OT: THIS is life as a recruit in the SEC

Submitted by RollDamnTide on February 27th, 2012 at 1:15 PM



1. Saban calls CB (and Georgia commit) Shaq Wiggins into his office on an unofficial visit to Alabama

2. Saban tells him that from hsi film, he hasn't seen cover skills like his in a long time

3. Tells Wiggns that he will offer him a scholarship if he commits to Alabama that day.

4. Wiggins says he's honored, but still chooses to remain with Georgia

5. Is promptly offered by 3 more SEC schools, like his verbal never happened.

A verbal in the sec, is kind of like strippers with a heart of gold. We know they exist, we just don't put much stock into them.


Wolverine MD

February 27th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^

I can tell that by your article. But Mike hinted that a possible flip could occur this past weekend (before visit had occurred), but it didn't happen. He said a committed guy had visited somewhere and could flip. 


I was wondering if this is possibly what he was referring to.


February 27th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^

What's he doing visiting Bama? Couldn't he have said "thanks but no thanks Mr. Saban, I'm just here for [whatever] on an unofficial visit" and not gone into his office?

In general I think the 2 common recruiting terms should be switched. Intent should be used for "Verbals" and Committment once you sign your name. Not vice versa


February 27th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

to me whatever. In truth, it is anything but. I'd like to think the NCAA sat down with some cohesive plan, but I can't help wondering which bar they were in when they put it together.


February 27th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^

Anyone who thinks there should be some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" between coaches not to recuit each others committed kids must think that the interests of coaches are more important than the interests of the kids.

I don't know how you can justify a position like that. Deciding which school to attend and finding the right fit is one of the most important decisions these kids will make in their lives.

If coaches agree to withhold offers in order to keep their classes intact and prevent other coaches from offering their commits, the coaches are really just conspiring to put their interests before the interests of the kids.

If a 16/17 y/o kids verbals to one school then switches to a different school because it turned out to be a better fit for him, the kid's actions are completely justified imo.

marco dane

February 27th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^

early signing period in cfb. I don't understand why this process couldn't work if mbb is folling this process.

It would help cutdown on poaching,and allow a kid to then be relieved from the recruiting game.


February 27th, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^

The NCAA has been trying to stop or slow the process of recruiting creep, where kids are being recruited earlier and earlier.  An early signing period would be counterproductive.  Haven't you noticed how, for all intents and purposes, the "early signing period" has become "the signing period"?

When you see how it's done in lacrosse and hockey and baseball, it becomes clear why an early signing period is a bad idea.  At least in football, the recruiting crush comes when a player is older and better able to handle it, as opposed to when he's as young as 14 or 15.  Lacrosse, for example, everyone wrapped up their 2013 classes a while ago and are working on verbals from the class of 2014.  Not healthy.

Besides, there's the issue of coaching changes.  I know that there are all kinds of creative ideas to reduce the impact of those on the player, but the NCAA does not do "creative."  I go back to the example of Roy Roundtree.  If there were an early signing period, he would be a Boilermaker right now.