Harbaugh Commitment Visit Policy
February 5th, 2015 at 3:44 PM ^
There are no existing scholarships to be revoked with recruits. There's no scholarship until the LOI has been faxed in on or after NSD.
February 5th, 2015 at 4:45 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 7:11 PM ^
It's an offer than cannot be accepted until NSD. And an offer can generally be revoked until it has been accepted. But it's been too long since law school, so what do I know...
February 5th, 2015 at 7:36 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 7:46 PM ^
Not if it is revokable at any time prior to a certain event occurring (namely NSD).
And, by the way, scholarships themselves are conditional on compliance with team rules all the time anyway.
February 6th, 2015 at 7:52 PM ^
Don't you think the government has confidentiality provisions in contracts it enters into? For example, perhaps in an agreement between the Navy and Lockheed Martin to design a new fighter jet or satellite? By your logic, it would be unconstitutional for the government to require its contractual counterparty to prevent disclosure of certain information to third parties on the grounds that the government is limiting its counterparty's freedom of speach. I understand where you are going with all of this, but I think your fundamental premise is bogus.
February 5th, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^
Hoke's visitation policy would not be unconstitutional, nor would it be prior restraint. Rather, it would be a contract offer with a condition attached to it (not taking other visits). Anyone (even the government) can rescind a conditional offer if the offeree violates one of the conditions.
February 5th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 7:27 PM ^
I'm not sure this is true. Leaving aside the absurdity (what with a construction company unable to do any of those things), government contracts are often conditioned on the (non-)exercise of a constitutional right. Government employment contracts restrict free speech and freedom of travel all the time. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, for one.
To use an example, Townsville City could surely offer a contract to a singer to sing at its annual Pumpkin/Cherry/Hatch Chile/whatever Festival. And that contract could surely contain a stipulation that (a) the singer must be in Townsville City on that date and (b) must refrain from political/religious/general non-pumpkin speech, no?
February 5th, 2015 at 11:38 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 7:09 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:00 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 11:44 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 1:48 AM ^
First, I would imagine the scholarship offers have a general condition that allows coaches to repeal them whenever they want prior to a LOI. They probably also specify that valid acceptance can only be done through a signed LOI.
Second, Statute of Frauds may apply since it's a contract that cannot be performed within one year, which means it has to be in writing.
Third, contract law requires that both parties have an understanding of what the contract is ("meeting of the minds"). The general understanding among college football coaches and recruits is that anything goes until the LOI is signed. Clearly, the standard practice is that nothing is firm until the LOI is faxed in. Thus, an offer and commitment is not an enforceable contract.
Fourth, the only time a coach seems to revoke an offer due to a visit to another school is when the player dishonest about it. Dishonesty is not a protected trait/act, and is a reasonable reason to turn one person down in favor of another.
February 6th, 2015 at 7:32 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^
but in order for the player to have a claim against the school, they have to have a right in playing for the school that is taken away. The school is not preventing the player from talking to anyone; they will just start looking at other players. They are not restricting his ability to speak his mind. This is ok because the player has no right to that scholarship until a LOI is signed, and a contractual relationship has been established.
February 5th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
You couldn't blame him in the least for leaving during the Hoke debacle.
However, Jim Harbaugh and Tyrone Wheatley gave him every reason to come home. He didn't.
Perhaps he made the right decision. Who really knows? I wish him well (except when he plays against us).
But if I were blessed with his football skills, despite the recent turmoil and changes, I would want to play for my home state.
February 5th, 2015 at 6:15 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 4:03 PM ^
I think Weber probably acted rationally. It's not unreasonable to think the staff said something like, "we've got a spot for you at RB and we really want you". When another RB commits, he pauses and says, "was I really the only RB they wanted like they said". I thought the diary post on Higdon was excellent and helps out the Weber timeline of his "surprise" by Higdon's commitment. It's not the staff's job to tell Weber that another RB is interested in them, but it seems like if they communicated it Weber before the announcement, he may have respected that...but then again, who knows...it could have turned him off. Only Weber knows and now he is enrolling at OSU. Recruits seem to make very questionable decisions year after year but at least I think I can follow Mike's logic and why it appears to have been a tough decision for him.
