With some kids, "Verbal Commitment" is actually NO "Commitment"

[catben]

Why do kids give a verbal commitment before they really know where they want to go to school?

With the rash of decommits we've had this past week, what happens in these last 2 weeks before signing day?

What has changed?

UK Football is the same program today as we were 2 months ago, why do parents allow their kids to commit when there is a chance they change their mind?

 

[mrschwump]

I think some of it has to do with the coach recruiting the guy. He "encourages" them to commit then moves on to the next. Some guys know what they want, others have to be convinced. But the coach, and I'm talking in general not UK specific, very much plays into it.

 

[K_TIME]

This is reason #1 why the traditional football powers want a late signing period and dominate the NCAA rules to not change.

- NCAA doesn't have an early signing period (say in October) nor will they just the same...make kids sign a LOI at the time of verbal and be done with the entire concpet of verbal announcement that mean nothing.

- Ohio St, Bama, UT, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc..they are the ones that can more easily flip kids from lesser schools when they need to fill out their class in January.

It truly is a big hoax...just sign a paper if you're on board...otherwise the kids and schools should just continue to pursue their best opportunities.

 

[kyhusker2]

A lot of them commit early to hold a spot in a class so they don't get left without a place. Then they wait to see if something more attractive comes along.

 

[Cawood86]

Originally posted by kyhusker2:
A lot of them commit early to hold a spot in a class so they don't get left without a place. Then they wait to see if something more attractive comes along.

True and it's hard to blame a kid for doing that. Early signing period would help eliminate some of this.

 

[catben]

I think it goes the other way also.

Said recruit "commits" to a school.
Opposing coaches that were recruiting the kid now knows the kid will go elsewhere if not shown the love.
Opposing coach continues to stay in contact in case their 1st choices go elsewhere.
Opposing coach turns up the heat 2 weeks before signing day, when 1st choice goes elsewhere.
Kid thinks those 2 weeks of getting smoke blown up his butt, outweighs the up to 1 year of contact with the school he verbally committed to.
Kid decommits and feels he will be a star at new school he commits to and is really just a class filler for a Big school.

 

[BlueRaider22]

The term "commitment" is misleading. A recruit isn't really bound to a school until they sign the LOI. A "verbal" is just a way of saying, "please hold my spot for the moment".

 

[bigblueinsanity]

In todays college football recruiting, a verbal offer from a school and/or a verbal commitment from a recruit both mean the same thing: We have a deal for now, unless something better comes along.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be stopped by both parties? Yes, but it cant be truly enforced.

What CAN be done, is cracking down on the oversigning of players. That would help protect the kids, who are sometimes left out in the cold. It would also prevent this domino effect that occurs when top programs start whiffing on 5* players, thereby having them poach 2nd tier programs commitments, and so on.

Strictly enforced signing limits combined with an early signing period wouldn't completely cure the problem. But it would go a really long way.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

In todays college football recruiting, a verbal offer from a school and/or a verbal commitment from a recruit both mean the same thing: We have a deal for now, unless something better comes along.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be stopped by both parties? Yes, but it cant be truly enforced.

What CAN be done, is cracking down on the oversigning of players. That would help protect the kids, who are sometimes left out in the cold. It would also prevent this domino effect that occurs when top programs start whiffing on 5* players, thereby having them poach 2nd tier programs commitments, and so on.

Strictly enforced signing limits combined with an early signing period wouldn't completely cure the problem. But it would go a really long way.

One of the reasons I don't follow recruiting much anymore. Back in the 60's and 70's, if a recruit committed, you could bank on it. Now there are soft verbals, silent verbals, verbals....just not worth getting worked up about a recruit until he signs his LOI.

 

[Smashcat]

Don't like it but that's the way it is. Just read on twitter Saban was headed to visit a 2016 Arkansas commit.

 

[TBCat]

It's been this way for years.UK fans are just noticing it because our early commits were deciding between us and a technical college. The signees that we did get all came late. Seems like under Joker there always at least 5 to 10 signees that we never heard their name before.

 

[C1180]

IMO the best solution is to just allow kids to sign their letter of intent any time after they complete their Senior football regular season. and give them a month to do it. Any kid could commit to a school but it would be a binding commitment that could only change if there was extenuating circumstances after his Junior season. Extenuating circumstances would be things like coaching changes illnesses or deaths in a recruits family not some BS things. Maybe even allow kids to be given a contract spelling out things that would allow his transfer or getting out of a commitment without penalty. These commitments and or contracts would be binding to both parties. I think a recruit should also be allowed to transfer with out sitting out a year if there is a coaching change in his first two years at his school. Let me qualify that by saying that by coaching change I mean a complete change of coaching staff not just some assistant that a recruit might like. If a kid wanted to be able to transfer if a certain coach transferred or quit he could have it put in his contract.

 

[BengalWACO]

Originally posted by kyhusker2:
A lot of them commit early to hold a spot in a class so they don't get left without a place. Then they wait to see if something more attractive comes along.

very well said.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

In todays college football recruiting, a verbal offer from a school and/or a verbal commitment from a recruit both mean the same thing: We have a deal for now, unless something better comes along.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be stopped by both parties? Yes, but it cant be truly enforced.

What CAN be done, is cracking down on the oversigning of players. That would help protect the kids, who are sometimes left out in the cold. It would also prevent this domino effect that occurs when top programs start whiffing on 5* players, thereby having them poach 2nd tier programs commitments, and so on.

Strictly enforced signing limits combined with an early signing period wouldn't completely cure the problem. But it would go a really long way.

One of the reasons I don't follow recruiting much anymore. Back in the 60's and 70's, if a recruit committed, you could bank on it. Now there are soft verbals, silent verbals, verbals....just not worth getting worked up about a recruit until he signs his LOI.

Absolutely true. Sadly, this is also true of the school.

 

[C1180]

The thing to remember with verbal commitments is that they have no value other than they mean you might have a chance to sign that recruit. The best thing to do is never count on any of them until the ink is dry on their LOI. You after all are dealing with Teenagers. Think about that a minute. If you are a coach making millions and running a mega million dollar college football program and your job depends on what teenagers might do. That would scare the hell out of me.