Rutgers has 2 4* recruits drop their commits

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
15,311
Reaction score
5,678
Points
113
"When Hester contacted Rutgers head coach Kyle Flood to reveal his intentions, things did not go as planned. Hester says it was made clear to him that committed players taking official visits elsewhere is frowned upon and would result in him having his scholarship rescinded."

Source

3 of the top 5 from their class will not be showing up.

Adonis Jennings, 4* WR, had his scholarship revoked for lying about visits (meaning he said he would not take any more, but made a ninja visit to Pitt and PO'ed the Rutgers staff), 4* S Kiy Hester from the sourced article, and high 3* CB Lamont Simmons decommitted the moment USC offered.
 

There's nothing wrong with that; if recruits can keep their options open, so can the schools. A school is well within its rights to say "If you commit to us, that means no more looking at other schools." It's like accepting a job offer, but continuing to go on interviews before you start that job. If your prospective employer finds out you are still interviewing, they might pull your job offer.

That being said, they may be within their rights, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea. Taking this stance may very will hurt your recruiting rather than enhance it.
 

RodentRampage said:
There's nothing wrong with that; if recruits can keep their options open, so can the schools. A school is well within its rights to say "If you commit to us, that means no more looking at other schools." It's like accepting a job offer, but continuing to go on interviews before you start that job. If your prospective employer finds out you are still interviewing, they might pull your job offer.

That being said, they may be within their rights, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea. Taking this stance may very will hurt your recruiting rather than enhance it.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. Is it "wrong" for them to do this, maybe not. Is it a good recruiting tactic, heck no. If I'm a top-end recruit, Rutgers would fall pretty far down my list for such a hard-headed stance.
 

RodentRampage said:
There's nothing wrong with that; if recruits can keep their options open, so can the schools. A school is well within its rights to say "If you commit to us, that means no more looking at other schools." It's like accepting a job offer, but continuing to go on interviews before you start that job. If your prospective employer finds out you are still interviewing, they might pull your job offer.

That being said, they may be within their rights, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea. Taking this stance may very will hurt your recruiting rather than enhance it.
Click to expand...

They also told Adonis Jennings that they were not recruiting any more WR's but continued to do so. Cuts both ways. And I'm not saying you're wrong, just adding a note about this particular recruitment with a nugget I found on reddit.
 

Unregistered User said:
They also told Adonis Jennings that they were not recruiting any more WR's but continued to do so. Cuts both ways. And I'm not saying you're wrong, just adding a note about this particular recruitment with a nugget I found on reddit.
Click to expand...

I agree, it cuts both ways. Recruits can shop around, and schools can pull offers. People may dislike it, especially when it works to their disadvantage, but it would not be good to have only one side obligated.

People get outraged when a recruit keeps going on visits, while others will get outraged if a school pulls an offer. I may not like it when a recruit keeps looking, but the only rational response is for the school to look to its own interests. If that is pulling the offer, fine. If that is to let the recruit shop around, that's fine too. At the same time, if the school continues to recruit, the recruit should be free to look elsewhere as well.
 



While I think that a verbal commitment should be a little more of an actual 'commitment'......schools shouldn't put ultimatums on these kids.
 

RodentRampage said:
I agree, it cuts both ways. Recruits can shop around, and schools can pull offers. People may dislike it, especially when it works to their disadvantage, but it would not be good to have only one side obligated.

People get outraged when a recruit keeps going on visits, while others will get outraged if a school pulls an offer. I may not like it when a recruit keeps looking, but the only rational response is for the school to look to its own interests. If that is pulling the offer, fine. If that is to let the recruit shop around, that's fine too. At the same time, if the school continues to recruit, the recruit should be free to look elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

A senior would be almost silly not to go on all his visits even if he knows which school he's going to go to. How many people get an all expense paid trip to five different schools to see games and visit the area?

Besides, then you can pick up your brand new Trans-Am from a Texas alum before committing to SMU... :)
 

Need early signing period to reduce this non-sense and cuts recruiting costs. Staff spends as much time keeping verbals committed as finding the next verbal. Obscene waste of time and resources. If a kid knows early in his Senior year, let him lock in his spot. If he doesn't, he can wait till the late signing period. Make commitments count!
 



stocker08 said:
While I think that a verbal commitment should be a little more of an actual 'commitment'......schools shouldn't put ultimatums on these kids.
Click to expand...

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to a kid, "hey, we are going to lock down your spot on the roster, but that better mean that you are ready to actually commit to us too." As noted above, whether that makes good tactical sense is a matter for debate, but I have a problem with expecting one side to be bound at a point where the other side is not.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to a kid, "hey, we are going to lock down your spot on the roster, but that better mean that you are ready to actually commit to us too." As noted above, whether that makes good tactical sense is a matter for debate, but I have a problem with expecting one side to be bound at a point where the other side is not.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it should go both ways however....but that's not really the way it works. Plenty of schools pull scholarships if they receive a better commitment. Some kids drop their commitment and take another offer when a helmet school comes knocking. It sucks.....but that's the way it goes. I like the early signing period idea.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to a kid, "hey, we are going to lock down your spot on the roster, but that better mean that you are ready to actually commit to us too." As noted above, whether that makes good tactical sense is a matter for debate, but I have a problem with expecting one side to be bound at a point where the other side is not.
Click to expand...

I think literally pulling the offer maybe is a bit much, but I say it's fair game to continue recruiting the spot and if someone else so happens to come along and take the slot before the other kid "re-commits", then that's too bad for them. But the school shouldn't feel like they're essentially held hostage by a commit who's still looking around.
 

I don't think most schools treat every player the same, and I don't believe all schools manage it the same way. While they may get surprises, I think most coaches have a pretty good idea who is committed and who has a reservation, and act accordingly. If a kid is a four star with multiple real offers and good schools trying to get him to visit, the "no other visit" policies are not that much of a threat anyway. There are plenty of other schools that will take them. In this case, my guess would be that Rutgers knew the kid was going to leave, so publicly telling him he did not have a scholarship might at least have some impact on others commits who are thinking about other visits.
When schools say they are not recruiting another player at that position, they mean they will not take another player there if the kid honors the commitment. I think there is almost no chance most staffs would not have a backup or multiple plans for a possible defection from any recruit, just like we did when Nate Andrews switched late last recruiting season.
Obviously the policies do have some impact because I believe the WR from Cinci wants to visit here, but has been told if he does he is out at Cinci; he has not visited. If he had more B1G offers he would probably be more inclined to just take the chance.
 



I think it's silly for people to compare a kid making a verbal commitment and a school honoring that commitment.

These athletes have control over their athletic ability/athletic futures for only the instance before signing day. They don't get to choose a particular offense (if the coach decides something different), they have to sit out a year if they made a bad choice, they are essentially stuck playing for whichever school/coach that they chose when they were 17. A lot of people go through some changes between 17 and 22. Now, I'm not blaming the schools for making changes, it's part of the process. A coach wants to switch his offense, he should. A coach lands a 5 star kid a class behind you, he should.

A lot can happen in a recruits 5 years at a school, he shouldn't be held to the same standard in coming to that decision (actually a much higher standard) than a coaching staff who makes a promise.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with what Rutgers decided to do. I think that it's incredibly stupid, but not immoral or anything.
 


This is a messy part of recruiting, but I don't know if an early signing period would do much because there is no guarantee that a lot of kids would commit prior to their senior years.

I've always thought that a number of kids who give an early verbal is an attempt for them to take greater control of their recruiting. It doesn't preclude a change of mind, but gives the kid the opportunity to shop at his convenience with a fallback.

Rutgers has had a ton of trouble with the bullying issue. What's going on out there?
 

50PoundHead said:
This is a messy part of recruiting, but I don't know if an early signing period would do much because there is no guarantee that a lot of kids would commit prior to their senior years.

I've always thought that a number of kids who give an early verbal is an attempt for them to take greater control of their recruiting. It doesn't preclude a change of mind, but gives the kid the opportunity to shop at his convenience with a fallback.

Rutgers has had a ton of trouble with the bullying issue. What's going on out there?
Click to expand...

Rutgers over the years doesn't seem like it can get out of its own way. They start making progress under Schiano, he bolts. Rutgers gets good news about being able to join the B1G and the financial windfall that comes with it their basketball coach physically and verbally abuses his own players and the AD resigns. They get a new AD to clean things up, recruiting is going well and suddenly bullying allegations pop up and that momentum is lost.

Something is toxic at that university (maybe the NJ water?).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom