Did GT, dodge a bullet?

[Madison Grant]

This one of those intangible examples for people who say Louisville is a better or higher profile job than us, and cite athletic spending, academics, school enrollment, game attendance etc. But Geoff Collins can come in the first week and drive 30 minutes to an hour in any direction and recruit a half dozen D-1 prospects. Scott Satterfield is going to have to fly all over the place, and will have trouble filling out his class.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

According to the NCAA and the amateur rules, student athletes commit to the school not the coach. That is why they have to jump through hoops to change schools. I don't understand how people can say that the student's should have to jump through hoops to change schools, and yet say that the schools should be able to dump student athletes when they don't need them anymore.

If GT were to do that, it would definitely not fit the "40 year program" pronouncements.

Commits and letters of intent are entirely different animals.

 

[Techster]

There's a crappy side of recruiting when staff changes over, but that's what happens. I don't agree with what Satterfield (reportedly) did, but that's their program.

The reality is, if Satterfield wins big at Louisville, no one is gonna care that he "trimmed the fat" on kids that didn't fit his system. We may not agree with it, but in the end win and everyone forgets.

 

[YJMD]

This looks bad on many levels for Louisville. It was a sinking ship with few commits before and now even worse. Quite a contrast here with not only CGC hitting the recruiting trail hard but also being sure to immediately branch out to current commits. Not only that but the existing staff has been working hard without a promise of a job. We haven't heard a whisper of losing anyone yet, commit or current player, although I'm sure that's inevitable as people will find out in due time how they fit in with new schemes and how crowded the competition will be.

 

[RonJohn]

Commits and letters of intent are entirely different animals.

I do understand that. However, the term "commitment" has been defined very liberally by recruits and recruiting sites. At GT, the standard has been that a commitment actually fits the dictionary definition for the recruits and for the school. In the Louisville case, one of the recruits actually changed his academic coursework based on "promises of commitment" from the school. The only reason that this particular recruit hadn't signed a letter of intent is because of timng limitations from the NCAA.

"Commits" seems to be used as a limitation on the recruits and the recruits are crucified by the fans when they break their commitment. The schools are praised by fans when they drop a "committed" athlete to pick up a higher rated recruit. If the word of the school means nothing, then no athlete should make a commitment to any school until they have paperwork from the school guaranteeing the scholarship.

 

[GTHomer]

"Commits" seems to be used as a limitation on the recruits and the recruits are crucified by the fans when they break their commitment. The schools are praised by fans when they drop a "committed" athlete to pick up a higher rated recruit. If the word of the school means nothing, then no athlete should make a commitment to any school until they have paperwork from the school guaranteeing the scholarship.

I consider something in writing a commitment. Verbal commitments are non binding, from the side of both parties.

 

[slugboy]

If I'd already enrolled (which takes the help of the school) and picked a dorm (which takes the help of the school), and changed my high school schedule to graduate early based on the verbal promise of a school's coaches, all to see the verbal promise retracted, I would let everyone know how they'd let me down. I'm sure this burns bridges with a bunch of coaches and high schools at a time that Kentucky is killing it in that area in recruiting.
Louisville is in the middle of Kentucky, Ohio State, Tennessee, and a bunch of midwestern schools. This is going to hurt.

 

[RonJohn]

I consider something in writing a commitment. Verbal commitments are non binding, from the side of both parties.

So if a friend of yours borrows $100, you don't consider it a requirement that he repay you unless he signed something?

In this case it appears that some of the SAs and parents asked the athletic staff if the scholarship offers would still be honored before the coach was hired. Apparently they were assured that it would be. After the new coach arrived, they were told that they would not be.

If NCAA programs want to continue to recruit the way they do now, they either need to limit the promises the coaches can make or enable the players to sign immediately at any time. At the moment, the system is set up entirely to the benefit of the schools and puts extra limitations on and requirements to the student athletes.

 

[deeeznutz]

I never once said I believed any such thing.

I repeated words, not made up by me, that were said about a S/A that once was committed to us. And I said I hope we never again have a coach that uses those words about a young athlete who once was committed to us.

Is there anything I can say to clarify it any more? Is there some sort of hypocritical butthurt going on that people can only point out the “sins” of others instead of taking care of our own crap?

