Sooo....are we worried about Amarion Brown?

[HeavenUniv.]

If anyone thinks people honor commitments today as much as they used to, the most obvious example is the number of divorces and broken homes and the widespread devastation across America. In 1900, there were conferences and studies around our country because people were afraid our divorce rate would hit 2 percent. Today it is 50 percent. Some people even go into marriages thinking that divorce is an option if they don’t like it. If a person doesn’t realize marriage is a lifetime commitment( yes with exceptions like adultery or some sicko who beats his wife), then why bother lying about being committed . Just shack up with the person.

 

[wheezer]

It is very simple. If you aren’t going to honor your word or aren’t sure, don’t give a verbal commitment. And yes, I agree it should work for coaches too. If Coach Jones is telling Johnny Hotshot and his parents he intends to be coaching at xyz university and then goes to xyz State for five dollars more, that is not ok.

It is a tough position for any player..... the recruit gets a RU offer and it is the best of the several offers he has

The fear of losing the offer spurs the player to commit...... later on a powerhouse SEC team offers, and that team is big time in every way, and blows him away

What does he do? In his heart he wants to switch, but he hates to renege on his word.....

Looking at it objectively, if the player wants to jump ship, he probably should.... if his heart is some place else

We may not like it when a switch works against us, but there may be instances that we are the late recepient of a switch ourselves. All part of the process....

RU is in the process of trying to flip a recruit that has verballed elsewhere right now

 

[HeavenUniv.]

Wheezer, I get what you are saying, but if a kid isn’t 100 percent positive he will honor his word, don’t commit. I would see nothing wrong with just saying “ As of June 15, my three favorites in order are University of xyz, Xyz State, and Xyz Tech. That way he doesn’t have to go back on his word down the line if he later decides he is picking Southern Xyz University.

 

[wheezer]

Wheezer, I get what you are saying, but if a kid isn’t 100 percent positive he will honor his word, don’t commit. I would see nothing wrong with just saying “ As of June 15, my three favorites in order are University of xyz, Xyz State, and Xyz Tech. That way he doesn’t have to go back on his word down the line if he later decides he is picking Southern Xyz University.

agree..... yet, the best offer at the moment may be told that the offers goes off the table if you don't commit soon.

the staff might feel plan b is very close to the top recruit, and plan b accepts

in some cases the recruit "blows up" after the commit

here, Brown was a known recruit from the start.

 

[Eagleton96]

You‘ve presented some good arguments. However, my point all along is not to state that I know whether or not people kept their word more back then than now. My point is that it’s an unprovable assertion. It is not something anybody can actually know.

We can debate it logically, which you and I have done. But we cannot measure it so we cannot know the truth of it.

Thus I remain skeptical of any conclusions people voice. If someone said that people today are more truthful than 80 years ago, I’d be equally skeptical. Valid arguments can be made to support the theory. But it’s an equally unprovable conclusion.

If you are going to get philosophical, let’s do it. Other than things we witness directly, we don’t KNOW anything. And even then, our minds/and eyes can fool us. We rely on second hand accounts and social processes to bring us information. Data can also be wrong, misleading, misinterpreted. We draw conclusions based on logic, various types of data, and inference. There is nothing special about this particular debate that makes it more or less data driven or knowable. So your point that we can’t KNOW if people were more honest is technically true, but you could make that same point about most issues we debate. Using logic and inferring conclusions from what information we have is a good way to go about it.

 

[Eagleton96]

If you are going to get philosophical, let’s do it. Other than things we witness directly, we don’t KNOW anything. And even then, our minds/and eyes can fool us. We rely on second hand accounts and social processes to bring us information. Data can also be wrong, misleading, misinterpreted. We draw conclusions based on logic, various types of data, and inference. There is nothing special about this particular debate that makes it more or less data driven or knowable. So your point that we can’t KNOW if people were more honest is technically true, but you could make that same point about most issues we debate. Using logic and inferring conclusions from what information we have is a good way to go about it.

Also, a quick look in the literature shows lots of social science on this question that suggests that our culture is more accepting of dishonesty than in the past.

 

[T2Kplus20]

I stopped getting excited about verbal commitments until they sign the letter. Until then I assume no one is actually committed.
Also with the free transfer rule now HS recruiting isn't as important as it once was. So my hope for this program isn't resting on each recruit in each class.
If he wants to be here great. If not no biggie

This ^^^^^

End of thread.

 

[mildone]

If you are going to get philosophical, let’s do it. Other than things we witness directly, we don’t KNOW anything. And even then, our minds/and eyes can fool us. We rely on second hand accounts and social processes to bring us information. Data can also be wrong, misleading, misinterpreted. We draw conclusions based on logic, various types of data, and inference. There is nothing special about this particular debate that makes it more or less data driven or knowable. So your point that we can’t KNOW if people were more honest is technically true, but you could make that same point about most issues we debate. Using logic and inferring conclusions from what information we have is a good way to go about it.

That’s why you very rarely ever see me express certainty about anything. I view certainty as a sign of limited intelligence; a lack of imagination.

But in this case, the cliche about a person’s word being their bond seems a great deal less knowable than many other things. For example, If I personally witness a person score a touchdown, see the score change, see game continue without replay reviews, and so on, then I am comfortable giving a high 90s probability that a TD was scored. But I still wouldn’t be 100% certain.

In this case, nobody can supply any useful data; just anecdotal observations. You mentioned the increase in divorce rates as evidence that people are less likely to honor their word today. But a divorce is a single promise broken. In any given marriage 80 years ago, among the 130,000,000 people in the US at the time, how do you know there weren’t dozens and dozens of broken promises that more than offset that single broken marriage vow today?

You don’t know. We cannot possibly know. I already showed that, mathematically, logically, it’s not possible for any of us to know how true to their word the world is/was in any given period. Can’t be done by us mere mortals.

It’s so insurmountably unquantifiable that it’s not really worth saying. Be like claiming French people are more loving than Americans. Have to define “loving” first. Good luck with that.

 

[Eagleton96]

That’s why you very rarely ever see me express certainty about anything. I view certainty as a sign of limited intelligence; a lack of imagination.

But in this case, the cliche about a person’s word being their bond seems a great deal less knowable than many other things. For example, If I personally witness a person score a touchdown, see the score change, see game continue without replay reviews, and so on, then I am comfortable giving a high 90s probability that a TD was scored. But I still wouldn’t be 100% certain.

In this case, nobody can supply any useful data; just anecdotal observations. You mentioned the increase in divorce rates as evidence that people are less likely to honor their word today. But a divorce is a single promise broken. In any given marriage 80 years ago, among the 130,000,000 people in the US at the time, how do you know there weren’t dozens and dozens of broken promises that more than offset that single broken marriage vow today?

You don’t know. We cannot possibly know. I already showed that, mathematically, logically, it’s not possible for any of us to know how true to their word the world is/was in any given period. Can’t be done by us mere mortals.

It’s so insurmountably unquantifiable that it’s not really worth saying. Be like claiming French people are more loving than Americans. Have to define “loving” first. Good luck with that.

I never mentioned divorce rates. The issue is what's the standard of proof? In a court room we don't need certainty. In a criminal trial we need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict. In a civil trial it's simply "the preponderance of the evidence". In science, a hypothesis is accepted based on something similar to the preponderance of the evidence. Your standard here for this particular discussion seems to be unreasonably high. And not a standard that anyone applies to any other question. Certainly it's well beyond what would be accepted as strong supporting data in the social sciences.

Also, your own argument - that the confidence with which one express their argument is inversely proportional to the intelligence or veracity of the person making the argument - seems to be working against you here. You are expressing some kind of existential certainty here that we could never establish some real knowledge about trends in honesty. I don't see why that's the case. For example, a simple public survey or similar data could easily exist that would provide strong evidence.

If you are saying that's still not KNOWING....well then you are just questioning the nature of knowledge and reality at that point. And what's the point of that and how is it relevant to this discussion? It's not.

 

[mildone]

I never mentioned divorce rates. The issue is what's the standard of proof? In a court room we don't need certainty. In a criminal trial we need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict. In a civil trial it's simply "the preponderance of the evidence". In science, a hypothesis is accepted based on something similar to the preponderance of the evidence. Your standard here for this particular discussion seems to be unreasonably high. And not a standard that anyone applies to any other question. Certainly it's well beyond what would be accepted as strong supporting data in the social sciences.

Also, your own argument - that the confidence with which one express their argument is inversely proportional to the intelligence or veracity of the person making the argument - seems to be working against you here. You are expressing some kind of existential certainty here that we could never establish some real knowledge about trends in honesty. I don't see why that's the case. For example, a simple public survey or similar data could easily exist that would provide strong evidence.

If you are saying that's still not KNOWING....well then you are just questioning the nature of knowledge and reality at that point. And what's the point of that and how is it relevant to this discussion? It's not.

Oops, sorry. Was a couple others who brought up divorce rates, not you.

You mentioned hypothesis. Okay. At best, the statement "a person's word was their bond" is an extremely weak, entirely unprovable, hypothesis. But sure, people can hypothesize all they want. I don't object to the hypothesis being given. I merely voiced skepticism about it, and pointed out that it's utterly unprovable. If people want to run around believing in the unprovable, great. Doesn't make a thing true, though. If the poster in question said, well that's what I believe, I'd have dropped the argument right there. He didn't do that, he stated it as a fact (and went on, in a later post, to laughably refer to it as a fact explicitly).

As for courts of law and preponderance of evidence, it's exceedingly unlikely any court of law would attempt to consider such an overly broad generalization as "people kept their word more 80 years ago than today". Judges would refuse to hear any such case for the exact same reasons I'm stating here. It's a laughably generalized, entirely unprovable, statement for which nobody could possibly even establish a preponderance of evidence. God, if he exists and keeps track of such stuff, might be able to tell us the answer. Humans? Not so much.

Disagree? Then please tell us, of the 130,000,000 people alive 80 years ago, what is total number of times, for all 130,000,000, where someone gave their word about something? Break that down by how many times the word given was kept, and how many times it was broken.

What's that you say, no such data exists? Well, what about for half? No? One percent? No? How about for any single person? Not really?

