Redefining 'commitment'

I'm with BigWillie,

This is not a choice do I join the Marines and defend my country and possibly lose my life type of committment. This is a free ride to a college to 1. Get an education. 2. Possibly excel at an athletic endeavor. 3. Graduate from college. 4. Slim to none chance of making an NFL team.

I salute all the armed forces of our country for their choice to defend our freedom. I grieve for all that have died defending our freedom.

Yeah, I was eighteen once and protested the Vietnam War. 5 days after H.S. I was in boot camp. Did I have a choice yup.

Making a choice is part of life. The important ones are worth great consideration and careful thought. You make dumb choices and learn from the mistakes.

Man up and take the responsibility.

GBR

 
I guess that I need to clarify myself a little. Many are responding like I thought breaking a commitment was an ok thing to do. Where did I say this? I,at no time, said that I thought renigging in a verbal commitment was a good thing or a wise thing. I definately think people need to sure of things before they make a commitment. I was simply saying that I thought I had an understanding of why it may happen. I never condoned the practice. I was plenty upset with the Freeman incident and very critical of him for his decisions. You may look back and find my posts on the subject.

This is not a debate over whether renigging on a commitment is right or wrong, because I think that Bigwillie and I agree that it is not a standup or mature thing to do. So really, there is no agree or disagree with. How this came to be a dispute over war or marriage to Jessica Alba, I have not a clue. My earlier post had to do with semantics. The semantics around my use of the word "kids". I do agree with Bigwillie in many respects, just not over the maturity level of some of these young recruits. Many are kids. Some, are more than likely very mature young adults, but usually they are the ones who make a commitment and stick by it. I guess if you take my use of the word "kids" as meaning "all", there in would lie the problem.

So if you are debating that false commitments and reniggings are immature, you are preaching to the choir. If you wish to debate maturation levels and social didactics of 17-19 year olds, I will gladly do so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sense a little hypocrisy here...

If the verbal committment is such an indication of manhood or good character, does that mean the NU should never sign a kid who decommits from another school? Has NU ever signed a kid that decommitted from another school?

Take it to its logical exteme. Should every kid be denied the right to transfer? Say the coaching staff changes and the new staff puts in an offense or defense that does not suit the kid's talent - should be be denied the transfer? After all, he committed to the school, not the coach. So...should NU never accept a transfer? Has NU ever accepted a transfer?

What about JC kids that were "placed" by the university to whom they committed? If that university still wants the kid, but he goes to a different university, isn't he breaking his committment? So...should NU never accept a JC under those circumstances? Has NU ever accepted a JC kid under those circumstances?

The verbal committment is something dreamed up by the universities to serve their own purposes - it isn't something that is mandated by the NCAA or was created by the recruits. Each university pressures kids into committing early - hoping that the kid will "honor" that committment and the recruiting class can get locked up early, and that each committment might cause another player to commit.

And then, to top it all off, you have the universities either over-offering scholarships or offering them conditionally - "We'll take you if Johnny SuperStud does not sign or commit". And everyone expects the kids to honor their committment?

The kids are playing the system precisely as it was set up - set up by the universities and not the kids. If anyone doubts it, please point me to the NCAA rule that prohibits coaches from contacting or recruiting a kid that has given a verbal committment.

For the universities, it's a business. For the kids, it's a life choice - and probably the most important one they have made in their short lives. With the right decision, they stand a better chance of getting an education and becoming productive members of society. A bad choice, and we end up with kids dropping out or acting as a cancer on the team.

Given all the above, I'm going to come down on the side of the kids everytime...

 
AR husker Fan: I agree with your approach to this topic. The comittments are not contracts. Once the contract or agreement to attend is signed by the athlete, then it is somwwhat a different story. In some cases, such as a sick parent or sibling, an emergency situation may give the athlete good reason to change even at that point.

We only want those who are comfortable with their decision.

The Josh Freeman situation shoulc be looked on as a blessing for the team in that we only want those who truely believe in this program.

 
if you really wanted to redefine commitment accurately in today's recruiting world it pretty much means "save me a scholarship in case i dont find anything better."

and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top