There's a difference between someone committed elsewhere saying, "Hmm, maybe Michigan would be a better place for me, let's ch-ch-check it out" and someone who has looked at you in the eye and committed to you saying, "I might be interested in someone else."
Are our coaches practicing what they're preaching?
Our staff realizes that not all coaches share their standards.
My opinion is that recruiting commits to other schools is entirely consistent with their stance. If they float some interest and a commit reciprocates, how committed is that kid really? I see it as entirely consistent.
From my understanding, our coaching staff's policy doesn't disallow Michigan verbal commits from visiting other schools. They just ask that recruits notify Hoke and Co. before they make an official visit. The issue with Pharoah Brown was him taking a visit to Oregon without notifying anyone.
Actually I think thats wrong. I'm pretty sure that with Hoke and Co, once you commit you stop taking visits period. And if anyone complains that well the recruit is only verbally comitted, well it's only a Verbal Offer too.
In this case, they're letting a kid who wants to visit, visit. I mean he's not affiliated with Michigan in any way, and it's PSU problem if they don't want their kids taking OV
It is not hypocritical at all. The coaches make rules that are in the best interest of Michigan football.
I'm a parent. If I decide I won't let my kid sleep over at other kid's houses, but I let another kid sleep of at mine, I'm not hypocritical. My job is to protect my son, and make rules that benefit my family. If other families have different rules, that their prerogative.
It's up to the PSU coaches to keep track of their commits. To Hoke, Armani Reeves is a commit until he signs somewhere.
Not only a good analogy, a good rule. My dad did it with me, and I've passed along that rule to my children. It is the Papa's responsibility to protect our house, and as long as the rule is clearly stated up front, I don't think it is hypocritical for Hoke and team. From my readings they are real clear with the kids when they commit, and many times will ask the players to wait until they are certain to avoid any confusion or 2nd guessing.
I completely agree with your statement and completely agree with anything Hoke and Co have been doing on the recruiting trail. This is Michigan Fer Gawd Sakes.
The difference between committing to you and then sneaking off to Oregon without telling the coaches like Brown did is much different than Dunn or Reeves who are visiting after committing to schools that are going through turmoil.
The coaches are doing what is in the best interest of the school and the program. Get the best players you can but suffer no acts of disloyalty.
I see what you're saying - Hoke & Co. have taken a moral stand to uphold the meaning of "commitment" when it comes to committing to play at Michigan. On the flip side, if they entertain a recruit that is clearly committed to play elsewhere, are they being hypocritcal? In strict technical terms, I say yes, but only if this policy is based on the definition of the word "commitment." But the Armani Reeves example could be different, right, because he is only a "soft" commit?
That said, the moral stance sure limits the recruit pool. And others have made the argument above about doing whats in the best interests of Michigan, so my technical point is merely academic.
I think the key thing to recognize is that they are not taking a moral stand - they're setting a practical policy.
It's irrational for a program like Michigan to allow kids to hold spots in their recruiting class as they search for the school that they actually want to attend. If those kids choose other schools late in the process, Michigan will have missed out on the most desirable options. The ethics here are much less clear. Personally, I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with a kid committing to one school, having second thoughts, and then looking around. That kid just can't reasonably expect his original school to hold a place for him.
Exactly, it's not moral at all.
It's like a relationship. If I'm dating you, I promise not to find another girlfriend. But, if you start dating other people, then I have the right to find another girlfriend, and there's no promise that if you want to come back, I haven't moved on to someone else.
Well, they're not married, yet. ;-)
Does this mean that we're allowed to date up to 25 women? Or, actually 28 as long as a few of them enroll early and we can back-date them?
Your example is very good, just seeing if we can potentially flip it around and have the argument go in the other direction for the benefit of my fellow MGoBloggers out there (I'm out of the picture since I've already "locked that down" with a great five-star recruit).
Or if we're down in Alabama or Mississippi then we can date 30-35 girls at one time
So you've already signed your LOI, as have I. But you should be able to get as many oral commitments (see what I did there?) as possible, and you have unlimited officials. Because it's more than a four year commitment, and unlike going to college, marriage is not when the party begins.
But if the new girl is in a committed relationship with another guy when you first start going out, aren't you always going to wonder a little bit whether shes ultimately going to sneak behind your back too?
I've never understood when someone dates a married person and wants that married person to dump their current spouse so that they can get married on the premise that "They won't do that to me." Really? At that point they've got a track record.
Obviously not necessarily true all the time and not necessarily a perfect analogy given its a verbal indication not a "'till death do us part" commitment.
First of all their policy is that if you are taking visits to another school you are not committed. Well, conversely, if you are committed elsewhere and taking visits then you arent committed to that school either. Its a two way street. This is the exact opposite of hypocritical, it is being consistent.
