College football recruiting: verbal commitments are 'essentially meaningless'

[Orangeyes]

College football recruiting: verbal commitments are 'essentially meaningless'

 

[SmilinBob]

True to a point but they certainly help fill my football off season with joy, especially with this staff of recruiters.

 

[TheCusian]

What an odd article.

1. Now, the PS refers to their mess up with Frank Battle as a "Saga"

2. The title is hugely misleading. By the letter of the "law" verbals are meaningless. To some kids, it's just a place holder - but to some it's their word and they will stick to it no matter what ... So for that kid - his verbal is far from meaningless. For those kids signing day is somewhat meaningless.

3. Dog days of summer for the PS. Slow news. Step 1: make a big deal about how many letters a kid gets, Step 2: write about the mess you stirred up

 

[bnoro]

Nate Mink clearly doesn't know how recruiting works.

We offer probably 5-15 kids at each position based on need.

Elite level: 2 or 3 kids that probably aren't interested but it's worth the shot because they might be interested
A List (Committable offer): 3 or 4 kids that are essentially evaluated at the same level, and whoever commits first gets the scholarship
B List (Non-committable offer): 4 or 5 kids on standby in case the A List falls through

But he responds to my tweet to him "What does it mean to have an offer?" It's pretty simple if you know the business of college football. Sure, there are some gray areas, as I was under the impression Battle had one of the 3 committable offers at WR but it appears he didn't.

 

[OrangeMojo]

What - Mink is an idiot - in his own article he says that Battle never committed because the staff called him up and told him the spot was already taken - so this dope is actually doubling down on that and trying to make an issue out of it? dude is turning into a Cohen wannabe :bang:

 

[ImperialOrange]

So allow schools to send out written offers and allow players to sign whenever they want. Barring academic, health, or behavioral issues make both sides honor said contract. Wouldnt that be the easiest way to avoid said gray areas?

 

[CuseLegacy]

Nate Mink clearly doesn't know how recruiting works.

We offer probably 5-15 kids at each position based on need.

Elite level: 2 or 3 kids that probably aren't interested but it's worth the shot because they might be interested
A List (Committable offer): 3 or 4 kids that are essentially evaluated at the same level, and whoever commits first gets the scholarship
B List (Non-committable offer): 4 or 5 kids on standby in case the A List falls through

But he responds to my tweet to him "What does it mean to have an offer?" It's pretty simple if you know the business of college football. Sure, there are some gray areas, as I was under the impression Battle had one of the 3 committable offers at WR but it appears he didn't.

Maybe he will now when he reads your post.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

The article is very well written and primarily for an audience that probably isn't as into recruiting as this group. Not quite understanding on the attack on the author. Just last year many on this board didn't understand that no binding legal contract was created until the letter of intent was signed and received by the school.

In regard to Battle, we got some mud on our face due to the business of recruiting. That's how it works when you move up the food chain in recruiting. We feel we have better options and will pursue them. Not sure exactly what was explained to Mr. Battle before he came out of pocket to fly to NY and visit. We only have his side of the story at this time.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Here's the flaw in the article -

By percentage, more verbal commitments from a player to a school result in a scholarship than discussed offers from a school to a player made before the August 1 date result in a scholarship.

The article wasn't about verbal commitments being meaningless. They are meaningful. It's about the disproportionate number of offers made relative to how many scholarships can actually be given. He buried the lead with the "what's an offer worth?" question.

 

[bnoro]

The article is very well written and primarily for an audience that probably isn't as into recruiting as this group. Not quite understanding on the attack on the author. Just last year many on this board didn't understand that no binding legal contract was created until the letter of intent was signed and received by the school.

In regard to Battle, we got some mud on our face due to the business of recruiting. That's how it works when you move up the food chain in recruiting. We feel we have better options and will pursue them. Not sure exactly what was explained to Mr. Battle before he came out of pocket to fly to NY and visit. We only have his side of the story at this time.

It's not well written for those who aren't into recruiting because it's completely misleading and comes off as ESPN journalism (i.e. the people that read this aren't as educated so let's make them believe what we want them to). I'm pretty sure any one who reads these boards understands what a verbal commit is.

We have no mud on our face about Battle. Battle shouldn't have even mentioned it to the PS. I'm sure the staff explained to him the offer situation.

 

[tep624]

Why is what happened with Frank Battle a "saga"? He was offered with a window of time to make a decision, with the caveat that if someone else made a decision before him, the offer was off the table. It's not like the staff mislead him or something.

It's unfortunate, but this is journalism these days - trying to make controversy out of nothing.

 

[tep624]

Here's the flaw in the article -

By percentage, more verbal commitments from a player to a school result in a scholarship than discussed offers from a school to a player made before the August 1 date result in a scholarship.

The article wasn't about verbal commitments being meaningless. They are meaningful. It's about the disproportionate number of offers made relative to how many scholarships can actually be given. He buried the lead with the "what's an offer worth?" question.

The number of offers thing, for me, only becomes an issue when coaching staffs aren't up front with prospects about where they fit in the pecking order. Then kids could think they have the ability to commit to a school that they really don't, and may be counting on that and turning down other opportunities as a result. That's more of an ethics issue on a staff by staff basis than anything.

 

[PhatOrange]

he sourced the number of offers from 247 as if they 'know' this. the only people who know the true number work inside the football office. I'd wager it's considerably less than what was reported.

as far as battle - there's no saga, no mud on SU, nothing. non issue. the only thing i'd like to know is if the PS called Battle or Battle called the PS ?

 

[bnoro]

he sourced the number of offers from 247 as if they 'know' this. the only people who know the true number work inside the football office. I'd wager it's considerably less than what was reported.

as far as battle - there's no saga, no mud on SU, nothing. non issue. the only thing i'd like to know is if the PS called Battle or Battle called the PS ?

Exactly, the recruiting sites are the worst way to source this as the kids frequently lie about offers or believe the promise of an offer (we love your tape and are close to offering) is the same as a written scholarship offer. I'm sure 95% of the kids that we've offered understand where they stand.

We've also had numerous kids that have wanted to commit on their visits get turned down over the years, but Donnie Webb and Dave Rahme understood why this happens and didn't make a story out of it.

 

[TheCusian]

Exactly, the recruiting sites are the worst way to source this as the kids frequently lie about offers or believe the promise of an offer (we love your tape and are close to offering) is the same as a written scholarship offer. I'm sure 95% of the kids that we've offered understand where they stand. We've also had numerous kids that have wanted to commit on their visits get turned down over the years, but Donnie Webb and Dave Rahme understood why this happens and didn't make a story out of it.

Yep. Digging where there is no dirt.

 

[PhatOrange]

Exactly, the recruiting sites are the worst way to source this as the kids frequently lie about offers or believe the promise of an offer (we love your tape and are close to offering) is the same as a written scholarship offer. I'm sure 95% of the kids that we've offered understand where they stand.

We've also had numerous kids that have wanted to commit on their visits get turned down over the years, but Donnie Webb and Dave Rahme understood why this happens and didn't make a story out of it.

Yeah remember the kid from Virginia a few years back? He was committed to Syracuse for months even though he didn't have an offer.

 

[Trueblue25]

Yeah, so meaningless.