Would someone please explain conditional offers
I still really don't understand conditional offers. I mean, sure, I understand the general concept of conditions, but not the details. I'm not an ex-college football player, nor do I know any, nor any current hs players so I don't know how this plays out.
So, there are the standard conditions (graduate on time, certain grades, threshhold ACT/SAT scores, no felonies, etc.) which are obvious. If someone is a Michigan recruit, they generally meet these (unless they are Marques Slocum of Google F--k lion fame.)
But do any of you know of real conditional offers? Do they say ismw to a 3 star, "here's an offer, but you can't accept before Dec. 1, and if it is filled prior, you're sol, baby.)
Do they say, "here's an offer, but you're moving from QB to DB . . . the offer is NOT for a QB position."
Do they say, "here's an offer, but we want you to decommit if our number 1 and 2 prospects commit?"
Do they say, "here's an offer, make a decision this week, or the offer is pulled?" (iirc, Brian or TomVH said something like this might have gone down with Graves and Newsome last year.)
Is this one of those super secret things, kind of "here's the condition that we'll accept you, but we'll deny, deny, deny that we ever said this."
I have to suspect that there are some conditions . . . otherwise more of the Michigan homies or guys w 3 stars would already have accepted.
Does anyone on here know Jerome Jackson or guys on the team who can explain this? Or Tom VH, have you taked to anyone about this?
thx
Steve
"But do any of you know of real conditional offers? Do they say ismw to a 3 star, "here's an offer, but you can't accept before Dec. 1, and if it is filled prior, you're sol, baby.)"
Yes, they make it clear to prospects where they rank on the pecking order, and they make it clear that they have other guys they'd prefer before so-and-so makes a decision.
"Do they say, "here's an offer, but you're moving from QB to DB . . . the offer is NOT for a QB position.""
They always make sure a prospect knows what position they'll be using him for. The Peace situation was slightly fishy because they told him he'd be a DB well after he committed. But this is how they got Denard Robinson away from the Gators.
"Do they say, "here's an offer, but we want you to decommit if our number 1 and 2 prospects commit?""
I doubt they ever "want" a prospect to decommit. If they feel they have a great shot at prospects 1 and 2, they will slow play 3, and if needed, they'll Jordan Barnes him. However, I wouldn't expect that to happen very often.
"Do they say, "here's an offer, make a decision this week, or the offer is pulled?" (iirc, Brian or TomVH said something like this might have gone down with Graves and Newsome last year.)"
They pressured guys like Newsome and McNeal, yes. Like Tom said though, they were a little shaky with the recruiting early on. They have their feet under them now, and won't be pressing for commitments like that anymore.
Last year was wonky in all sorts of ways. It was a disaster on the field and all kinds of chaotic off it. The coaches got out of their own comfort zone in pretty much every way imaginable. Just read the practice reports. Last year they went hardcore balls to the wall, trying to weed out weak links and find out who was going to be able to handle things. This year, they're much more relaxed, and the players are having fun. The "buying in" phase is behind us, and the scramble for finding players, both on the current team and in recruiting, is slowed down.
I'm a little shocked that you suggest they let recruits know where they rank on the pecking order. I'm not doubting you, but it seems a bit dirty.
Especially if the higher recruit goes elsewhere, and then the lower recruit ends up at Michigan...and then they end up playing against the higher recruits team. Imagine how awkward Ohio State week would be for a QB recruit who was told "Yeah we really want Pryor, but if he doesn't sign, you can sign." I can't imagine it's good for a player knowing that Rod would have preferred the opposing QB (for example...)
I echo what Brian was getting at in his recent post - recruiting is getting out of control. I'm in favor of the NCAA reigning it in a little.
It's dirty for a recruit to be upfront and honest with the players they are recruiting? Sometimes the truth hurts, but full disclosure is never dirty. It would be dirty if RR told every kid he was their #1 only for the kid to find out otherwise.
You're right - full disclosure is better than lying. And, to be fair to coaches, it sometimes works against them, too. I.e. a recruit who decommits at the last moment.
I dislike the idea of kids using our offers as "placeholders," but I dislike the idea of coaches using kids as placeholders even more. I don't think offers should be revoked (expressly or implicitly) in favor of another recruit.
I'd prefer something along the lines of offering a certain number of recruits, and accepting the first 3 or 4 or whatever who decide to commit. Or, alternatively, something where a lower recruit is not offered until a higher recruit declines his offer (and we need to create an incentive to decline offers, I guess).
I spent a couple minutes trying to come up with a better system, and I admit that it is difficult. But I think we'd all like to see commitments that have value; that is to say, and offer should not be revoked just because a better athlete comes along, and a commit should not be allowed to change his mind easily or frequently.
This was on Rivals today in the basketball recruiting wrap:
--------------------------------------------------------
“I heard Michigan was supposed to come out to an open gym this week. I don’t know if they are going to make it, though,” Dragicevich reported. “I talked to Coach Dunn a couple weeks ago.
