Sorry, but there’s a difference between telling kids you will always recruit other players to challenge them for playing time or starting positions, and encouraging them to leave. Loyalty is a two way street. You sell a kid that leaving home to come to the U is their best option because there will be great opportunity here academically, spiritually, etc. If you as a coach are unable to assist the player to develop, who is otherwise meeting his end of the agreement (working his tail off in the weight room, on the practice field, in the classroom and in the community) then that’s on the coaches- either for inability to to help the player advance or for poor assessment of the players ceiling. For those kids, if they really want to play then we owe them assistance to find a place where they have a better shot at seeing the field. However, if they came here in large part for the community, education and opportunities offered by the U, then in my opinion we owe them that opportunity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
