Conditional vs non-commitable offers
by ThreeD (2019-02-06 14:39:36)
Edited on 2019-02-06 14:51:22

In reply to: To put an even finer point on it  posted by HTownND


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



Basically
by HTownND  (2019-02-06 14:51:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Stanford has played scholarship shenanigans
by notredan  (2019-02-06 15:42:09)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Thanks. Is there a difference, other than honesty
by ThreeD  (2019-02-06 15:11:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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'.


Bad analogy
by ndzippy  (2019-02-07 00:28:03)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


the way the entire system is set up favors the schools
by jt  (2019-02-06 15:53:55)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Not really
by HTownND  (2019-02-06 15:21:45)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Just that we don't string them along and let them know where they stand (most of the time, see TJ Sheffield).