrying some of the women to whom he proposed. I have often wondered what effect "instant binding" would have on recruiting as opposed to the current NLI day system. Offer at any point but keep in mind that if accepted, it is binding. You offer that 8th grader, he accepts..BOOM locked in. He turns out to be a so/so player as a high schooler, oh well. Same for the athlete. You accept that offer BOOM, locked in. That staff leaves, oh well, you committed to the University, not the Coach. Oh well. I am sure there are some unintended consequences that I havent thought of, but it least it would eliminate some of the bastardization of the English language when it comes to the words offered and commit.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Feb 25, 2017 8:56:55 GMT -6
Not sure if I am allowed to put this here, but here is the classified ad for that school from the LHSAA website. Go to the "Job Openings" tab. lhsaa.org/classifiedsCan't wait to apply for that one. Everybody loves a job where the principal has your back. ...and a knife in one hand!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 14:39:04 GMT -6
Watching that interview and assuming he's the real deal, that's definitely the kind of coach I'd want my kid playing for.
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Feb 27, 2017 7:04:10 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies. No, this isnt about liking 2 girls, picking the cuter one, and the ugly one gets her feelings hurt....this is asking a girl to prom, color-coordinating your tux and dress, then dropping her when that girl with huge boobs winks at you a week before the dance. It's a subtle difference when discussing semantics, but a pretty huge gap in terms of integrity and ethics. Over Christmas, WKU offered our LB. He called to accept the offer and commit. They told they "were not accepting commitments at that time." Turns out they offered over 400 kids in the Tampa Bay area. We banned a former coach of a local program a few years ago. He'd offer 2 kids, 1 local and 1 far away. Then after signing day, he'd drop the local and tell him to walk on and earn the scholarship. He did it several times to schools in our area. I'm sure it isn't an isolated scenario. It's also BS.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 27, 2017 8:05:07 GMT -6
I don't think it teaches the kids about life when you basically say,"well they decided he wasn't good enough and went with the better option so they're not welcome". That my friend is reality. Anyone who disagrees like participation trophies. No, this isnt about liking 2 girls, picking the cuter one, and the ugly one gets her feelings hurt....this is asking a girl to prom, color-coordinating your tux and dress, then dropping her when that girl with huge boobs winks at you a week before the dance. It's a subtle difference when discussing semantics, but a pretty huge gap in terms of integrity and ethics. Over Christmas, WKU offered our LB. He called to accept the offer and commit. They told they "were not accepting commitments at that time." Turns out they offered over 400 kids in the Tampa Bay area. We banned a former coach of a local program a few years ago. He'd offer 2 kids, 1 local and 1 far away. Then after signing day, he'd drop the local and tell him to walk on and earn the scholarship. He did it several times to schools in our area. I'm sure it isn't an isolated scenario. It's also BS. That is pretty bad. Worst I have heard of is from a local coach (SouthEastern Louisiana) who posted this story here in a discussion about the Feaster/Bama situation Again to make clear, the above story is not a personal anecdote, but one I shared from a local coach. @coachclark11 again, how much experience do you have, and would you consider those objecting to situations like this lovers of participation trophies?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Feb 27, 2017 8:48:39 GMT -6
I may not be a a smart man but I know what messing with Saban gets you...Life won't be like a box of chocolates..
|
|
|
Post by 60zgo on Feb 27, 2017 9:20:36 GMT -6
This has come up in other threads before, but most of the big time programs over recruit. It's part of the game and I get it. They have no choice. Some guys are very upfront with recruiting and who is on their board and where your kid stands, but some are not. They tell your kid, "You are the one. You are the future and you have a place with us." Your kid thinks he's on the board, but in fact he's the back up to the back up plan. Your kid tells everyone to kick rocks and on signing day he gets screwed.
The SEC schools are some of the absolute worst offenders.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 27, 2017 9:41:55 GMT -6
There's a simple solution - force schools to honor the offers they make, period. If they over-offer, then they get put on immediate probation and lose future scholarships while having to honor the ones they offered.
Oh - and the kids are not locked in until they sign, which is on signing day. No earlier, unless you want to open up an early signing period so kids can sign before their Sr. seasons.
Of course, even if they get hurt, the school has to honor the scholarship offer.
If as a coach you don't like it, too bad, then don't coach at a D1/2 school that offers scholarships. Plenty of non-scholarship colleges and HS's where you won't have that issue.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 27, 2017 10:12:26 GMT -6
There's a simple solution - force schools to honor the offers they make, period. If they over-offer, then they get put on immediate probation and lose future scholarships while having to honor the ones they offered. Oh - and the kids are not locked in until they sign, which is on signing day. No earlier, unless you want to open up an early signing period so kids can sign before their Sr. seasons. Of course, even if they get hurt, the school has to honor the scholarship offer. If as a coach you don't like it, too bad, then don't coach at a D1/2 school that offers scholarships. Plenty of non-scholarship colleges and HS's where you won't have that issue. while i like your sentiments, that seems a bit one sided, considering the signing day issue. It seems all that would happen would coaches would adjust, and "offers" would not come until signing day, pushing back the recruiting process. I think a more even handed approach would be to put the power in the kids hands by allowing them to instantly accept the offer. That combined with the current standard of scholarship limits would control vast "over offering" while not exposing the colleges to a higher risk of being left with nothing. Keep in mind that one potential reason for over offering is that the word "commitment" does not mean commitment with many a recruited athlete. It means "leaning towards"
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Feb 27, 2017 10:54:16 GMT -6
There's a simple solution - force schools to honor the offers they make, period. If they over-offer, then they get put on immediate probation and lose future scholarships while having to honor the ones they offered. Oh - and the kids are not locked in until they sign, which is on signing day. No earlier, unless you want to open up an early signing period so kids can sign before their Sr. seasons. Of course, even if they get hurt, the school has to honor the scholarship offer. If as a coach you don't like it, too bad, then don't coach at a D1/2 school that offers scholarships. Plenty of non-scholarship colleges and HS's where you won't have that issue. So a college could only offer 20 kids a year? How would that work? Would be hard to bind colleges to an offer they make but not the kids. What if you offer 20 kids and they all go elsewhere? Now what do you do since you didn't over recruit because you only can offer 20 kids a year ?
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Feb 27, 2017 11:00:58 GMT -6
There's a simple solution - force schools to honor the offers they make, period. If they over-offer, then they get put on immediate probation and lose future scholarships while having to honor the ones they offered. Oh - and the kids are not locked in until they sign, which is on signing day. No earlier, unless you want to open up an early signing period so kids can sign before their Sr. seasons. Of course, even if they get hurt, the school has to honor the scholarship offer. If as a coach you don't like it, too bad, then don't coach at a D1/2 school that offers scholarships. Plenty of non-scholarship colleges and HS's where you won't have that issue. while i like your sentiments, that seems a bit one sided, considering the signing day issue. It seems all that would happen would coaches would adjust, and "offers" would not come until signing day, pushing back the recruiting process. I think a more even handed approach would be to put the power in the kids hands by allowing them to instantly accept the offer. That combined with the current standard of scholarship limits would control vast "over offering" while not exposing the colleges to a higher risk of being left with nothing. Keep in mind that one potential reason for over offering is that the word "commitment" does not mean commitment with many a recruited athlete. It means "leaning towards" I agree, I think this whole recruiting process is a mess. Both Colleges and Players are in the wrong. Allow them to sign whenever the school and kid is ready to "Commit". If a school offers a scholarship and the kid commits then that's it. If colleges want to sign a kid as a soph then so be it, BUT they are BOTH obligated to serve the commitment, if its broken then penalties will be enforced (loss of scholarships on college side, loss of yr eligibility on player side). I know this coach was trying to seem like he was protecting his players and I'm all for that, but on the flip side if one of his players commits to the university of Alabama, then put on the crazy circus that some of the top recruits do and takes off shirts and and put on different hats, or all this other crazy crap you see or hear about players doing, and decides NOT to uphold his commitment what does he do then??? I find it kinda hypocritical if you think its just the universities that are in the wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 27, 2017 13:14:40 GMT -6
Okay, I take the "simple" comment back. It's not simple, but it's not rocket science either.
