Roquan Smith's coach slams player's internet critics

Submitted by Doughboy1917 on

Roquan Smith's coach Larry Harold tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that recruits are sold on coaches, so when coaches don't reveal they're leaving a school, recruits have every right to be upset.

“When you get recruited by Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Oregon and all these top schools – when you go visit them, they all have nice football facilities. They have good academic centers and beautiful campuses. Everything is basically the same everywhere. So what separates them? You know what the coaches sell those kids on? ‘That it’s about the people and the relationships.’ That’s all they sell the kids on."

He also slams internet posters critical of decisions by Smith and other recruits.

“I’m really, really, really getting upset because there are grown men sitting behind a computer commenting on stuff that they know nothing about."

And he's absolutely right. About all of it. It's an interesting read. The article also mentions similar situations from this year's NSD, including Mike Weber's committment to OSU.

Link: http://recruiting.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/08/breaking-roquan-smiths-coach-blasts-the-critics/?ecmp=ajc_social_twitter_2014_sfp

twgolf19

February 8th, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^

To give kids a hard time in the internet, but in this day and age it should be expected. If you put your life on the internet, you will not like all the opinions. Is what it is.

Roy G. Biv

February 8th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

In the Smith case, I'm baffled as to why anyone would criticize the kid. He did/is doing exactly the right thing--pause, take a step back and re-evaluate. A major part of the reason he chose UCLA was their DC, who apparently scammed him. He may decide UCLA is where he wants to be after all is said and done, but I think he is going about rethinking his decision in the absolute correct manner.

wolverinebutt

February 8th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

The biggest shame I see in this is I think Urbs wanted to keep Mike from U of M more than he really wanted Mike at OSU.  He wanted to beat JH for this first big recruit on U of M's turf to get a supposed win.  What Urbs lost in this game was Mike Weber is a human being and someones kid.

You don't get any lower than what Urbs did here.  At least the other kids this happened to the Head Coaches really wanted the kid on thier team.

I say this because I think Urbs likes RB's faster than Mike.  If Urbs wants a goal line RB he can find guys bigger than Mike.  Mike is a fine all all round back, but I don't think he is really Urbs style of RB or first choice.  

 

 

 

      

 

  

buckeyejonross

February 8th, 2015 at 1:00 PM ^

Excluding any potential lie or non-lie, pretend Drayton is still there, I'll just comment on the face of your comment:

Why is that a bad thing? Urban's job is to beat the enemy, right? Harbaugh is the enemy. Urban's job is easier if Michigan doesn't have good players, and his job is super easier if Urban takes thhose good players. Besides the fact that he took him from your backyard.

I get that you hate OSU, but Urban's not banishing Weber to Syria here. By any objective measure OSU is currently a better football program and currently is having more success with running backs. Significantly more success. Michigan hasn't had a good running back since 2007. Perhaps the new staff will develop RBs better, but at this point OSU is a slam dunk sure thing for running backs. Michigan is not.

Mike Weber is decidedly not being harmed by going to OSU at the expense of UM. He's probably benefitting. If he is good, and works his ass off in practice, he will get the ball a lot. Regardless of if Urban "wants" him. He'll play if he beats everyone out. If he can't beat everyone out, he will save his brain and his joints and be fresh for the NFL combine.

Besides Urban doesn't like power backs? Carlos Hyde? Ezekiel Elliott? Tim Tebow? Urban's offense is predicated on power running up the middle and jet sweeps with H-Backs on the edge. Mike Weber is exactly the type of running back Urban wants to slam into the line. You're wrong on that opinion.

charblue.

February 8th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

the schools, which are member institutions of a third-party agency, the NCAA, which is obligated to enforce regulations designed by the schools to protect themselves against each other and who are from time to time subject to the penalties of their peers assigned the role of carrying this enforcement out.

So, when people say they want the NCAA to do this or that, they are really talking about the regulatory arm of college sports penalizing one of its members. You either do this through an organization like the NCAA or through a commissioner's office, which is armed with certain authority to control the actions of its member group which voluntarily submits to this authority. to remain in good standing within the group.

The NCAA is not a police agency, it has no legal authority to compel evidence or testimony from any violator of its myriad of regulations. You cannot prove deception if all conditions of an enforceable contract are met.

Pershaps we've reached a point where minors and their parents or primary legal guardian need to be represented by counsel before signing any agreement that would lock them into an enforceable contract without understanding the full legal impact of that ageement.

Beyond, having a parent sign away their child's rights under an LOI, recruits would best be advised through in house counsel at their schools (in a group sessipn or privately) regardless of their suitor school, what it means to accept by signing a letter of intent to enroll at a certain school and why they are choosing a certain school.

Whether mandated or not by rule of law, this could obviously be a remedy that coaches and schools provide their athletes on the verge of making a college scholarship choice. This could be done by a licensed professional or an expert in the field.

This counseling would enable them to understand the differences between a standard LOI and financial scholarship agreement which has a different enforcement consequence that bears on an LOI, and less binding on the student-athlete. As a result of the recent spate of coaches recruiting athletes one day promising them to shepherd them through school, while failing to  acknowledging their immediate future plans beyond the recruitment period, students woud be better protected.

If schools and the NCAA are worried about the advent of student-athlete organizing and unionizing efforts, they better get their act together on this, or face the consequences that Jim Harbaugh warned in his tweet Saturday, because that was not only directed at certain schools but the college universe at large.

 

charblue.

February 8th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^

that enables a recruit's signature on an LOI if he is 18 or older to become binding, not whether he is deceived into thinking that a coach will or will not be at the school he is choosing for a prescribed period after he signs the contract.

We all know the argument that signing an LOI, commits a student-athlete to the program not the coach, even if the coach is the sole link and represents the complete conduit to that school by both the student and his parents.

When our new coach accepted the job and talked to the media about signing day, the word he emphasized most in discussing his new players were the relationships they were building together. Relationships are the key to successful sales and friendship, which lead to team building and victory.

Thus, the argument that a student is comitting to a school, not a coach when he signs a letter of intent, sounds really sage and legal, but certainly it belies the effort it took to obtain that kid's signature in the first place.

The Mike Weber situation has already been played out in a lawsuit in North Carolina in which a female athlete took a school to court after it refused to release her from an LOI after her coach split following her recruitment to that school and she balked about enrolling because of it. She won the case and was then released from her enforceable contract. The issue there was her age when the LOI was signed as a minor athlete.

This problem could be remedied by giving students a certain period to reconsider their decision  following their signing date and/or  compelling disclosure by recruiters about their employment intentions 30 days or less following the recruit's agreement to enroll.

 

PapabearBlue

February 8th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^

I feel like a lot might help if we stopped treating people old enough to send to war or charge as an adult (criminally) like theyre children.