You just put a quote from our coach regarding a player who decommitted (in a discussion of committed players having their offers pulled out from under them, so different situation) and said "It happens, but feel bad for kids with no other options". You'll have to forgive me for thinking you were trying to tie the two entirely different situations together, since that's exactly what you did there. There's no "taking care of our own crap", because we flat out didn't pull an offer from a committed kid who wanted to come here, so the "sin" we're talking about doesn't even apply to us (ie you're making crap up to make some sort of point). BTW, from your "I hope we never again have a coach that uses those words about a young athlete who once was committed to us" BS, it seems pretty clear you've been butthurt about that for a while. That was 11 years ago, bruh.

 

[lv20gt]

In this case it appears that some of the SAs and parents asked the athletic staff if the scholarship offers would still be honored before the coach was hired. Apparently they were assured that it would be. After the new coach arrived, they were told that they would not be.

Then the problem is with the staff that assured them they would be honored when they weren't in a position to make those assurances.

 

[deeeznutz]

Then the problem is with the staff that assured them they would be honored when they weren't in a position to make those assurances.

They apparently were in communication with the AD's office. The AD's office can absolutely tell the incoming coach that all commitments need to be honored (as I would hope our AD told all prospective coaches he interviewed). They were absolutely in a position to make that assurance, but apparently don't believe in being honorable. But it's Louisville, so that last part should have been expected.

 

[ncjacket79]

I'll probably be alone in this but I don't have a problem. These are athletic scholarships. I doubt having his scholarship pulled means he's unable to attend UL so the academic side of things isn't an issue. Instead it means he has to do the same thing thousands of others have to do and go without an athletic scholarship which sucks, but I don't see anyone as being entitled to a scholarship. Especially when pretty much the sole criteria for receiving one is the head coach determines that you deserve one, and in this situation the head coach didn't think he deserved one, so he isn't going to get one, from UL.

The problem I have is that the school/AD evidently told them their scholarship would still be honored, as we evidently also did. If they/we had said all bets are off until we have a new coach, then go for it. Otherwise this is just another example of a school taking advantage of SAs imo

 

[Skeptic]

I'll probably be alone in this but I don't have a problem. These are athletic scholarships. I doubt having his scholarship pulled means he's unable to attend UL so the academic side of things isn't an issue. Instead it means he has to do the same thing thousands of others have to do and go without an athletic scholarship which sucks, but I don't see anyone as being entitled to a scholarship. Especially when pretty much the sole criteria for receiving one is the head coach determines that you deserve one, and in this situation the head coach didn't think he deserved one, so he isn't going to get one, from UL.

He did not "deserve" the scholarship. It was offered to him by Louisville through its representative, the football coach. Whether the coach changes is not relevant. It was an offer from the school. I don't think I ever did a business deal with you, did I?

 

[ncjacket79]

I consider something in writing a commitment. Verbal commitments are non binding, from the side of both parties.

Be careful with that. Verbal contracts can be binding in court depending on whether a party has begun to perform. Not as clear cut as you suggest. I understand this is a different situation but i’m just waiting on the lawsuit where a family feels they are materially harmed by a verbal commitment from a school. I think it would be an interesting case.

 

[laoh]

Something that Saban would do. Shameless.
At the least the head coach needs to get on a call and do it, not the recruiter.
Y'all remind yourself what Paul Johnson did for Jaylend Ratliffe.

 

[okiemon]

This looks bad on many levels for Louisville. It was a sinking ship with few commits before and now even worse. Quite a contrast here with not only CGC hitting the recruiting trail hard but also being sure to immediately branch out to current commits. Not only that but the existing staff has been working hard without a promise of a job. We haven't heard a whisper of losing anyone yet, commit or current player, although I'm sure that's inevitable as people will find out in due time how they fit in with new schemes and how crowded the competition will be.

Louisville will be all right. Not as all right as we're going to be, but better than they're looking right now.

 

[JorgeJonas]

If Louisville gives a release to all current players, I don’t see the issue here.

 

[slugboy]

If Louisville gives a release to all current players, I don’t see the issue here.

They don’t need a release prior to signing a letter of intent. All the chaos is being felt by the recruits who just got upended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic]

If Louisville gives a release to all current players, I don’t see the issue here.

Odd, because the issue is simple. And I am not talking about a legal issue. I am talking about the word of a university to a prospective student, the offer of a scholarship to play football and all that entails. That's it. The university, through its assigned representative, the new football coach, reneged on the deal two weeks before signing day. It is the reputation of the school we are talking about. Is its word good? Yes or no. And that is it. All the legal stuff is to the side. Is its word good? Or is it, by definition, a lying institution? That is all you have to decide.

 

[JorgeJonas]

They don’t need a release prior to signing a letter of intent. All the chaos is being felt by the recruits who just got upended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I said current players, who would need a release.