The bottom line to me is this - this should be about educating KIDS. If there is going to be an imbalance in the process, let it be in favor of the kids. For that reason I'm hesitant about forcing a kid to honor a commitment made early in the process. Remember, we're talking about 15-16-17 year old kids. But yeah, if there's a way to do that, sure.
Ultimately, I have no qualms about holding coaches to their offers while allowing the kids to theoretically screw them over. Oh, well. Welcome to the real world. In many cases, I have to legally honor my job offers while the candidate can accept and not show up. That's the real world. Coaches can pick up and leave schools, while the players are stuck and cannot transfer without sitting out. Fix that imbalance and maybe we can look at this too.
Bottom line - coaches will get more careful with their offers. They'll pursue fewer kids and make sure there's a connection. They'll walk away from kids who are collecting offers. Ultimately it will work out. You make 20 offers and the kids all take other offers? There will still be kids with other offers in hand who will be holding out for "their school", because they'll know that not every offer will be accepted. Same thing that happens now will still happen, except you you won't have a kid saying "I HAVE AN OFFER" and shutting down his recruiting only to be left hanging come signing day. He might still get left in the lurch thinking he was plan B when he was actually plan D, but that's on him at that point. Right now, you literally have kids who have no idea they're about to be left on the curb, and they have no plan B because a promise was made to them by an institution (not a person - this is an institution making the promise) and not kept. That needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by B-gap-attack on Feb 27, 2017 13:17:18 GMT -6
We act like the kids can't change their minds last minute either. It is a two way street.
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Feb 27, 2017 13:25:14 GMT -6
Okay, I take the "simple" comment back. It's not simple, but it's not rocket science either. The bottom line to me is this - this should be about educating KIDS. If there is going to be an imbalance in the process, let it be in favor of the kids. For that reason I'm hesitant about forcing a kid to honor a commitment made early in the process. Remember, we're talking about 15-16-17 year old kids. But yeah, if there's a way to do that, sure. Ultimately, I have no qualms about holding coaches to their offers while allowing the kids to theoretically screw them over. Oh, well. Welcome to the real world. In many cases, I have to legally honor my job offers while the candidate can accept and not show up. That's the real world. Coaches can pick up and leave schools, while the players are stuck and cannot transfer without sitting out. Fix that imbalance and maybe we can look at this too. Bottom line - coaches will get more careful with their offers. They'll pursue fewer kids and make sure there's a connection. They'll walk away from kids who are collecting offers. Ultimately it will work out. You make 20 offers and the kids all take other offers? There will still be kids with other offers in hand who will be holding out for "their school", because they'll know that not every offer will be accepted. Same thing that happens now will still happen, except you you won't have a kid saying "I HAVE AN OFFER" and shutting down his recruiting only to be left hanging come signing day. He might still get left in the lurch thinking he was plan B when he was actually plan D, but that's on him at that point. Right now, you literally have kids who have no idea they're about to be left on the curb, and they have no plan B because a promise was made to them by an institution (not a person - this is an institution making the promise) and not kept. That needs to change. I heard an idea floated around the the AFCA Conf this year, i'm sure no more than anecdotal, about the idea of having multiple signing days, each a few weeks apart, much like a draft. Also, schools would be held to higher accountability to their offers. It's a big shift in the ideas and processes of signing day, but could be more beneficial to everyone. In short: Bama, USC, FSU, OSU, etc. all get to fight over the top few players. The dust settles. More kids sign to other schools. More dust settles. Repeat. I thought this idea had some merit. Schools can show interest, while kids can court multiple schools at once. Schools wont have to reach out of their league to offer. If a low-level school wants to sign their QB on the 1st signing day, more power to them! But this way, schools wont necessarily be throwing out feelers to 17 different QB's, talking each one up as the future of their program. Just an interesting thought...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 13:28:57 GMT -6