“They told my coach they are waiting on [Zeigler] to commit before they pursue me harder, so I guess that’s where I am with them right now … and I’m cool with that.”
----------------------------------------------------------
Full disclosure and honesty is always the correct way to go.
And thanks for the answers above. They make sense and are helpful. I do like full disclosure. However, I am pretty confident of Beilein in this regard. I am less sure so far with RR. Prob., as you said in your op response, things were just way wonky last year, and we should now stabilize.
So elsewhere, Magnus said we've got 122 offers out, or about 10 offers for a spot. Obviously, some of these are pie in the sky offers to 5 star guys unlikely to accept. And a certain number of offers are conditional. And I would guess they also make some offers (or don't give some offers) based on what they expect in 2011. Is that about right? If so, I'm guessing that maybe 40 offers are "real," with the rest being fliers on 5 stars or conditionals to option 3 recruit. This must be what Brian is getting at when he refuses to waste time with some of the offers until he gets the sense that they're really interested (and not slow playing Michigan.)
Thinking back, Big Will was an example of this the other way. (or Marvin Robinson, for that matter.) They may have been listed as recruits elsewhere, but . . . not really. They were coming here. I get the feeling RR (& Tom, and some others,) know who the solid recruits are, and who the dubious ones are. Of course, no one can predict with the flakes.
Last thing . . . looking at the board, I don't understand the "nefarious eduardo" offers out to 3 stars. I could understand offers to Gholston and Delvin Jones (4 1/2 or 5 star DE's, area of some need.) But less so to Royer or Willis (Nefarious 3 stars.) If they're 3 stars, and they're low probability, why waste the time? I guess that's why coaches are looking at film and evaluating this.
and yes, they need to rein things in a bit.
But I do hate reading the ex-OSU recruit saying, "it's just a business." I guess that's the reality. But I like the idea of guys playing because they enjoy playing. I want guys who want to be at Michigan, who look back fondly at their time at Michigan. I hate the idea of players who are saying, "I've always liked FL or ND or OSU or wherever, and RR and my position coach are jerks, but I'm going to Michigan anyway, for the first year PT. It's just balls to the walls and nose to the grindstone, put up with it, hate it, but deal with it, because it's just a business, and this is the place that will give me the biggest payday."
Even in pro sports, I like it when guys say, because of the chemistry, because of the winning, because of the whatever, I'm gonna stay with THIS team for less money than going to THAT team. There was something at ESPN suggesting that LeBron might stay in Cleveland after all, even if he could get more money and exposure elsewhere. I like that. Call me naive and hopeless . . .
redwings are now, they got datsyuk, franzen, and zetts all locked up for less than market value and they might even be able to keep hossa. or think about a guy like chelios who was a god in chicago but has now played more seasons in detroit and for less money.
part of that is wanting to win too. so it would be good if RR could pull of north of 6 wins this year.
This is how forums are supposed to work.
All offers are conditional the same way all commitments are conditional, until the LOI is signed. An offer can be pulled for any reason for example you knocked up your girlfriend, got a speeding ticket, or grades slipped in senior year. Now most coaches will not just pull an offer they will find away to make the student decommit. Stop contacting them ask them to switch positions or any thing else the can think of that will make the student decommit. And that works the some way with a students verbal they are locked into nothing until they sign the LOI the student has every right to change his mind.
Think of buying a house until the paperwork is signed a verbal offer means nothing.
That's the way it seems to work now, but I think there's a difference between revoking a kid's offer because he didn't get the grades he needs, and revoking it because the coach found a better player.
I don't like revoking offers for the latter reason.
Personally, my view leans towards the old-school side - I think offers should be offers, and commitments should be commitments. I think it's ok to to tell a recruit that we're still evaluating his film (i.e. not sure if we want him yet), and I think its also ok to make offers conditional on predetermined factors such as grades etc.
I think the Peace recruiting was a little dirty for my taste. Again, it's a personal view.
Coaches need to offer more players than there are open spots. Everyone knows this. Players understand their place in the line and the timeline of commitments. that's why the best players wait. lesser players are often given a timeline too - we're making you an offer but we won't wait around forever, there are other players roughly equivalent to you, and if you don't commit, we'll find someone who will. when the class fills up, recruits know that slots are no longer available. as the class fills up coaches let recruits know how many more spots are available, what positions they need to fill and who else they're waiting on. it is kind of like college - let us know by this date, because we have needs to take care of also.
All of what you said is true - but again there's a difference between giving a kid a timeline to commit, and trying to pull the offer after the kid has committed.
In my post above, I should have maybe emphasized that it is that line which I do not think should be crossed (kind a convoluted sentance, isn't it?)
If conditions allow a kid to commit, then I don't think the schollie should be pulled or finagled out of, if the kid still wants to go to UM w/o PT.
It's a game, a dance, and all are conditional in some way. Like I said, I just don't know the details.
If I understand you and the other Brian correctly, prob. on about 50% of the offers out now, the conditions are such that they can't accept. Wait list is a good analogy . . . "you're wait listed for DE/CB/RB . . . you're number 4 on the list. If the 3 ahead of you decide to go elsewhere, the offer is yours." Anyone who is less than a top app applying to Michigan Med/Law/Business deals with the same thing.
