Verbal commitment legislation
Aug 30, 2006 18:28:59 GMT -5
Post by Raider Country on Aug 30, 2006 18:28:59 GMT -5
Verbal commitments? Not big problem, can't be fixed, so move on
Aug. 30, 2006
By Gary Parrish
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer
The National Association of Basketball Coaches board of directors converged on Kansas City and started meeting Tuesday evening. Early Wednesday, they were back at it, and depending on when you're reading these words they might still be locked in a room discussing, among other things, recruiting and how to handle the much-debated subject of verbal commitments.
There's a chance legislation could be launched.
There's a chance guidelines could be put into place.
But if it's smart, the NABC will ...
Do nothing.
Not a thing.
Just leave it alone.
Because you can't fix it anyway.
"It is a gray area," acknowledged Jeff Jones, American University coach and NABC board of directors member, and he couldn't be more correct.
The subject of verbal commitments -- aka, when a prospect makes a non-binding declaration that he's attending a certain school prior to being allowed to sign a national letter of intent -- is indeed gray. Grayer than an elephant's back. Grayer than granite. Grayer than Richard Gere's hair. Grayer than David the songwriter, David the poet, David the mass murderer and David the snooker player. Combined.
Want to protect and police verbal commitments?
First, you have to define a verbal commitment, and good luck with that. You'd have an easier time getting Bill Clinton to define the word "is."
In fact, I'll go ahead and ask the question. When should a verbal commitment be recognized and respected by all? Is it when:
A) A prospect holds a news conference and announces his college destination.
B) A prospect's AAU coach tells PrepStars.com.
C) A prospect's relative tells the local newspaper.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
F) Do you get the point yet?
What's solid to some is flimsy to others. This summer alone we've had one top five recruit (O.J. Mayo) reportedly tell a coaching staff (USC) he is committed, but he has refused to tell anybody else. So is he committed or not?
Similarly, we've had another top five recruit (Eric Gordon) tell everybody who asks he is committed to a particular school (Illinois), but at the same time he's invited another school (Indiana) to continue recruiting him. So is he committed or not?
It's enough to make your head spin, especially if your head belongs to Tim Floyd or Bruce Weber. But that's why they make the big bucks.
Look, I'll concede the system is flawed. These days we have kids committing to schools as sophomores, de-committing as juniors and then committing to another school six weeks later without ever even seeing campus. Meanwhile, some staffs don't know what to think, so they keep calling and pursuing and hoping against hope that the kids will change their minds again. It's an ethical dilemma, no doubt, and problem on some level.
But it's nowhere close to a huge problem. For the most part, most coaches live by this unwritten rule: When a prospect publicly makes a pledge to a school and in turn tells all other staffs that his recruitment is complete, it's time to move on. Granted, some coaches refuse to accept the news for as long as possible, but those coaches are few and far between, meaning a post-commitment tug-of-war doesn't happen too often.
But don't take my word for it.
Listen to Phil Martelli.
"I'd say 94 out of 100 staffs handle it the right way," said the Saint Joseph's coach, also a member of the NABC's board of directors. "This isn't a big problem."
Which is why I'm suggesting the NABC leave this issue alone, and my logic is simple and rooted in marriage. As any happily married person can attest, when tackling issues -- laundry issues, money issues, any issues -- you have to ask yourself two questions:
1) Is this a big problem?
2) Can I fix it?
If the answer to the first question is "not really" or the answer to the second question is "probably not," then you file it away and move along -- or at least the people with functioning marriages do. In this case, the NABC would have to answer those questions with "not really" and "absolutely not." Consequently, it's a moot point, and time to focus on other things.
Like text messaging.
Now there's something that's really out of hand.
www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9628045
Aug. 30, 2006
By Gary Parrish
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer
The National Association of Basketball Coaches board of directors converged on Kansas City and started meeting Tuesday evening. Early Wednesday, they were back at it, and depending on when you're reading these words they might still be locked in a room discussing, among other things, recruiting and how to handle the much-debated subject of verbal commitments.
There's a chance legislation could be launched.
There's a chance guidelines could be put into place.
But if it's smart, the NABC will ...
Do nothing.
Not a thing.
Just leave it alone.
Because you can't fix it anyway.
"It is a gray area," acknowledged Jeff Jones, American University coach and NABC board of directors member, and he couldn't be more correct.
The subject of verbal commitments -- aka, when a prospect makes a non-binding declaration that he's attending a certain school prior to being allowed to sign a national letter of intent -- is indeed gray. Grayer than an elephant's back. Grayer than granite. Grayer than Richard Gere's hair. Grayer than David the songwriter, David the poet, David the mass murderer and David the snooker player. Combined.
Want to protect and police verbal commitments?
First, you have to define a verbal commitment, and good luck with that. You'd have an easier time getting Bill Clinton to define the word "is."
In fact, I'll go ahead and ask the question. When should a verbal commitment be recognized and respected by all? Is it when:
A) A prospect holds a news conference and announces his college destination.
B) A prospect's AAU coach tells PrepStars.com.
C) A prospect's relative tells the local newspaper.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
F) Do you get the point yet?
What's solid to some is flimsy to others. This summer alone we've had one top five recruit (O.J. Mayo) reportedly tell a coaching staff (USC) he is committed, but he has refused to tell anybody else. So is he committed or not?
Similarly, we've had another top five recruit (Eric Gordon) tell everybody who asks he is committed to a particular school (Illinois), but at the same time he's invited another school (Indiana) to continue recruiting him. So is he committed or not?
It's enough to make your head spin, especially if your head belongs to Tim Floyd or Bruce Weber. But that's why they make the big bucks.
Look, I'll concede the system is flawed. These days we have kids committing to schools as sophomores, de-committing as juniors and then committing to another school six weeks later without ever even seeing campus. Meanwhile, some staffs don't know what to think, so they keep calling and pursuing and hoping against hope that the kids will change their minds again. It's an ethical dilemma, no doubt, and problem on some level.
But it's nowhere close to a huge problem. For the most part, most coaches live by this unwritten rule: When a prospect publicly makes a pledge to a school and in turn tells all other staffs that his recruitment is complete, it's time to move on. Granted, some coaches refuse to accept the news for as long as possible, but those coaches are few and far between, meaning a post-commitment tug-of-war doesn't happen too often.
But don't take my word for it.
Listen to Phil Martelli.
"I'd say 94 out of 100 staffs handle it the right way," said the Saint Joseph's coach, also a member of the NABC's board of directors. "This isn't a big problem."
Which is why I'm suggesting the NABC leave this issue alone, and my logic is simple and rooted in marriage. As any happily married person can attest, when tackling issues -- laundry issues, money issues, any issues -- you have to ask yourself two questions:
1) Is this a big problem?
2) Can I fix it?
If the answer to the first question is "not really" or the answer to the second question is "probably not," then you file it away and move along -- or at least the people with functioning marriages do. In this case, the NABC would have to answer those questions with "not really" and "absolutely not." Consequently, it's a moot point, and time to focus on other things.
Like text messaging.
Now there's something that's really out of hand.
www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9628045