No Visit Policy

[Atbone95]

http://espn.go.com/c...ke-little-sense

Fairly decent read only because ESPN DIDN'T go out of their way to bash Bo. In fact, they didn't even mention him! Surprising to me, but oh well. Does mention the recruitment of Dan Samuleson in reference.

Personally, I disagree with the article completely. I like Bo's philosophy and think it works well here. We want high character kids- if you want to be wishy washy, that's totally fine. Do it somewhere else.

 

[Touchdown Tommie]

It is a great point to keep in mind...if an athlete commits and the coaches truly believe he is in, other recruits in the same position may look elsewhere. I get that these are 17-18 year old kids, but it is only going to get worse in the future. The kids are so emotionally immature and mental midgets that they can be talked into anything on any given day. It is great to have a no nonsense attitude!

 

[scarletNcream]

I'll try to keep this brief as I got into a lengthy discussion with UM fans. Yes this does protect the school against someone committing just to hold a spot. We saw this happen to us this year. The Hypocrisy happens when you have Brady Hoke say we only want kids of the highest integrity to commit so if they want to visit somewhere else after they commit to UM, "after all, how wouldn't want to come to UM" , pull that schollie and then call another schools recruit, after they are committed, Where's your integrity? How do you trust the flip flopper you just contacted? I think the article made Hoke look like a douchebag and UM fan look just as dumb. ESPN once again set out to bash the BIG and accomplished it in a not so straightforward way.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Very good comment Scarlet.

You can't play it both ways and have any type of integrity.

Bo really doesn't have this policy anymore does he?

 

[ADS]

Very good comment Scarlet.

You can't play it both ways and have any type of integrity.

Bo really doesn't have this policy anymore does he?

He does to a certain degree, as you saw with Dominic Walker. The main thing is just to be honest with your intentions. DW was not straight forward, and Bo saw right through his BS. Samuelson was honest about his intentions with our coaches.

 

[TAKODA]

There is no sure answer to this issue. Tough call either way but if an 18 year old is considered an adult, and then his verbal commitment should count as a contract. One way to stop all this non-sense is to get rid of the structured signing day (LOI day) and allow recruits to sign at anytime during their senior high school season. Once they sign the dotted line, they cannot de-commit to another school unless the school they originally signed with approves it. The present LOI day can be the final cut off day for athletes to sign. I am sure there is plenty wrong with my thoughts here so feel free to expand why this wouldn’t work? I am just speaking off the cuff here without a lot of time invested thinking about all the issues this could present.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Very good comment Scarlet.

You can't play it both ways and have any type of integrity.

Bo really doesn't have this policy anymore does he?

He does to a certain degree, as you saw with Dominic Walker. The main thing is just to be honest with your intentions. DW was not straight forward, and Bo saw right through his BS. Samuelson was honest about his intentions with our coaches.

That's the way I understand it. If the recruit is honest with the staff, I see them not pulling scholarships...etc. But, if someone like DW claims he isn't going to visit anyone and he does, then...see ya.

 

[teachercd]

I guess I look at it this way.

1. You are applying for jobs

2. You get offered one and say that you are going to take it

3. Another offer comes in, one that is "better" for you in anyway that you define "better"

What do you do then? I know lots of people enjoy the idea of this "my word is my bond" notion, I like that idea a lot BUT, in the end, if option two is "better" for YOU (or your family, whatever) I think you need to take option two.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The way I understand it is the NCAA allows 5 official visits where the travel expenses are paid by the school. Would anyone support this?

If a kid officially commits to a school, then the NCAA would have a rule that no other school can pay for an official visit unless that kid officially decommits from his original school?

Meaning, the kid can still switch and he can still go visit. BUT, it would cut down on kids using a commit only to hold a spot till someone else comes along. It may also cut down on coaches being able to poach recruits off of other schools commit lists.

 

[Count 'Bility]

It's a two way street. If a young man committs, and then decides to entertain better offers from better programs, so be it. BUT!!!!!, why is it wrong for a coach to pull his offer for the sake of finding someone who is 100% committed. I dont have a problem with the recruit and/or the coach/program looking out for #1 in these situation. These recruits are also 17/18 years old and need to understand the repercussions of their decisions as well and that coaches do have to look out for their process to an extent as well. Major college football is big business and these recruits understand this. Theyre not all innocent little victims here.

Quote from article that made my chuckle: Once a recruit signs that letter of intent, the college essentially owns him.

Give me a break. "Own". Whatever. Spin it as you wish.

 

[TAKODA]

The way I understand it is the NCAA allows 5 official visits where the travel expenses are paid by the school. Would anyone support this?

If a kid officially commits to a school, then the NCAA would have a rule that no other school can pay for an official visit unless that kid officially decommits from his original school?

Meaning, the kid can still switch and he can still go visit. BUT, it would cut down on kids using a commit only to hold a spot till someone else comes along. It may also cut down on coaches being able to poach recruits off of other schools commit lists.

To be honest, I don't think the verbal commit holds any water according to all that has been happening. It’s the signing on the dotted line that matters and that is not until LOI day. This is why I said what I said a few post up. So in essence, the kid can do as he wishes up until he signs and that allows the kid to change his mind as much as he wants up until then. Correct me if I am wrong here?

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

 

[TAKODA]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

Not sure the NCAA wants to put too much pressure on the student athlete where they have to do anything (if they just verbally) saying they are going to a school. However if they just leave the option on the table that there is open signing throughout their Sr. High School year (X date through LOI day) and make sure the kid understands that if they commit (sign) they are on the hook until that school says otherwise or releases. If they don't sign, then they are free game to everyone and this would take the non-serious commits out of the equation. IMO

 

[teachercd]

You know, if you want to take pressure OFF the kid, how about a rule that they CAN'T commit while on a visit?

"Thank you for your visit, we really want you to be a Husker, I know you can't commit while on your visit but we really hope you call us when you get back home and wait the 24 hours"

That takes TONS of pressure off the kid. GIves the kid an "out" so to speak.

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

Not sure the NCAA wants to put too much pressure on the student athlete where they have to do anything (if they just verbally) saying they are going to a school. However if they just leave the option on the table that there is open signing throughout their Sr. High School year (X date through LOI day) and make sure the kid understands that if they commit (sign) they are on the hook until that school says otherwise or releases. If they don't sign, then they are free game to everyone and this would take the non-serious commits out of the equation. IMO

I know what you are trying to do. But, I think you would find that there would be EXTREME pressure put on kids my coaches to sign and some will end up signing and it not being in the best interest for them. I believe just before signing day, there is a dead period. This is for that reason. It gives the kid at least a little time to think before he actually signs a binding document.