verbal vs. oral
i've noticed that mark snyder of the free press insists on referring to the spoken agreement between a player and a coach that that player will attend that coach's university to play a given sport as an "oral commitment". in fact, if you do a google search for "oral commitment", the first result is a mark snyder article.
does this make anyone else uncomfortable, or is it just me? i just really don't want to see headlines like "rodriguez receives oral from top prospect".
I prefer verbal.
lol "oral"
You say Toh-May-Toe, I say Toh-Mah-Toe. Whatever you want to call it, it is still a non-binding commitment that most kids will switch ad naseum between the day they "orate their desires" and the day they sign.
I am in favor of the early signing day myself -- wonder what would happen if a kid realizes he picked a school for the wrong reasons? Would it be like in Blue Chips when the boosters told Nick Nolte to do whatever it took to keep the player happy? Interesting...They would probably have to mandate 5 officials before a kid could sign early just so the NCAA could "believe" a kid shopped around before signing early. Just a rant, sorry.
Yes, in response to your post, oral does sound a little awkward.
No, I say people that say Toh-Mah-Toe are Fuh-King Stoo-Pid.
I sort of like the idea of at least one official taken (they are free after all) before an "official verbal" can be declared. Although there would be some significant issues with it.
And how, even on the 4th, how can a Verbal vs. Oral topic post not have over 100 entries so far?
How many of UM's early committers would actually take all 5 visits? I don't think the NCAA could or should mandate 5 visits. Bottom line, nothing changes for the responsibility of the kid and his parents. They have to take their time and look at all schools involved and make an educated decision. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often enough. However, I think the early signing period would definitely help to control the chaos that has become recruiting.
Speaking as a lawyer who gets picky about when other lawyers (let alone the general public) incorrectly use "verbal" when they really mean "oral," Mark Snyder is correct in his usage.
"Oral" means spoken, or of the mouth. "Verbal" means using words, or consisting of words. EVERY commitment is verbal, unless it's made with cave paintings (i.e., without words). A spoken commitment is both oral (because it's spoken) and verbal (because it uses words). However, a "verbal commitment" would technically also apply to a written commitment (i.e., a letter of intent), because it uses words. Technically therefore, when one says "verbal commitment," how are we supposed to know if he's talking about a spoken commitment or a letter of intent?
That said, "verbal commitment" is the common accepted term for what Snyder refers to as an "oral commitment." As much as I hate mixing the two meanings, I'll say that Snyder's bording on the pretentious for fighting the world on the meaning of a "verbal commitment."
Very true. But I think the word choice is based on more than avoiding pretentiousness - perhaps verbal is chosen over oral for exactly the awkward, lewd reasons referred to by other posters. Perhaps we choose verbal over oral for the same reason we say "he was hanged" rather than "he was hung" when referring to execution by rope, when we always say "the picture was hung" or "the trimmings were hung".
a guy being hung.
Exactly. Whatever the reason for the more inaccurate usage, that's the way it's developed, so I call it good, as much as it pains me.
FYI, the hanged/hung discrepancy ("hanged" being the past participle used when talking about legal executions and "hung" being the past participle used in all other settings) actually comes from the convergence of two Middle English verbs meaning "to hang," one of them a transitive verb and the other intransitive.
creeps me out when refering to football. I understand that the terminology has the same defination but its just creepy. An oral commitment vs. a verbal commitment. I would say definatily go with verbal.
Homophobia is a helluva thing. I can't even see where this is something to comment on.
Yeah, it's all about homophobia, because it would be NOT AT ALL CREEPY to speak of Kevin Borseth receiving an oral from one of his recruits.
I would be creeped out just as much if a male head coach was receiving orals while coaching a womens team.
It's not homophobic, it's being afraid of a stupid and needlessly ambiguous terminology that evidently only one person uses.
I'll take oral, I'll always take oral.
Im willing to bet Notre Dame(or any catholic school) will not be using the term oral, when associated with young boys.