Question - Recruit Offers

Submitted by pee on freep on May 5th, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I've read that UM has extended over 130 offers, and yet we are anticipating an average to smaller than average incoming class in 2011.

Tim recently commented that some offers are not weighted as heavily as others, but rather some are just 'hey we'd love to have you play for UM'.  (I am paraphrasing from memory).

How does offering recruits work?  My experience is that once an offer is extended, and then accepted, then it is essentially binding.  Of course until (and even after) a legal contract is signed there are ways of parting, but it generally leads to very negative situations and occasionally lawsuits.  

Is it as simple as:  1) offer extended, 2) offer accepted, 3) offer retracted, sorry your out-of-luck, we've found someone we like better?  This sequence appears too harsh for high school kids and their college ambitions, and something the NCAA would have stymied years ago.  Or is this actually how it works?

So, what has me perplexed is with over 130 offers already for 2011, and obviously some of those offers are to those first-tier, second-tier, third..etc...  What happens if a large number of lowest-tier players accept their offers (why wouldn't they jump at a chance to play for UM) before January/February 2011 when the top-rated players generally announce?  Can RR just say "sorry, but we take it back"?

Go Blue!

Comments

Blazefire

May 5th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^

An offer does not require the school to do anything. Furthermore, even signing an LOI does not bind the school to providing a scholarship for that player.

bsb2002

May 5th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

if you've ever seen an offer letter there is generally all sorts of qualifying language that boils down to "you have an offer so long as we still like you and want to take you"

the letter is part of the recruiting process, but it doesn't bind anyone

Noahdb

May 5th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^

For some reason, I want to say that there is a limit to the number of official offers a school can extend. Or maybe it's the number of official visitors you can have. I can't find anything concrete on the NCAA.org page.

I did find this handy-dandy pocket guide that has no relevance to this discussion but might be interesting.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/10933a004e0b872388e5f81ad6fc8b25/Football.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=10933a004e0b872388e5f81ad6fc8b25

MGoObes

May 5th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^

an offer (a verbal commitment) there's nothing legally binding about it. the kid can de-commit, the school can pull the offer. the only "legally" binding thing is the letter of intent.

willywill9

May 5th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

Not going to answer your question, but I came across an interesting article on a GT blog site about how Bobby Dodd called out coaches like Alabama's Bryant and other SEC coaches for over-recruiting players and cutting them during summer workouts.
This rivalry revolves around the most epic coaching dual in Southern Football History: Dodd versus Bryant. From 1958-1964, the two coaches squared off 7 times. This rivalry was cited by Bobby Dodd multiple times as a factor for Tech leaving the SEC. He felt Bear and other SEC coaches treated their players poorly through over recruitment. Dodd only recruited players if he knew he had scholarship room for them. Bryant and other SEC brethren would over-recruit and cut players during Summer workouts voiding their athletic scholarships. Dodd brought this up numerous times in SEC offseason meetings but the SEC paid no heed.
http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2010/5/2/1454216/the-gt-bama-rivalry-r… I just found that interesting.

pee on freep

May 5th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^

it is this treatment of players that i was getting at with the NCAA.  if the NCAA considers extra stretching time as excessive and a major violation worthy of penalty, then wouldn't they fret more about dragging players along for the ride, only to dump them at the end potentially jeopardizing their ability to find the best school for them, or any school at all.  

i read the mgo.licio.us blog on rercuiting (thanks again Six Zero) and it seems to put a lot of responsibility on the players, while allowing the colleges freedom to "pump and dump".

i am not necessarily against the system as it is.  it more closely resembles the realities of life and business which we all must experience, but its the inequality of the enforcement, and treatment of the players, by the NCAA that has me puzzled...

"...practice, ... we're talking about practice..." (A.I.)