In reply to: Why can't the NCAA require all offers to be binding? posted by ndzippy
...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.