Committed?

cyingreen

Member
Nov 13, 2006
524
24
18
Jasper County
With all the de-commits, both for and against us this year, somebody needs to come up with a better term to describe the 'verbal acceptance of a scholarship offer.' Committed just doesn't reflect the flexibility that athletes seem to want in this day and age.
 
"Verbal" nicely distinguishes it from actually signing a letter of intent. "Enrolled" is also a nice way to identify those who are so serious that they are already on campus.
 
This day in age? High school kids have always changed their minds about what college they were going to play football at. Just nowadys it is covered by more sources including regular newspapers so it is bigger news now.
 
I think if an athlete is a verbal, soft or hard, they should be forced to have a tattoo that takes up their entire chest of that team. That way they can switch but they'll look stupid.
 
The rule on LOI signing periods is what causes this problem, in my opinion. Just let them sign the damn things whenever they want to commit. If a player is not willing to sign a LOI it means he is still looking around. If a coach won't let you sign a LOI and you are ready to commit, it means he is still looking around. Sure seems like it would eliminate a lot of issues on both sides...
 
it's a tough decision for a high school kid to choose a program i'm sure. you gotta factor in several things such as playing time, location of the school, coaches etc. if a kid gives a verbal then changes his mind, i have no problem with that. but i agree that the term "commited" should be changed to something else. i think commited means that you are commited to that school. if you change your mind then you're not "commited." i like clonefan32's idea. let them sign the LOI whenever they want, but once you sign you are locked in. i would imagine these kids would really look into all of their options alot more than they do now.
 
The rule on LOI signing periods is what causes this problem, in my opinion. Just let them sign the damn things whenever they want to commit. If a player is not willing to sign a LOI it means he is still looking around. If a coach won't let you sign a LOI and you are ready to commit, it means he is still looking around. Sure seems like it would eliminate a lot of issues on both sides...

I kind of like this, but are you still going to let kids out of their LOI after their coach leaves to take another job? Most kids don't commit to the school unless they are die-hard fans from birth.
 
Another point of view, if you had applied to a bunch of jobs and agreed to an offer with the company you liked the best. But before you signed an employment agreement or reported to work, another company offers you your dream job or better perks (closer to home, more $, better chance of advancement, etc.). Wouldn't you switch to the "better job"?


IMHO, the problem is when kids sign the LOI and want out without completing a season. (E.g., the AZ kid last year or the WBB player).
 
I think if an athlete is a verbal, soft or hard, they should be forced to have a tattoo that takes up their entire chest of that team. That way they can switch but they'll look stupid.

So you're talking something like this:
590338.jpg
 
17 year olds will change their minds. Just remember that sometimes it happens in our favor. I mean, who wishes Jake Campos would have signed an early LOI with Mizzou? It is a two-way street.
 
I think the problem with signing LOI's whenever they want would be programs pressuring kids to sign on the dotted line during their recruiting trip. It would be very easy for a kid to have stars in their eyes without time to think the decision through.
 
I think if an athlete is a verbal, soft or hard, they should be forced to have a tattoo that takes up their entire chest of that team. That way they can switch but they'll look stupid.

I believe we should do like Michigan and if a verbal commit makes a visit to another school then we pull the offer. It will take a good player or 2 staying home for an extra year to teach these kids that their word has to mean something. If my word wasn't good in business dealings I would be broke. The kids might as well learn that at 18.
 
I believe we should do like Michigan and if a verbal commit makes a visit to another school then we pull the offer. It will take a good player or 2 staying home for an extra year to teach these kids that their word has to mean something. If my word wasn't good in business dealings I would be broke. The kids might as well learn that at 18.

Note sure how this helps. If I committed to ISU early and then say Miami offered, I took a visit and ISU pulled my offer it wouldn't be a big deal to me because I could still go to Miami. So ISU would lose out not me.
 
I think if an athlete is a verbal, soft or hard, they should be forced to have a tattoo that takes up their entire chest of that team. That way they can switch but they'll look stupid.

Oh, kind of like a former Wisconsin coach who has a Sqawkeye tattoo on his leg? Does seem dumb once you move on ...
 
I believe we should do like Michigan and if a verbal commit makes a visit to another school then we pull the offer. It will take a good player or 2 staying home for an extra year to teach these kids that their word has to mean something. If my word wasn't good in business dealings I would be broke. The kids might as well learn that at 18.

That is the Chizik policy. "Your word has to mean something." Chizik said. Sort of rings hollow doesn't it?
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron