Hey Rick Cleveland, the guy Pogue is talking about is named
- Thread starter coach66
- Start date
"Brassell missed school Monday, Pogue says, because of the "anxiety" he was experiencing over all the recruiting hoopla."
I wonder if all this anxiety was a result of the Mississippi State fan base welcoming him aboard.
I wonder if all this anxiety was a result of the Mississippi State fan base welcoming him aboard.
Whether they officially admit it or not, guys like Yancy, Steve, Andrew Bone, and others are representatives of a specific school, and they have no limits on the contact they have with players.
It's not right. The part that I like the least is the fact that these players have enough coaches calling them and local fans asking them what they will do. The last thing they need is 10 internet site representatives calling to check on them too. They actually have school to attend and football to play too.
I'd be really happy if we got to the point where they could eliminate that part of recruiting.
ETA: On another note from that article, I think they should change the term soft commitment to "reservation". You can cancel a reservation, but a commitment is more final. Players can say, I've got a reservation at Auburn. They could even make multiple reservations and plan on cancelling all but one of them.
It's not right. The part that I like the least is the fact that these players have enough coaches calling them and local fans asking them what they will do. The last thing they need is 10 internet site representatives calling to check on them too. They actually have school to attend and football to play too.
I'd be really happy if we got to the point where they could eliminate that part of recruiting.
ETA: On another note from that article, I think they should change the term soft commitment to "reservation". You can cancel a reservation, but a commitment is more final. Players can say, I've got a reservation at Auburn. They could even make multiple reservations and plan on cancelling all but one of them.
The simple fact is those guys aren't media, they're boosters and they should be classified as boosters by the NCAA.
My idea for cleaning up the soft commitment / decommitment problem is a little more radical.Eliminate signing day. Let kids sign whenever they want to.Then it would be clear if a kid was committed or not. Causethe only two statuses would be "signed" or "unsigned."</p>
My idea for cleaning up the soft commitment / decommitment problem is a little more radical.Eliminate signing day. Let kids sign whenever they want to.Then it would be clear if a kid was committed or not. Causethe only two statuses would be "signed" or "unsigned."</p>
I guess I've just never really grasped the concept of ranking recruiting classes. Whatever arbitrary star system each site uses just seems sort of stupid when you can easily compare the classes based on how they pan out over the next four years. I suppose some people get some sort of satisfaction by claiming their recruiting class is better, but it's not based on anything concrete whatsoever. You know, like wins and losses. It's stupid and lazy. Is it that hard to keep it simple? Like maybe notice whatever team you pull for has four offensive lineman graduating in two years and checking the commit list to see if the coach has signed any offensive lineman in anticipation of that. Sure, you can still have the highlight videos, the stats, the "combine numbers." That should give you an idea of whether he's a flyer, a solid player, potential star, whatever. Do you really need somebody to put an arbitrary number of stars on it? Seemingly normal people turn into creepy pedos when a guy gets bumped to four stars and mentions their alma mater.
Recruiting sites are not boosters. While they favor their school, they do not provide money to that school. The NCAA has no authority whatsoever to control them.
And even if they did, the NCAA still couldn't control neutral recruiting sites like ESPN.
And even if they did, the NCAA still couldn't control neutral recruiting sites like ESPN.
FlabLoser said:
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that. I don't know how the rule would need to be structured, but if Scout/Rivals/ESPN all wanted to exist and cover recruiting, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that, as long as the fan sites didn't have dedicated members making calls. It's just not right.
paindonthurt said:
It doesn't really matter to what degree, or who is worse, they both recruit for their specific schools. I'm not really that concerned with which one spins the most. I'm pretty certain that both of them, and all the others out there tend to do interviews with a slant for their specific school, with leading questions.
I don't think Gene still does recruiting interviews, but he used to be as bad as Yancy, if not worse, because he'd stalk recruits that he really liked and thought MSU needed.
Either way, wrong is wrong, and I wish they'd all be cut off.
The only thing I learned in my many years of working with law firms is that you never try to make rules limiting how someone can make money. You will lose in court every time and quickly. For example when we were getting our lawyers to make some non-compete contracts for our people his response was, "we can make them but they aren't worth the paper they are printed on in court." Courts simply aren't going to allow organizations to limit employment opportunities for people. Under your rules the Clarion-Ledger would likely have to fire most of their reporters. They went to Mississippi Schools and have probably given money to them. So now they can't be reporters any more? Or are you trying to tease out the Freedom of the Press clause in the constitution to single out web-based recruiting news? Yet another thing the courts aren't going to allow you to do.patdog said:
The NCAA can't do anything unless a rule has been broken. I think they could tag Ole Miss for Yancey's behavior given current rules honestly.