Head over to IWLCA and see what they posted yesterday about recruiting loophole at camps and clinics. Didn't they think of that?
I guess they didn't. The whole proposal makes no sense.
If a verbal commitment was always:
1-subject to change and truly non-binding till the athlete signs their NLI or better yet, actually steps foot on campus; and
2- always contingent on an athletes ability to make it through the admissions process for their university of choice
Isn't the whole verbal commitment thing like a brokered promise and way overblown - Player- "I want to come to your school and play for you". Coach - "I like the way you play so if you get thru admissions we'd love to have you".
Look at the recent de-commits from Hopkins as an example - de-commit there - commit elsewhere - who cares. Ty Zanders reports that stuff all day long, that's what makes him relevant. Maybe he should be posting the GPA of said STUD athlete as well when announcing this stuff. The players still needs to get through admissions. Coaches either evaluated right and it works out, or they didn't and the kid -doesn't make it into the school or on the field to help the coach win. Sometimes that affects their tenure as a coach at said school.
Lastly - why can Lane Kiffin announce a commitment to a grade school kid from Cali to come play football for him? Where is the NCAA protecting the student athlete here? NCAA is all about 2 things - MARCH MADNESS and BOWL GAMES ie $$$$$$$$. Legislating Common Sense is overkill.
Reply
Quote
