Will Ash accept kids committing but continuing to visit?
- Thread starter Pritz99
- Start date
I think you have little chance of enforcing the no visit rule unless you are a top school that is literally turning away top kids.
My memory is that Schiano pretty much told kids not to commit unless they were positive about coming to RU.
This program has to hope for the best and if a good recruit wants to commit, I doubt they will say no even if the player still wants to look around and that is the definition of a "soft" recruit.
My memory is that Schiano pretty much told kids not to commit unless they were positive about coming to RU.
This program has to hope for the best and if a good recruit wants to commit, I doubt they will say no even if the player still wants to look around and that is the definition of a "soft" recruit.
No it wasn't a fallacy. Flood played the wrong hand that year. Than the blowouts didn't help especially against Cincy at home with many in attendance.
Well, DC Jefferson did more than take a visit to another school. He actually decommitted from RU and committed to LSU. Then, he recommitted to RU again. Schiano took him back without hesitation.
If you ever see Flood at a table with a deck of cards and a pile of chips in front of him I encourage you to sit in ..You will not be sorry :sunglasses:
while it is pretty much immaterial - and should be a factoid that resides in the archives - it was always my impression that this was a situation where Flood got somewhat unfairly characterized as having blustered & thrown down edicts - when it was not quite the case -
The crux of the whole " no more visitations" snafu that I recall really was about trust & integrity - and really pertained mostly to one particular player who ended up going to Pitt - but has since transferred out
The kid had committed to RU - but word was out that he was listening to others - and then he did a visit to PSU ... and there was word that there would be another ... Flood made his displeasure clear - and the kid and his father met with Flood - discussion was held - & - assurances & hand shakes were reportedly given to Flood that no more visits would happen - and ....then .... less than 18 hours later - kid is on the Pittt campus having a visit. Supposedly Flood went ballistic - and the offer was pulled... - but it was more about having been blatantly lied to - face-to-face
Ultimately, who knows what the real truth was in this mess - and frankly, the more odd facts come out about that time - the more murky the facts become.
If you want to single out one player as you are doing, I agree. However you can't use your logic for the mass of players that left before signing day. Most were pissed because of Flood's actions combined with poor play
well, I think the only offer that was ever really 'pulled' was this one - but - Oh yes, there were numerous reasons that those players left - and probably the majority of them could be traced back to various poorly managed (by Flood) situations.
I'd totally agree that a shrewder coach would have navigated a course through this mess without having extracted a 'commitment' from the kid and his father.... a shrewder coach would have had the insight that while he could extract such a promise, it would be pointless , & virtually eliminate his own negotiating flexibility & would guarantee an ugly conclusion - a shrewd & clever problem resolver Flood was not.
It is what it is. I guess they just need to change the term "committed" to something more fitting
Non of which jive with your the initial argument. There was no edict and as I stated it's a board myth.
This is the reason NCAA football needs to adopt " a binding early signing day" (as is already in place in basketball). Once the recruit has committed during the early signing period he is off the table for further recruiting.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Everyone should, and have the right to continue within the process. As long as schools have the "right" to pull offers, kids have the same "rights" to decommit. A committed players, should just state that this school is the players 1st choice, at the moment. And consequently, a mutual agreement by both parties, which is non-binding.
It's the fans who seem to have the problem. No student, or school put their respective eggs in a single basket.
I like you're passion w/o being insulting to us Panther..i'm the same way with RU...i think after Pitt you like us too..except when we play each other..
And then the HC is fired, or the position coach he bonded with moves on or they recruit over him when they said they wouldn't... recruiting in the one time where kids have control at all over the situation, the schools and coaches can makes changes at any point that materially impact the players and they are stuck or have to give up a year to transfer. Let them have the power and choice when being recruited.
This brings me to my second point.
I believe the NCAA (football and basketball) should adopt an NFL type coaching rule.
No other NFL team may contact another NFL teams head coach while he is under contract.
When a HC signs a contract with a University no other University may contact that HC while he is under contract. However, if an NFL Team contacted a University's head coach, he would be free to leave if he agreed to a new NFL contract.
Think about it. This rule works very well for the NFL.
If the NFL did not have such a rule, every coach who won a Super Bowl would be contacted yearly by another NFL team trying to get him. NFL coaching salaries over time could be approaching $30. million per year for a coach.
The NFL owners know this would be bad for business (their business).
An NCAA "coaches rule" would also help to insure more parity in college football knowing that the big $$$$$ schools can't buy your coach until his contract up.
Now a recruit who commits to a program would know in advance how many years the HC has on his contract.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
