I am predicting 2024 4-Star Safety' Kaj Sanders will commit to Rutgers this Saturday. Mark it!
My Crystal Ball Prediction
- Thread starter kayyRod12
- Start date
It really only matters if he signs. Commitments mean nothing.
true, but it's a start
First get them to say their coming, then keep en happy till they sign on the dotted line
My personal opinion is that every verbal should not be allowed to visit any program except to the one he verbaled to and reneging on verbal and going to another program means the loss of being able to red-shirt his/her freshman year
( fantasy island type of thinking in this NIL recruiting environment)
Does that go for verbal commitments to other schools that Rutgers is still recruiting?
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/rfootball-flips-ucf-lb-commit-samarian-robinson.262290/
Also, new commit Korey Duff said he was going to actively recruit Josiah Brown (verbal to PSU).
Guess he shouldn't be doing that then?
actually I'd like to see any and every verbal be put off-limits to every program that the one he gave a verbal to.
If a kid verbaled to James Madison and Rutgers wanted to talk to the kid, RU would need permission from JM's HC to do so or face the loss of a scholarship if they bypassed that HC.
As for committed RU players talking to their friends that committed elsewhere , no problem there, but before Schiano or any of his staff could talk to another program's verbal they'd need permission from that other program before any contact was made
But as I stated earlier in this thread, if the recruit decommits from the program he verbaled to and changes his commitment to RU , loss of redshirt year is the result
( yes I'm not talking reality and the real state of the recruiting game, I'm just giving my fantasy version of how I'd like to see the recruiting game played)
This is a "don't hate the player, hate the game" situation.
I think his suggestion was to change the game by having consequences for reneging on a commitment.
By the same token, coaches who jump ship or pull a scholie on players that have committed to them should have a price to pay as well. Fair is fair.
Don't see any of that happening by the way.
I am glad you realize that is a fantasy - in any environment.
The NCAA does not recognize the concept of the verbal commitment. They cannot and will not regulate something which to them does not exist.
This works both ways. The NCAA does not recognize the concept of a verbal offer either. So the NCAA isn't going to stop a school from pulling a verbal offer, or making an "offer" which is not commitable.
What he ^ said.
That's been my attitude for years. Even signing doesn't mean much to me these days. I wait until I see the player on the field for us in a game to get excited.
I don't blame players for this state of affairs. As long as everyone's playing by the same rules, then if there's a problem, it's with the rules, not the people who use the rules to their advantage.
Hope Carnac is correct
@mildone,
"Ghotbzadeh"
Ed: "Ghotbzadeh"
"What the Ayatola's aide does if he can't have sheep by night "
I had forgotten about the Carson reference in question and had to look it up. But now I remember and LOL.
"Sis Boom Bah"
Ed: "Sis Boom Bah"
"Describe the sound it makes when a sheep explodes."
Obviously, verbal commitments are not the be all and end all. But to say that they mean nothing is just wrong. The majority of verbals do hold. Granted, probably not as large a majority as in the pre-NIL days.
At the very minimum, a verbal means that we are in the lead, which is not nothing.
At the very minimum, a verbal means that we are in the lead, which is not nothing.
To borrow a gem from Hank Stram: "NFL, which means not for long" if you read the other thread,