Talking about conditions, and commitments, I wonder if Prior played us, or if he really didn't know where he was going. The power is in the hands of the best schools and best recruits.
Yeah, but why would a coach every say "I want A and B and C before I want D." To me, it seems like a much better practice to simply tell player D that the coaches are still watching his film and looking around, and then extending an offer once they've decided that they are serious about the kid.
Don't you think the coach risks seriously damaging relations by giving a potential recruit the pecking order? If I were a coach (in a vacuum) , I don't think I'd give out the pecking order.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
Perhaps, but I think there are two additional considerations:
(1) When a coach waits to offer a particular player based on that player's position in the "pecking order," the coach takes a risk that the player commits elsewhere before the scholarship can even be offered. By issuing a conditional scholarship, the coach gives a more concrete sign of interest while preserving his preferred hierarchy.
(2) The players are realistic. They know that coaches are recruiting other players. Therefore, they understand (or they should, anyway) that a coach may wait on another prospect before offering another. With such a limited number of scholarships, players know coaches are recruiting a number of players at every position.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
Agree with your #1, but not your #2.
In particular, I don't think 17 year old athletes who are DI talent are "realistic." I'm not 17 anymore, so maybe I'm wrong, but it's my opinion that a 17 y/o would not respond positively to being told his "rank" (unless of courses he is ranked #1).
Perhaps the college coach should use the high school coach as an intermediary while feeling out the mutual interest?
April 24th, 2009 at 11:27 PM ^
Using the high school coach as an intermediary sounds like an excellent idea. You may be entirely correct that 17-year old boys are not "realistic," but you have to assume that these kids are at least aware of their recruiting rankings. I would fully expect that each of those boys has complete confidence that they can succeed in college and beyond; that's entirely natural. But a middle-of-the-road recruit, in my opinion, should not expect to be the #1 target of a school like Michigan. Maybe I am wrong (*note: this is entirely possible).
Now, to backtrack somewhat, I would not tell a recruit, "you are running back #8 on our priority list." That's a little too specific for me.
I guess we ultimately agree that it's a fine line to walk between telling every kid he is #1 on the list, and being dead honest and telling a kid that there are a lot of recruits ahead of him.
I suspect different coaches take different approaches, and that probably reflects their success. For example, a good closer might keep his interest in a mid-level recruit limited, and then make a strong push at the end. A poor closer, conversely, might be a guy who says something like "hey there, 3-star, you're in luck: all the 4- and 5- starts went to better programs, so why don't you join us!"
April 24th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
Why can't all the threads be this well done. I've been reading this blog for years and wish we had more conversations and dialogue like this. Good information, good opinions, not all the trash.
Just saying.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
the gist of this question is usually buried within layers of incorrect assumptions stated as fact, rather than the honest "please explain this" we started with here.
Something like:
Why are we recruiting ______? We're offering too many ______ and we're never going to be elite if we don't start recruiting more (opposite of _______).
April 24th, 2009 at 11:56 PM ^
No, I really just don't/didn't know the nature of a conditional offer. It's starting to make sense. I somewhat naively had assumed that an offer was somewhat like a college letter of acceptance, or a job offer. With acceptance to the U, there are still obvious conditions, but it's assumed they will be met (i.e., your grades don't tank your senior year, you don't commit an egregious crime, it isn't discovered that your papers in hs were all plagerized, yada, yada.) With a job offer, usually, to me, that means you've been offered a job, again, with certain societal expectations. You go through an interview with Motorola, and they say "congratulations, we're offering you a position as an engineer in our police and emergency sector," you assume you've got a job. They don't say, "congratulations, we're offering you a job. But you can't start until September, when we see if the offers we extended to Stanford and MIT grads are accepted or turned down. And if they're accepted, then our 'offer" is pulled off the table." A company will slow play you (not reject you, but not offer you) until they are ready for you to sign the dotted line. Or they'll hardball you (decide this week, or we're going to talk to other candidates.) I'm learning that offers to athletes are a completely different animal.
The other thing is that I suspect recruiting is changing. I have to believe that it is a lot different recruiting for 2010 than it was for 1970.
As to your "gist," yes, I still am trying to understand why we are offering 3 star nefarious eduardos. I trust in RR, and I'm not at all disappointed in our current verbal commitments. I do believe we'll be elite. But I don't want to end up having more guys accept offers than we've got spaceds to fill. I don't want RR to be like Saban or the guys in Carolina, and have 30 offers accepted, meaning that some have to be pressured to drop, or some 5th years have to be shown the door, or some underachieving 3rd year guys kicked out for sleazy reasons.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^
misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the difference between the responses to this thread and one like http://mgoblog.com/content/rr-recruiting-wtf is that you started it off by asking a question, not making an ill-informed statement. Even though the gist of what you are both asking is the same.
Just to be clear to Mr. Kass, baorao is paying you a compliment.