No need to worry, since we have no control. Coach Underwood has worked hard here. Flip a coin. It would be nice to get him to campus. We have 2, and Evans can play WR. I think if the coaches think he is gone, we will start hearing about us moving on to other committed 4 🌟 for flipping purposes.
Sooo....are we worried about Amarion Brown?
- Thread starter Morrischiano
- Start date
- Status
well, if we had a year where we could sign 18 players, and we
had 15 four star verbals midway through the process, you could feel pretty good about recruiting......since you may have a couple of de-commits, you would still be in great shape....
we have done pretty well up to this point, losing this guy would sting a bit in our current situation.....we have more four star verbals than usual, and one or two more on the horizon.
Well Mr. Middle Aged I'm 79. So you have no personal knowledge of my day. And I can assure you that it was a principle that was widely recognized, held & acted upon. You have identified a fundamental way in which the world has changed & not for the better.
Last edited:
Nobody from your day ever broke off an an acceptance of an invite, a job offer or engagement because circumstances changed or they had a change of heart?
Certainly can't speak to every situation for every individual, but I can assure you that the principle was wildly understood. Those that acted upon it were very well regarded & respected.
That's fine and good. But we are talking about high school kids who, just like in dating, may see something better come along, and they may decide to get out of a verbal commitment to make a different commitment that benefits them. It's the nature of college football recruiting, and I don't understand people trying to project their values from another time in today's world in a completely different situation. As others have said, the true "commitment" is the signed letter of intent. I would never wish ill will on a young athlete for them changing their mind and switching their verbal commitment. Many here seem to celebrate the thing we hate- when a recruit flips to Rutgers. Seems illogical.
You act like he was implying 100%. Clearly not. Not in the ballpark of 100% . But more than today. And what's changed even more is the general disapproval when someone didn't keep their word.
It is hard for some kids to ignore the $500 handshakes that they get, and will continue to get, at these SEC schools even if they like some other place better. So until a kid signs on the dotted line it is still a crap shoot.
I seriously doubt, all else being equal, that people 80 years ago (or 180 years ago) were more likely to honor their word than people are today. You'll have to show some kind of statistical evidence to support that belief.
People looking fondly back at how much better things (or people) were "back in the day" is a common thing that has always been as unprovable as it is popular with each new generation. That way of thinking almost certainly goes way back to when we were living in caves. "Back before you new kids invented that crazy newfangled fire thing, nobody ever asphyxiated in their caves, don'tcha know? We had it way better then."
Also, I'm not so sure I agree the change, if there actually is any change, wouldn't actually be for the better. Because people today are far better informed than 80 years ago. So if people today seem to go back on their words more often; perhaps it's because people today have more insight into how dishonorable the other party (or parties) involved is/are being.
I think it likely that people 80 years ago simply didn't know or hear about all the people going back on their words. The relative lack of privacy today, combined with the relative openness of social media today, has changed the math on that. We're at a point today where, when someone doesn't keep their word, everybody across the globe with a smart-phone and a twitter account can know about instantly.
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.
We've spoke about this a bunch on the premium board 😉
If a recruit has his fingers crossed while making his commitment, is it still breaking his word if he decommits?
Verbal commitment = Hold my place (something better might come along).
I have to agree with the 70-80 year olds about commitment. Divorce rate exponentially higher now. People accept jobs and send out resumes a few months later. On the flip, employers kept people 35-40 years until retirement. Now, turning 50 and/or a private equity purchase of your employer is good sign your not going to make it to retirement. I've been around long enough to see the change.
I have to agree with the 70-80 year olds about commitment. Divorce rate exponentially higher now. People accept jobs and send out resumes a few months later. On the flip, employers kept people 35-40 years until retirement. Now, turning 50 and/or a private equity purchase of your employer is good sign your not going to make it to retirement. I've been around long enough to see the change.
I just watched 30 for 30, Bo Jackson, on a flight to Houston. A great athlete and he and his family were all class. The best 5 minutes of that program was the recruitment by Alabama and Auburn. Every recruit should be required to watch it. I would be shocked if there was any $ involved in his decision. Cam (and today's recruiting) is a whole different story. Maybe a 30 for 30 about Cam should be made? Never happen.
Being a man of your word seems to be a vanishing trait in life. Business between individuals/companies was done on a handshake basis in most situations after WW2, probably until the 80’s I’d guess.
Not anymore. Life’s transactions seem to be more complex today, and legal accountability for each party always seems to be in play. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to experience the former times. It’s all different today imo.
I think most people have fairly solid integrity today. I’m 63 and have been in the insurance business for about 40 years. I haven‘t witnessed a dramatic change in the way people handle interactions or transactions. I think there tends to be a romantic or mythologized view of the past in general and that applies to the overall honesty of people in the distant past compared with today.. if you read enough history books you realize that human nature doesn’t really.change, there were plenty of scam artists 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. This idea of some golden past era contains a lot of fiction.
Lies during your time happened , but weren't as easily excused as now.
Over the years little white lies that were no harm no foul were overlooked instead of pointed out or just a "you got caught "with a smile on the person saying that.
Now excuses are made and if not accepted the lie still isn't a reason to shame the liar like it was back in the day
Now some subjects we expect to have lies about it and considered part of discussing issue
Back in the day discussion would end and the people lied to walk away from the liar.
Now the liar is excused after being caught ( there's always a reason and makes lying easier) in a lie and discussing the issue with him/her still goes on.
The handshake deal once made and honored has become an untrustworthy practice because keeping your word now-a-days doesn't fit a lot of peoples personal agenda in their effort to succeed.
Backstabbing always was there but most people had little regard for those who used the backstabbing method to get ahead.
Now it's part of business practice and excused as a tool to be used against competitors who show an opening to attack them.
It's a brand new world that instant gratification makes one use means and methods that years ago would not be acceptable.
Keeping your word is now ancient history looked on in today as part of the horse and buggy era that slowed people down on the highway to success .
Now it's by any means necessary and if you don't get out of the way, you're run over unless you can be used then thrown out when your usefulness has ended.
Those who cherish the honesty they felt doing business cherish that time now, especially seeing how some things are done today.
Precisely.
The only relevant things that have changed are (a) there are more people around today than long ago so any behavior, including breaking promises, has become more prevalent due simply to the increase in population and (b) we have far more visibility into people's behavior today than we did long ago, so we see and hear of people breaking promises way more than was possible long ago.
But there's no evidence at all that the percentage of broken promises per 100K people has increased over the course of the past 80 years. Or over any other timespan. No evidence that human nature has changed much at all.
What has changed substantially is our awareness of what's going on around us.
I would agree that human nature is a constant. On the contrary values, mores & customs do change. You have based your rejection on the notion of a man's word being his bond as a value prevalent 80 yrs ago on several hypotheses & suppositions without any first hand knowledge. I know that a man's word being his bond was a universally understood & substantially held value of that generation & indeed the one before it because I lived it. Our society has changed in a great many other ways regarding values, custom's & mores in that time span as well. Not going to go there in this thread or post, but if you would like to discuss just say so.
I understand how you feel about it. I really do. But hypothesis and conjecture is all either one of us has to go on here, other than logic.
So let's try logic, yes?
The only way to factually know the truth of the statement "his word is his bond" is to observe person 24/7. You'd need to witness, firsthand, what that person said, and then track that person until the conclusion of the event for which they gave their word. Some events like that could span decades, or even lifetimes. Doing that for a single person would be a full-time job; a massive long-term undertaking.
But, for the sake of logical argument, let's go ahead assume that you've observed 1000 individuals 24/7 across all these decades.
The US population, 80 years ago, was about 130,000,000 people. Your 1000 people observed would mean you would "know" about the word-as-bond factor of 0.000769231 percent of the population.
Today, the US population is about 328,000,000. Meaning that today, you'd have observed 0.000304878 percent of the population.
Of course, it's not actually possible to follow a person 24/7 for their lifetimes. So the real percentages would be far smaller, and far less accurate. We don't even know how many times our own children give their word and then break it while they're actually living with us. Because we are not with them all the time to witness it.
Therefore, logically, there is simply no possible way you, or anybody else, could arrive at a logically or factually defensible conclusion that, 80 years ago, people kept their word more than people do today. It's pure, unprovable speculation.
Thus, I remain extremely skeptical.