It's not some moral stand of giving your word, or right or wrong. It's just everyone being on the same page. They haven't held it against anyone taking visits who hasn't committed. But they're not saving spots for them either. If you commit they're agreeing to hold that spot for you, even if they get someone else who's even better who wants it. You're agreeing not to go someplace to get woo'd and turned so they're left in the lurch at the last minute when they could have gotten someone to fill that position (and as said, maybe even someone better). You go someplace else, you're tacitly removing your verbal commitment. Which therebye opens up the slot for recruiting. If some other guy at another school does it, he's not really committed there either. He's not on a kick for honesty; just treating both sides with the same fairness. Not sure how we could want Saban or Miles to honor their offers even if the guy isn't as good as planned, but then not expect the players to do the same. If you're looking, you're not committed. Policy, not honor.
This assumes that Reeves already had a visit to our school before our coaches started "wooing him".
The policy is that if you are committed, then you will not take any more visits. So if they hypothetically woo another player and get them to visit, that player shouldn't be treated like they are actually committed to say, Florida.
It works the same with in reverse. If any commits to Michigan get wooed by other coaches and agree to an official visit, then they aren't considered commits anymore. If they're committed to Michgian they would turn down any overtures. Just like if Reeves was solidly committed, he would not reciprocate interest to Hoke and Co.
Coaches can't control how other schools handle their committed kids and their policies. Hoke & Co. believe that if you commit to UM, you should be firm in that committment and not visit other schools. If other schools don't have the same philosophy, there's no hypocrisy there.
how hoke dealt with hagerup after he fumbled that snap during the ohio game, i'll never question how he treats players or prospective players........EVER.
I reacted pretty much the same way and I was completely amazed at how Hoke kept his compusure. Impressive to say the least. If anyone wants to know why our FG kicker has shown up this year you can point to that Hoke style with two fingers!
what arrangement the recruit has with another school. Did Reeves promise he would not visit anywhere else? (And even if he did, doesn't the extraordinary situation involving Jerry Sandusky release him de facto from that promise?) Plus, the agreement not to visit is the recruit's issue, not the school's. There was nothing wrong with Oregon hosting Brown if he wanted to visit there; but if he was told "don't commit unless you are certain you want to come to Michigan," and he then snuck around visiting Oregon, that's a problem for Brown. What would be hypocritical would be if the Michigan coaches started telling kids "that scholarship I promised you, well, we have a better prospect now, so you're out."
Michigan's policy is if a committed recruit visits another school, Michigan no longer considers him committed. That has not stopped other schools from trying to recruit our commitments. Urban Liar and Ohio has tried calling Kalis for example. Every school does it (recruit other school's commitments). How another school decides to handle a situation where one of their commitments decides to visit Michigan is up to them.
Is that you?
Your question about the coaches "practicing what they are preaching" is simply misplaced.
The relationship that the coaches "preach" is that a spot belongs to a kid. If the kid wants to look elsewhere, then the spot is gone. Michigan can't hold your spot if you won't make a commitment.
Who cares if other schools have different policies?
Kids from other schoools are free to visit Michigan. The relationship between the kid and the other school is not defined by the ways of our coaching staff.
Since the only thing the coaches "preach" needs to be respected is the mutual commitment between Michigan and the kid, then it would be hypocritical for the coaches to recruit other kids for that scholarship spot. If Michigan was possibly going to bump a kid for a different kid, that would be the converse of a kid potentially bumping Michigan for another school. Not what you are talking about.
As for kids committed to other schools, some coaches say "take any visit you want" (I think Tressel was that way). It is not something the Michigan coaches have a say about (or "practice" as you say).
Your whole comparison is off wildly.
How can the coaching staff stop commits from taking visits to other schools? They have a rule that they will immeadiately rescind the commitment if a visit is taken? I find that very hard to believe. If a 4- or 5- star commits makes a visit, I doubt they'll do anything.
IMO, until they sign, commits have every right to visit wherever and whenever they want. This is huge decision and they should make sure it's the right one. I would say it's wrong for Hoke to deny them that right. The deck is stacked against them enough as is. The recruiting period seems to be the only time college players have any kind of power in their college careers.
Here's where you're wrong. If the top player in the country breaks his commitment, visits elsewhere, and a month later decides Michigan is the place for him, he'll probably have a spot. But that's not the situation for most players.
Right now, Michigan is done recruiting LBs. If one of them decided he wanted to visit elsewhere he could, but the Hoke would start looking for another LB commit at the same time. If we found a better option before that recruit wanted to come back, he's SOL. And that's the right way to do it.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what the issue is here. I don't think there's a coach in the country who WANTS his commits to visit other schools. That's obvious. But the original poster mentioned that Hoke has a specific "rule" against it. Is this different from any other school? I was under the impression that this "rule" implied that if you visit, you're out. If not, what's the point of the rule?
Some schools allow their verbal commits to visit elsewhere. We do not.
The rule isn't "if you visit, you're out" it's "if you visit, you're no longer considered a commit." That gives the coach the right to actively recruit a player for your spot. Just like when any other player decommits, if the coaches want them back at a later date, they can come back.
But if the coaches decided in April that they wanted Pharaoh Brown, and h committed, they would be committed to him as well and allow him to sign an LOI on signing day. But he visited, and thus decommitted, running the risk that the coaches might have changed their minds by the time he comes back.
