JPO stays with RU
- Thread starter ejz555
- Start date
Weren't you complaining about recruits keeping their word, i.e. verbal commitments. And then you say this about a kid that does keep his commitment.
Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 26,665
- Like
- 38,521
Moontan
2017 ESPN College Bowl Pick’em Winner
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,275
- Like
- 10,211
I believe he had a clause for coaching changes.
I was hoping JPO would've chosen Orange over Scarlet. He must have received some convincing calls from Flood & Co..
Marrone was trying hard to flip JPO so there was room at the inn for sure. He would have been one of your top recruits. Great job by Flood to fend off the vultures here!
Rocco
Watching you.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 11,974
- Like
- 26,081
We have 5 DE types in this class. Why would the kid come here now?
NKR1978
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 20,263
- Like
- 39,867
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
I also said that allowances should be made for changes that would affect the kid. Losing the head coach is a major change, & reveals a breach by the University.
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
You obviously didn't read my posts carefully enough. Rutgers didn't keep their commitment to the players by changing their coaching staff. Ray Rice didn't come to CUSE because we dumped coach P. He had the right to re-evaluate with such a drastic change.
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
What is with the juvenile posters on this board. I said CLEARLY there were times when a player had the right to re-think if conditions changed. That is common sense.
yes, some "situations" do call for changes. It is not wrong to change your mind when the other party breaks their word.
How hard is that for some of you childish imps to understand?
yes, some "situations" do call for changes. It is not wrong to change your mind when the other party breaks their word.
How hard is that for some of you childish imps to understand?
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
Hey Spanky, Rutgers broke their word first by changing the coaching staff, which could bring a host of problems for the recruit, so it's not wrong to rethink after something like this.
It's not "situational ethics."
Grow up !!!
orangephan
Walk On
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 186
- Like
- 15
I'm happy with this year's DL recruits. We filled our primary needs there quite nicely. JPO would have been icing on the cake; good luck to him. I'm confident we'll re-establish our presence in NJ again. That's the news I'm most happy about.
Spanky? First of all. I didn't use the words situational ethics. And second. It wasn't Rutgers that broke their word. It was the head coach. He didn't get fired. He quit. That seems elementary to me. 2nd of all. It is the kids life. He has every right to change where he wants to live for the next 4-5 years. Because he gave a verbal agreement to go to on school does not lock him into that school and conversely does not lock the school into him.
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
Again, from a legal standpoint, he can change his mind, which is why I am advocating that a young person be taught to be more careful about his choices. When the head coach of the school quits, this is one time when it is understandable for the kid to change his mind, since the entire scenario changes.
I was responding to a few of the posters here who immediately jumped on me for my beliefs about being honorable. When major situations change, you can't always stick to an initial promise, but whenever possible, these youngsters should not change schools like their underwear...
WickedOrange
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 908
- Like
- 1,320
I was never recruited but it must feel like buying a house. A realtor selling you hard to buy this house over the one a few blocks way. You decide you go under contract. During the inspection, if something is materially wrong with the house, like a buried oil tank that's leaking (or a coach that leaves) the recruit ... i mean buyer can back out. No harm, no foul until closing/signing LOI.
mountaincuse
All American
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,082
- Like
- 3,792
These are high school kids - careful with choices, really?
Think back to when you were that age, you didn't make a choice and second guess it after?
mantonio
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
- Like
- 643
Yeah, I made some doozies...
However, my decisions didn't affect millions of dollars & people.
In this case, to whom much is given, much is required, & these kids must be held to a higher standard than the average young person.
I understand where you are coming from. But who is to say that whatever the kid is going through isn't honorable? Should a kid be penalized because he makes a decision and then family constraints demand that he be closer to home? Even if you have an early signing period, there is nothing to say that the kid signs early and then you have the same issue of a kid changing teams like a pair of underwear. And what is to happen for the kid if he signs early and then a case like the Rutgers comes out. Should the be released from their obligation?
