Another Decommitment
- Thread starter Harvard Gamecock
- Start date
Its sad, but I dont even pay attention anymore until they are physically on campus.
Even then, each year is a rebuild, so even if a kid is on campus, there's no need to get attached.
Even then, each year is a rebuild, so even if a kid is on campus, there's no need to get attached.
The word commitment means nothing anymore, in college sports and in so many other places today. In college sports, there should be a new applicable phrase like ..."temporarily leaning in this direction..." or similar. Or maybe holding out for a better offer...
A fitting term would be "commitment du jour".
As in, "Jenard Albright's commitment du jour is (fill in the blank with latest high-bidder)".
I can't quite bring myself to quit following high school recruiting, mostly out of habit I guess. But you are correct, it really doesn't much at all anymore. There is no long-term relationship any longer.
With the Sorsby Ruling, teams can now add income from insider betting to the NIL pot. 
Seriously, though, why not?With the Sorsby Ruling, teams can now add income from insider betting to the NIL pot.
I've have said this many times before. The "commitment" tag runs both ways. College coaches willfully leave programs on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. Now due to the Portal these very same coaches who recruited those players, will recruit them to join him at his new engagement, or those left behind feel or are told they don't fit in the system. So they now enter the portal to advance their playing time.
There is one tiny difference - coaches sign contracts with their employer outlining specific repsonsibilities in exchange for their remuneration.
Players are not allowed to be paid for play - they literally don't have play, show up or do anything to collect the NIL cash... and can apparently do it with impunity.
Don't see too many coaches trying to play that card.
Reporter to AD: "Will coach Juice Wells be coaching this weekend?"
AD: "You'll have to ask him."
Reporter: "Well, the medical staff cleared him, so why wouldn't he be coaching?"
AD: "Like I said, you'll have to ask him."
You are addressing NIL money vs. Contractual monies paid to a school employee, and more specific gameday availability.
The issue in question is about recruits committing and then decommitting to go to another school. More specifically how some individuals take umbrage to the expression "commitment"
Two separate issues.
I get it, but you said, "College coaches willfully leave programs on a regular basis for a variety of reasons", which happens after they've been employed there. Not too many coaches "commit" to a school and then never show up to sign their contract - to me, leaving and decommiting are two different things, so I was comparing them leaving once they were "on staff".
Hope this clarifies what I was trying to convey.
I don't see it as a right vs wrong thing or a "well coaches, did it, so now the players can do it" thing. At this point, it is what it is. It just seems dumb to me to even use the word "commitment" to describe whatever assurances that a recruit is giving a coach or program. We should change the term to "sincere interest." What seems more ridiculous is that grown adults still get excited about such "commitments," or outraged when a recruit "decommits." At this point, news of a "commitment" is simply click-bait. There's nothing news-worthy about the story.
I get it, but you said, "College coaches willfully leave programs on a regular basis for a variety of reasons", which happens after they've been employed there. Not too many coaches "commit" to a school and then never show up to sign their contract - to me, leaving and decommiting are two different things, so I was comparing them leaving once they were "on staff".
Hope this clarifies what I was trying to convey.
Side thought. If we really want to compare coaches to players, then should we consider that coaches have a buyout to get out of their job? I know it's impossible, but should we then expect players to have some sort of buyout?
I will be posting my comment from another thread on commitments moving forward as it applies to all sports………
It stopped being College Sports long before we had a commitment from this guy. I could care less these days about any commitment or signing in any sport. I will simply watch whatever game for whatever sport for whatever season. Then put it behind me.
It stopped being College Sports long before we had a commitment from this guy. I could care less these days about any commitment or signing in any sport. I will simply watch whatever game for whatever sport for whatever season. Then put it behind me.
But remember, the players aren't being paid to do a job - that's not permitted because they aren't employees.
There are outside entities giving them small stipends for smiling for photos or signing autographs - you know, names and images - because they are benevolent souls and want them to be able to buy pizza or go on a date.
But honestly, I agree with the sentiment and think there should be accountability where the money is concerned... but that isn't possible in the current system because they constantly remind us they aren't being paid to play. And why you would give someone money (especially large sums of it) with no conditions on it is beyond me.
There should be an enforceable agreement with penalties for breach of contract - just like other adult professionals have.
should freshman even be allowed to collect a paycheck? I think they should not get paid until they have proven they can compete at this level and stay out of trouble.
The great thing is this simply means we will get him out of the portal in two years. For the SEC, recruiting out of high school will probably become near non-existent (maybe the sure fire 5* players). Like at Indiana, we will just start using other schools as the "minor" leagues and go get those that have shown themselves able to play at the next level. Similar to what the NFL is doing with college.
There will no longer be pulling for the "player" but simply the team/brand. If the athlete is not committed to us long term, why should the fan be? Like the NFL, there are a couple of big name players who stay on a roster, but most play for 3-4 teams over their career. 99% of the NFL fans don't "follow" those players but pull for the team/brand. You don't see an Eagles fan suddenly switch to the Cowboys because their favorite player was traded....
There will no longer be pulling for the "player" but simply the team/brand. If the athlete is not committed to us long term, why should the fan be? Like the NFL, there are a couple of big name players who stay on a roster, but most play for 3-4 teams over their career. 99% of the NFL fans don't "follow" those players but pull for the team/brand. You don't see an Eagles fan suddenly switch to the Cowboys because their favorite player was traded....
And just like that, college football has violated a number of court rulings.
I'm assuming this is purely NIL/portal based. Norvell's seat is scorching hot. The kid can go there, make some $ and then transfer out of Norvell is canned.