It's like if a run a business and you're my employee. As long as you do your job, I wont fire you. But if you quit and want to come back two months later, I don't have to hire you again. I might want to, but I might have found someone I like better.
"Some schools allow their verbal commits to visit elsewhere."
Oh, OK. I wasn't aware of this. I cant imagine any other school treats this any differently, though. With or without a "rule", if a commit is visiting another school, it seems like a given that the school he committed to will start looking at other options, too. Looks like business as usual to me.
I mean, I'm sure OSU is looking at other RBs now that Dunn visited Michigan, right?
I'm sure it's similar most places. And I'm sure OSU views Dunn as not committed until he makes up his mind for good. Whether or not they're looking at other RBs will depend on what other RBs have OSU interest and how badly OSU needs another RB.
Just when they have verballed. It's only fair to other guys that want to come to Michigan that another guy can't commit ahead of them and reserve his spot then take his time with other official visits and decide later. All the while someone else is getting the shaft ( see Ron Thompson).
It's not a matter of whether or not looking around at other schools while committed to a school is an issue or not. The issue is that the coaches need to know that you are 100% committed to Michigan or they need to begin looking at other prospects. I don't think the coaches would have any problem if a recruit called them up and said, "Hey, I'm realizing that I'm not 100% sure, at the moment, that Michigan is the right place for me. I am going to temporarily withdraw my commitment while I take a couple of visits. I would be very appreciative if you would still consider having me in your class."
What they don't like is when a recruit either (a) secretly looks around while committed because they need to know that if you are no longer committed so they can look at other prospects, or (b) when you waste there time by setting up an in-home visit and then visit another school during that time. Both of those situations are very disrespectful to the coaches and I don't think they want to put up with that at all.
On the other end, how other coaches choose to handle commitments and recruiting visits is their own business. Our coaches view taking visits as a sign that you are not committed to a school. So, if Armani Reeves is willing to take a visit to Michigan, he must not really be committed to another school.
No. It doesn't. Not even a little.
I may be a little off here, for I am not the expert, but...
The rules ensure that the best interests of Michigan's program are preserved. It seems to me that, if you're still making visits, you haven't committed, and if you've committed but are still looking around, as some have in the past, you're not committed. I don't fault kids for shopping around, but the luxury of being able to say one thing, do another, then come back to the original conclusion has historically been rserved for the rare talents that schools fall all over themselves to get - not everyone can afford to shop like that. It is in the coaches' interests to have rules that ensure that the commits they get are in fact committed to Michigan football, so if they show interest, the less time you waste and the more organized and judicious you are in your visits as a recruit, they better off you are if indeed Michigan (or any school) is really where you want to be.
UM's staff sets its standards for UM's commits.
It doesn't set the standards for the PSU staff, the OSU staff, etc. How could it?
That's not hypocrisy, any more than it is for German police to allow me to drive 100 MPH on the Autobahn. They're not setting standards - nor enforcing them - for anyone but themselves. I can't think of any reasonable alternative.
Actually, it's Ohio who isn't practicing what we preach. If they were, then they would have cut Brionte loose.
University and for the Football Team. The rest of the country can take care of their own business as they see fit. If other staffs have the integrity to uphold a similar rule, then their recruits should probably pay attention.
Potential athletes can always look up the definition of comitted on those fancy phones.
So the moral of the story seems to be, don't commit to play for Michigan unless you are really, really, positively, 100% sure you want to go to Michigan.
Staff is telling recruits ahead of time, If you commit, that scholarship is yours, as in we will not offer that scholarship to any other recruit. In turn if you commit, we want you commited to Michigan since will will not recruit other athletes for that scholarship, it's yours. Coaching staff's have to draw a line somewhere with recruits, and it somewhat gets rid of the games recruits play.
If you commit and are visiting other schools that means you may sign with other schools and not michigan and we will not hold that scholarship for you as we are recruiting to fill our open scholarships.
Pharoe Brown is a perfect example, they took his commitment and when he visited elsewhere they no longer considered him a commit and opened up recruiting to his scholarship.
If you are looking, then you aren't 100% committed.
If one of our commits is visiting another school behind our back, then he isn't truly committed and we can open back up that spot.
If another school's recruit is looking at us and taking visits, then he isn't truly committed to them.
Our policy appears to be that we part ways with infidelity so as to not get stuck at the altar alone. What other school's policies are isn't relevant. This is business.
in my opinion. it goes both ways. they ask recruits who are committed to other schools. they give them the option to check michigan out. and if they choose to visit Michigan while they r committed to another school. thats means they aren't %100 committed to that school. im sure if the recruits decline to visit Michigan. than the coaches back off.
Our coaches saying:
"If you committ to us, you can't visit anywhere else."
It's our coaches saying:
"If you are committed to us and you visit somewhere else, we will not consider you committed anymore."
So in essence they are being straightforward. If a guy is committed to another school and visits here, they don't really consider him committed to the other school. It's pretty standard behavior for NCAA coaches.