When we cannot even offer factual evidence about one single person 80 years ago, how can anybody claim a preponderance of evidence for one hundred thirty million people?

So much for preponderance of evidence, eh?

 

[Eagleton96]

Oops, sorry. Was a couple others who brought up divorce rates, not you.

You mentioned hypothesis. Okay. At best, the statement "a person's word was their bond" is an extremely weak, entirely unprovable, hypothesis. But sure, people can hypothesize all they want. I don't object to the hypothesis being given. I merely voiced skepticism about it, and pointed out that it's utterly unprovable. If people want to run around believing in the unprovable, great. Doesn't make a thing true, though. If the poster in question said, well that's what I believe, I'd have dropped the argument right there. He didn't do that, he stated it as a fact (and went on, in a later post, to laughably refer to it as a fact explicitly).

As for courts of law and preponderance of evidence, it's exceedingly unlikely any court of law would attempt to consider such an overly broad generalization as "people kept their word more 80 years ago than today". Judges would refuse to hear any such case for the exact same reasons I'm stating here. It's a laughably generalized, entirely unprovable, statement for which nobody could possibly even establish a preponderance of evidence. God, if he exists and keeps track of such stuff, might be able to tell us the answer. Humans? Not so much.

Disagree? Then please tell us, of the 130,000,000 people alive 80 years ago, what is total number of times, for all 130,000,000, where someone gave their word about something? Break that down by how many times the word given was kept, and how many times it was broken.

What's that you say, no such data exists? Well, what about for half? No? One percent? No? How about for any single person? Not really?

When we cannot even offer factual evidence about one single person 80 years ago, how can anybody claim a preponderance of evidence for one hundred thirty million people?

So much for preponderance of evidence, eh?

I'm going to spare myself and the rest of the posters on this thread further brain damage and not respond substantively.

 

[mildone]

I'm going to spare myself and the rest of the posters on this thread further brain damage and not respond substantively.

I'm sure everybody will appreciate that. It's an unwinnable argument - which has been my point all along.

 

[BROTHERSKINNY]

In my day your word was your bond.

still is with some of us!

 

[Doctor Worm]

If pulling offers without a good reason has consequences for the school, holding the kids to their verbals might stop the ones that commit but know if a better program offers, they're gone .
Make it fair for both and giving your word mean more than lip service for the kid and the school that will pull offers if someone better shows up.

It is fair for both now. When the LOI is signed, both sides are bound by it.

I am not sure what you are proposing. Are you suggesting that somehow verbals be made enforceable? I have no idea how you can legally do that. There is a reason that business throughout the world is transacted in writing.

The only way, I think, that you can accomplish what you are proposing is by allowing schools to issue LOI's, and allowing players to sign them, ANYTIME. Eliminate verbals entirely. You say you're ready to commit? Here's a pen, please sign on the line that is dotted.

Alternatively, from the player's perspective: You say you're offering me a scholarship? Great. I've got a pen, where do I sign? Oh, you say you're not ready for that step? Got it. So you're not offering me a scholarship after all.

Are you ready to go there?

 

[rudad02]

I'm going to spare myself and the rest of the posters on this thread further brain damage and not respond substantively.

I'm going to spare myself and the rest of the posters on this thread further brain damage and not respond substantively.

Eagleton, I took the same position. Futile. This is someone who erects an unproveable or verifiable mathematical construct & says see you can't prove your statement according to this. I have to say that I take this a bit personally.
Didn't want to go here regarding my background but I am going to. I'm not someone who lived in a shell with limited life experiences. Have a Masters in European History & taught in three different high schools. Was an insurance claims adjuster, sold cars, was a union ironworker & went through a long & contentious workers compensation case. Also worked other construction jobs after a major spinal fusion.
Organized a teachers union & was it's first president & negotiated with our bargaining team it's first contract.
Served as Associate Director of Legislation for the NYS AFL-CIO when we represented 2 & 1/2 million members. In that capacity participated in a wide range of legislative negotiations. Appointed to the NYS Labor Board[a private sector board] & in that capacity mediated hundreds of contract negotiations & arbitrated hundred's of labor disputes. Dealt with scores & scores of attorneys both with both the AFL-CIO & the Labor Board. Jobs during college included moving furniture, repairing railroad track, camp counselor & on & on, not to mention numerous jobs during HS.
Also throughout my life I have lived in a large city, a rural environment & in the suburbs.
The point being that I have overwhelming experience to know that a man's word being his bond was a well understood & substantially held value in my day. Didn't say in my original post, but have observed the concept's abandonment over time & certainly to a great degree in present society. As I have posted earlier I believe the very notion of a man's word being his bond is foreign to many today, including some who have posted here. If someone doesn't want to accept my word & life experiences as a validation of that proposition then so be it.

 

[rudad02]

still is with some of us!

Two thumbs up. One guy here is tying himself in knots spouting what appears to be more desperate gibberish to disprove that a word being a man's bond was a universally recognized & widely held value several decades ago. The concept seems to have struck a nerve. Starting to think that the guy wouldn't recognize the value if it struck him in the face sideways. Hope I'm wrong. Oh well.