until signing day. Most kids should have an idea that things are going to come fruition along the way. Some are led along falsely by the staffs.
these kids are offered and the offer is accepted and so they stop the process with other schools. The rug getting pulled out from under them down the line is just part of the game, I suppose.
I know first hand that a lot of these kids want offers, lots of offers. What they don't realize is when you have an offer from Wisconsin, the staff isn't crazy about you posting about your offers from Georgia, and Iowa.
And they were by all accounts 100% forthright with the two kids this season, the LBs from Georgia and Hawaii, who were not guaranteed 2019 scholarships.
Or are you calling TJ Sheffield a liar?
I didn't remember that case, but it does sound from the kid's side of the story like ND bungled that recruitment internally (i.e. that Alexander wasn't supposed to offer him but did). I've seen no indication that ND has an intentional practice of making offers that are not "commitable" (without explaining the exact situation to the player), and my understanding is that they don't. I will say that if what this kid reported is accurate, then ND absolutely should have fallen on its sword and honored the commitment.
Yes, we do make non commitable offers.
But we at least explain it when we do.
But there are legions of kids out there with ND offers that cannot pull the trigger on them.
I'd say, we're playing the game still, but are atleast being a bit more honest than most about it.
What're the technical and practical differences, if any, between the two?
I don't follow recruiting much at all, so I'm ignorant of this distinction you and oneill are discussing.
From the chart in the original article, it appears ND offers a lot of kids scholarships.
Edit to fix auto-correct in subject
ND offers a scholarship.
However, if the kid wants to accept the offer and commit on the spot, for some kids (higher up on the list) this is fine.
For others, they have an offer, but they cannot commit to ND because depending on how things shake out, they may not have room down the line.
Basically, we offer kids scholarships as backup plans, and they cannot commit to ND until we tell them they can.
It's playing the game. At least, for the most part, we are honest with the kids when that is the case (they are a backup plan), but I'm with jt on this, it's an unsavory practice.
As a contrast, Northwestern and Stanford absolutely do not do this.
I can't speak for now, but during the Harbaugh years Stanford absolutely did play this game. My neighbor's son "committed" to Stanford in the summer before his senior year. He stopped talking and visiting other schools and held firm to his commitment despite some early contact from other schools. In mid-December, he was told he still had to "pass admissions". The kid had a great GPA and test scores and nothing had changed about his academic profile from the time he committed until then. So he took this to mean that that Stanford was actively trying to replace him and after several phone calls he was finally able to get the strength and conditioning coach to confirm that the coaches did in fact have a lead on other offensive lineman whom they liked more. The kid had to scramble to reach out to other schools and find a good fit. He ended up having a fine career at NC State but he likely would have chosen a different school had Stanford not jerked him around late in the game.
in what ND does versus, say, Tennessee?
Or is the difference only that we're up-front with the kids.
I don't think making conditional offers, in general, is an unsavory practice, if it's clear what the conditions are. Waitlists are certainly not unique to college athletics.
That said, the way the recruiting system is set-up seems heavily weighted to favor schools' interests over students'.
Waitlists are generally not presented like this:
"We'd love you to join us, so here's an offer to do so. Of course, you can't accept our offer until we work our way through all four admissions rounds and have a better idea of who's coming. Then, if we have spots, we'll gladly take you."
Making a waitlist doesn't feel good. It stinks.
recruitniks get all upset because some kid flips at the last minute? No problem, we'll just input an early LOI date!
Now, the kid signs his LOI and the coach decides to leave for greener pastures? Hey, fuck you kid, you're bound to that scholarship unless you want to sit out a year (or more, if you want to go to an in conference school).
And whatever you do, do not allow the kid to profit off of his name, his image, or his likeness. Because, you know, some large corporation could come in and pay him money and that would be bad. Need to keep a level playing field.
Just that we don't string them along and let them know where they stand (most of the time, see TJ Sheffield).
but at least the kids cannot get paid for their image and likeness.
Because that would ruin the concept of a level playing field.
where schools have a limit of 50 or 100 official offers (or some such number). An athlete can only sign a LOI if he has received an official offer.
I would have no limit on unofficial offers. While I am sure that schools will continue to play games with recruits, at the end of the day, if you do not receive an official offer, you know that a school's interest in you is conditional and that you should keep your options open. Sort of like being waitlisted for admittance to your first college choice.
The above still does not solve the problem of 26+ officially offered recruits wanting to fill 25 slots but, perhaps, is better than the current system.
Putting aside that ND is not a Power 5 school, and shouldn't be in that graphic . . . ND falls near the middle of the pack in the number of offers issued (1457)*. We are near peer schools (academically) such as UVA and Duke. They mention that Northwestern and Stanford are at the bottom because they can't just hand out offers like candy. So,is ND handing out "uncommittable" offers? Or just getting turned down alot, in favor of the home state teams, or due to academic fails?
* You can hover over the bar graph and see all of the school (there are three schools, weirdly, in each bar grouping, but only one school (the middle) one, named on the left border.
accept. From what I have read, the staff will be up front with players about how many they have offered at their position and where the player stands on ND's board, but ND will of course tell a player that if another player at X position commits first, then we will no longer be able to take you. I think that approach strikes the right balance.
See above and elsewhere.
We absolutely distinguish between commitable offers and non commitable offers.
In the case of Sheffield, it was a numbers game, but it was clear his offer wasn't "commitable" or was rescinded because of the numbers.
Yes we followed up and were transparent, but we absolutely give out non commitable offers and play the game like everyone else.
In other words, it seems that they are including they are doing so for other schools, which is the point of the article. I assume the large ND figure includes both official and unofficial offers. But perhaps the other schools are as clear. And perhaps NW and Stanford's data only includes what ND would consider "official" offers, which might explain the large discrepancy.
things looks like or sounds like. If you can't commit to it, it's not an offer. The phrase "uncommittable offer" doesn't even make sense to me.
really, the whole system is fucked up and you basically have adults preying on naive kids and their parents.
If only there was a strong school, one that has weight to stand on its own, that could lead and spur meaningful change.
It's a feckless organization, no doubt, but isn't it able to at least make scholarship offers be binding?
Isn't that what signing the NLI is all about. If when a school made an offer it was binding on that school, that would put the school in a really bad position they couldn't have very many more offers out there than they can actually take under NCAA rules.
Making an offer binding doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
...but somehow the whole "all offers are binding" thing seems to work out in a bunch of other college athletics situations with which I am familiar.
"I have three spots. Recruits A, B and C - you are my top choice and I am making you an offer. If you can't give me a commitment by X date, I will need to rescind the offer and proceed with other recruits. Recruits D, E, and F - I am very interested in you but am not sure whether I will have space. I will know by X date at the latest and will update you as soon as I know." That's basically how a whole bunch of recruiting gets done. Not sure why some version of it couldn't work in the football context.
Extending 300 offers and then choosing which ones to honor is an awfully terrible model by comparison.
be more selective with your offers, spend more time recruiting and getting to know the kid, and only make offers to players that you are very confident can help your program.
Note that such a rule wouldn't prohibit schools from recruiting lots of kids and getting kids on campus for visits, etc. It would make it difficult to just go out and offer 300 kids, especially kids whom you perhaps haven't seen very closely.
ND didn't even offer a on campus visit to a kid that Admissions hadn't approved. I remember one time reading that in a class of some where around 20 kids that only 30 or so official visits were offered by the Irish.
But it's not 1988 any more and I don't think we can go back.
the kids? Fuck them, let them eat cake
ND fell behind with their policies when coaches like Bob Stoops started handing out offers like they were candy, he (and lots of others) were contacting kids earlier and earlier and making offers. ND couldn't make an offer and couldn't invite them to campus until admissions passed on them and they wouldn't pass on a kid who was a freshman or a sophomore.
Kids ate this up and we found ourselves behind with so many of them who had been in contact with our rivals for a longer period of time and had already been offered by our rivals. They established relationships with the kid/family early, we didn't.
I can't tell you how many times I read recruiting stories where a kid would say that yeah he liked ND but they came in late and he's had a great relationship with coach X and School X for awhile now and he's going with them.
That's why I say this is more driven by the kids/families than it is by the schools. Sure you can try to turn back the clock and go back to 1988 when kids didn't get early offers, and recruiting didn't really get going in ernest till their Jr year. But turning back the clock in anything is usually not a winner. Plus at the same time you seem to be advocating kids get money for their images, be able to have contracts with those who are willing to pay them. In this day and age I don't see how you reconcile a position of turning back the clock on recruiting and letting the kids make money off their images and have contracts with anyone who will pay them.
edit: Next up, coaches respecting a kids verbal and not contacting him once he's given a verbal to a school...that used to be in the gentlemans code for coaches. Till Urban Meyer invented the non-committable offer and also liked it when a kid gave a verbal because that then defined his competition...see Justin Trattou.
We do all kinds of things all the times that would hurt kids' feelings because it is in their best interest.
but the gist of it is that it would be bad for the programs to make these offers binding and so the NCAA won't do it.
That's my cynical take anyway.
and if suddenly a lot of kids didn't have offers because schools were not handing them out, they wouldn't feel great about their recruiting. Probably create stress and anxiety in the kids and parents. Genie is out of the bottle.
doesn't mean that I'm going to let my kids do that, mind you.
"wouldn't feel great about their recruiting." come on man.
Warning ESPN. Interesting stuff though. Each champion has had a top 300 QB, multiple five stars, a slew of top 50 defenders, and averaged a top 10 class over the previous four years.