LOI vs. Commitment

[Spartness]

Do some of you perhaps think it should be the same thing? The word commitment is becoming a joke, and many HC players are probably using it so they don't get bumped if there is no more room. Some seem to be commiting to more than one school. And the signing period should be much earlier -- the whole thing goes on way too long. And if something like this took place, I can only vision a recruit able to change his mind if the college HC resigns, gets fired, or there is hard proof that the college lied to the kid.

 

The college could only take away the LOI for legal and academic reasons. And yes I realize NU has gotten a few decommitments in the past. Perhaps we should get rid of commiting and force the kids and their families to think harder on what school they should attend? Or perhaps should there be one day, perhaps a month before LOI day, where the recruits can change their commitments, but there-after they are forced to honor their commitments?

[AR Husker Fan]

And interesting idea, but the more I think about it, the more I don't like it. If you implemented it, you are essentially forcing a kid to play for a school that he didn't want to attend. How productive would a kid like that be? I'd guess - not very, and more than likely would end up hurting the team.

 

How about the NCAA banning commits, period? What purpose do they serve? Until that name is on the dotted line, nothing else matters.

[Ohio Pete]

I read the other day about a change to add an early signing day. I think some of the kids would be in favor as it would allow them to worry about grades and school instead of getting 100 text messages before first period.

 

Also might be nice for us and other northern schools since late visits are kind of a problem when it is -2 out.

[gamecocks]

I think a lot of the decommitment stuff can be place at the philosophy of Head coaches. For example, if team A and team B are recruiting John Doe. Then John Doe gives a verbal commitment to go to team A, then the head coach of team B needs to decide if he will just accept that verbal and no longer talk to John Doe or if he wants to keep talking to him and try to pursade him over to team B.

 

It kind of seems to me that BC tends to accept the verbal and move on, while some coaches like Stoops will keep recruiting kids. I don't know if one is right or wrong, or if one is better than the other. But if my boss was going to promote me or one of my coworkers and he said that the coworker was probally going to get the promotion. I would work my butt off trying to impress him and make him think twice about that decision.