February 5th, 2015 at 4:37 PM ^
Could you ever in your life imagine yourself (life long Michigan fan) every playing for the team down in OHIO? Are you kiddin' me! No way I would ever chose those guys over Michigan! Weber or whatever his name was . . . so forgotten!
February 5th, 2015 at 7:52 PM ^
I consider myself a huge Michigan fan, have been all my life. I went to school there, my friends are from there. However, I could see a number of scenarios where I go play at OSU. First off if there is a logjam at my position at Michigan, or if OSU had a great history of putting guys at my position into the NFL. Obviously it would be a tough choice, but it's completely rational.
February 5th, 2015 at 9:50 PM ^
You're part of the rivalry.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought that was a big part of McCray's recruitment. He grew up with that rivalry, through his dad, and he was always going to play at one school or the other if it was in any way possible. Now that I think about it, there's been a lot of that, going way back. Coaches, too.
February 5th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^
I know we are M homers, but I think Mike had a better chance to be sucessful at M. Urbs will kick him to the curb in a minute and not look back if he gets injuried or has a bad game. .
I enjoyed the diary on Karan and I'm really excited about seeing hinm play in the future. Good luck to Mike Weber and I have moved on. Welcome Karan and Go Blue!!!
February 6th, 2015 at 7:38 AM ^
I wish him well and feel bad for him after the crazy stuff OSU pulled with his main recruiter (I believe).
Karan is a great pick up and someone who really wanted to be here. I am excited for that pick up after reading the diary and tape. I kind of wish we could all just move on from Weber and start conentrating on the players we have.
February 5th, 2015 at 7:19 PM ^
remember the name of someone you asked out and they said no? Of course the answer probably depends on how long it's been but my guess is that most probably barely remember their first names. This kind of recruiting experience feels like rejection but in the scheme of things it's not going to affect Michigan's prospects. Plenty of fish out there. Weber had his reasons and now for better or worse he has to live with how it plays out. Michigan? They have lots of options at RB. There's lots of snow and ice on the ground now so it's probably time to let it go.
February 5th, 2015 at 7:20 PM ^
Saw this on an Iowa forum where they were discussing Higdon. Thought you guys (and gals if applicable) may find it funny...
February 6th, 2015 at 7:33 AM ^
is one wordy and poorly thought out meme.
However I do like that our coach is already starting to get hate instead of ridicule from other schools.
February 5th, 2015 at 8:34 PM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:59 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
never had any real teeth. The only time it was ever enforced was with Dawson and it was quickly reversed. Since the Dawson incident there were committments talking about and taking visits after their commitments and Hoke and his staff never once receded their offer.
I always thought i was an arrogant policy to begin with and had more of a Brandon feel to it then a Hoke.
For people that have followed recruiting for any length of time know that recruiting doesn't stop with a verbal commitment, you have to keep recruiting and reinforcing a kid's decision until you get the LOI. Any staff that thinks their work is done once a 17-year old gives a verbal commitment, is setting themselves up for failure.
You land recruits by making them feel wanted and convincing them that they are a priority to you and your program, not by making them feel as if they are dispensable and can be cast aside on a whim.
That is why, as good recruiters as Hoke and his staff were, i have a hard time believing they actually came up with that policy. It sounds more like it has David Brandon's insidious fingerprints all over it.
February 8th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
Hoke's policy wasn't to rescind the offer, it was to ignore the verbal commitment. Players were free to look around; if they did, Hoke considered the position open and continued to recruit it.
And I have no idea where you got the notion that Hoke and his staff stopped recruiting players once they got the verbal. I think somewhere along the way this board spiraled to the point where any fact-challenged BS was fine as long as it disparaged Hoke in some way.