Nonetheless, I give you my word that if you are able to provide meaningful data to support your theory, I will reconsider it with an open mind. And my word is my bond on that. 😀
I agree that customs and mores do change over time, we can certainly debate the reasons for that. However, one does not have to live during a certain time to have informed opinions about that time. Well documented and researched information is available to form opinions about a certain time and place. I don’t think you’re suggesting that an author like James McPherson isn’t extremely knowledgeable about the customs, mores and values of the Civil War era? McPherson is old but I’m pretty sure he didn’t live through the Civil War. Additionally you did not provide evidence of any sort to prove that people who are younger are not as honest overall as people who lived 60,80 or 100 years ago. You stated your opinion that’s all.
This is really sad. Continue to spin up rationales to support your point. And it's not a theory it's a fact. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this topic with you. Suit yourself.
Last edited:
Yes, however there no well documented & researched information has been presented to refute what I have said. Over & out.
RU Dad,
the difference in the era you claim had more respect for the truth and the way lies are accepted now is: a lot of people excuse the lie now-a-days if they agree with the message it is trying to convey .
Whereas back in the day that message would be considered ,meaningless because it lacked credibility because of the lie attached to it.
Now the liar is excused because he/she is trying to make a point .
Back in the day , that liar would have been told stop with the BS and have been considered someone you couldn't trust to tell the truth
Yesterday it was a lie !
Today that lie is called an alternative fact,to make it easier to accept .:chairshot:
A
anon_yoo6z3typpaw2
Guest
Not worried - that's not to say I think he stays committed, though. Brown is a great prospect but Bermudez still committed and doesnt seem to be going anywhere, Sanders from Bucknell is coming in, and the staff seems to be huge on Omari Evans. Hate to lose a commit, especially from the FL pipeline that they seemingly want to re-establish, but WRs are among the easier positions to recruit.. If this was an OL, or an ILB like Anthony Johnson, I'd be stressing much more.
You’re confusing unprovable conjecture with fact.
I didn’t spin up anything. You did by making a wholly illogical and entirely unprovable assertion.
I gave you simple facts, hard numbers that you can verify for yourself. And using those facts, I gave you a simple mathematical explanation as to why neither you, nor me, nor anybody else anywhere, can factually, logically defend a statement about how many people kept their word 80 years ago, or keep their word today.
What you are trying to claim is a fact is demonstrably unknowable by any human. And you have offered no kind of proof whatsoever.
Just saying a thing doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you or others repeat it.
That’s your logic? Because nobody can disprove your statement, it must be true? Really?
So if I tell you that Alpha Centurians keep their word 100% of the time, then that must be true because you cannot prove it’s false?
Alrighty then. 😆
MADHAD1. my point was about a person's word being good. But agree with your point as well.
I agree with the conjecture that people were more honest in pervious generations. But I don't mean honest in terms of not telling white lies, but rather more wedded to their commitments and public statements. A few obvious reasons for this come to mind. One is that the world is bigger. When you live in a small town, and that's your world, if you get a bad rep it's hard to escape it. There were real consequences for that. Now in your average town in NJ you can basically switch friend groups, or find alternate social interaction online, pretty easily. And in general people are more mobile and there are many more avenues to find new people.
Second, people had much higher respect for institutions back then (this is factual with lots of data). When people feel that they are part of a social system they trust and admire, they are more likely to feel an obligation to act to keep faith with it. Now employers show no loyalty to employees. So employees reciprocate. Politicians are more self serving and partisan than ever. And this ripples throughout the culture.
Third, kids are taught that they are special, and taught to have high self-esteem. AKA they are thought to think about themselves and not the collective good. This wasn't true in previous generations in the US, and isn't true in many other cultures.
I think rudad02 is 100% right.
Eagleton96, agree with much of what you said. Most of all being a man of you word was a matter of honor. I think that the concept is foreign to some of these guys who doubt it was prevalent in a previous era. May make them a bit uncomfortable.
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.
You guys should start your own "Is your word as good as we think it is" thread. I thought this one was about Amarion Brown. Happy Father's Day to all you Rutgers' dads by the way.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 WR Sah'nye Degraffenreidt commits to Rutgers Football
- Latest: bethlehemfan
-