I coached for this guy for 3 seasons as his OC. I coach in the same district that this took place, and it has been a wild weekend trying to process what took place Friday. Long story short, Alabama offered Brandon Harris... Harris ended up going to LSU for 3 years and earned and lost the starting QB job. He has just recently announced that he will be transferring this season. Well, after Bama offered him, they were told while on campus that they had some other kids they wanted to look at and his offer was not committable at that time. So, in 2015 Feaster made a comment on a local radio station that Alabama was not welcomed back on their campus, as he felt this was an unethical recruiting process and he was not going to help them do another Parkway kid like that. So, it came up again right after the news of Harris transferring and it made national news. The current principal is in his first year... Feaster is in his 6th... Supposedly the negative impact that the comments has brought the school was the reasoning for the firing... www.arklatexhomepage.com/sports/full-interview-with-david-feaster/659482387 airraider you mentioned you coached under him. What was your experience like? Care to shine some more light?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 27, 2017 17:18:42 GMT -6
I heard an idea floated around the the AFCA Conf this year, i'm sure no more than anecdotal, about the idea of having multiple signing days, each a few weeks apart, much like a draft. Also, schools would be held to higher accountability to their offers. It's a big shift in the ideas and processes of signing day, but could be more beneficial to everyone. In short: Bama, USC, FSU, OSU, etc. all get to fight over the top few players. The dust settles. More kids sign to other schools. More dust settles. Repeat. I thought this idea had some merit. Schools can show interest, while kids can court multiple schools at once. Schools wont have to reach out of their league to offer. If a low-level school wants to sign their QB on the 1st signing day, more power to them! But this way, schools wont necessarily be throwing out feelers to 17 different QB's, talking each one up as the future of their program. Just an interesting thought... Not sure the guys floating this idea around understand the recruiting process...or maybe you didn't hear it exactly right and there are more details. There currently are multiple signing days because as the rule stands, the NLI signing day is the 1ST day that a binding agreement can be made. So the first Wednesday in February is "Signing Day", but athletes can sign an NLI on Thursday, Friday, Saturday...etc. Athletes are not forced to sign on that day. They can sign whenever. They can wait a week..two weeks, a month..
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Feb 28, 2017 6:47:43 GMT -6
I heard an idea floated around the the AFCA Conf this year, i'm sure no more than anecdotal, about the idea of having multiple signing days, each a few weeks apart, much like a draft. Also, schools would be held to higher accountability to their offers. It's a big shift in the ideas and processes of signing day, but could be more beneficial to everyone. In short: Bama, USC, FSU, OSU, etc. all get to fight over the top few players. The dust settles. More kids sign to other schools. More dust settles. Repeat. I thought this idea had some merit. Schools can show interest, while kids can court multiple schools at once. Schools wont have to reach out of their league to offer. If a low-level school wants to sign their QB on the 1st signing day, more power to them! But this way, schools wont necessarily be throwing out feelers to 17 different QB's, talking each one up as the future of their program. Just an interesting thought... Not sure the guys floating this idea around understand the recruiting process...or maybe you didn't hear it exactly right and there are more details. There currently are multiple signing days because as the rule stands, the NLI signing day is the 1ST day that a binding agreement can be made. So the first Wednesday in February is "Signing Day", but athletes can sign an NLI on Thursday, Friday, Saturday...etc. Athletes are not forced to sign on that day. They can sign whenever. They can wait a week..two weeks, a month.. Commitments would be more binding, I guess was a piece I missed on. Sure, there would be stipulations for both athlete and college (grades, injury, maybe coach leaving), but a school couldnt sign multiple kids to 1 position on "signing day," then drop the ones they didn't want 3 weeks later. There just needs to be a shift in the way the recruiting process takes place. Schools offering 400 kids in one urban area is out of control, just like kids switching 3 different hats on signing day, or kids making up a press conference and "committing" to a school that has never heard of the kid (remember that one? a few years back?)
|
|