Poll: Commitments from recruits
- Thread starter DerHntr
- Start date
Just a few:
Pros for the student athlete:
1. The Jortfro's of the world will hopefully leave you alone a bit more than if you were still openly being recruited with no commitment
2. You can focus on grades, practice, weights, conditioning,etc. rather than recruitment
3. Start off on theright footwith the coaching staff
4. Help build a class of recruits around you
Cons:
1. Less fun trips to see places that a lot of these guys have never been
2. Less having your *** kissed
3. Less buyer's remorse (potentially) if you commit early
4. Higher chance of coaching staff change after you have committed (this is a big one depending on the state of the program)
what else?
Pros for the student athlete:
1. The Jortfro's of the world will hopefully leave you alone a bit more than if you were still openly being recruited with no commitment
2. You can focus on grades, practice, weights, conditioning,etc. rather than recruitment
3. Start off on theright footwith the coaching staff
4. Help build a class of recruits around you
Cons:
1. Less fun trips to see places that a lot of these guys have never been
2. Less having your *** kissed
3. Less buyer's remorse (potentially) if you commit early
4. Higher chance of coaching staff change after you have committed (this is a big one depending on the state of the program)
what else?
If a 5* wanted to commit but also wanted to look around, there is no way in hell im telling him to commit or keep looking but not both.
I kind of feel that the recruits should have their best interest in mind and I feel that even after they may have committed, they still should be able to do so. I think it's even more unfair when you consider coaches are only as committed to their programs depending on their current situation as far as comfort or money is concerned. They're going to exercise their options and I feel a recruit should have that same ability.<div>
</div><div>Besides... there's even the possibility that a recruit that changes their minds could end up on our side, although...it seems to happen against us more than for, but as long as the option is there..it doesn't bother me too terribly much.</div><div>
</div><div>ETA: My post sounded more like I was against, so to add a bit more to my neutrality - I do understand why people do feel that once a prospect has committed that they should stay loyal. It seems rather shady to say you're committing to one school, but then start to court others. I can also see this as being a point of frustration for coaches as well and would probably do well not to go into their new found partnership with a slight fracture (although I really doubt it could really get that bad).</div>
</div><div>Besides... there's even the possibility that a recruit that changes their minds could end up on our side, although...it seems to happen against us more than for, but as long as the option is there..it doesn't bother me too terribly much.</div><div>
</div><div>ETA: My post sounded more like I was against, so to add a bit more to my neutrality - I do understand why people do feel that once a prospect has committed that they should stay loyal. It seems rather shady to say you're committing to one school, but then start to court others. I can also see this as being a point of frustration for coaches as well and would probably do well not to go into their new found partnership with a slight fracture (although I really doubt it could really get that bad).</div>
You don't know what you don't know. We have aninferioritycomplex because of the stigma Starkville carries. It's not Athens, so we assume that we will automatically lose a kid if he visits somewhere else. Our campus is just as nice as most, our facilities are vastly improving, the nightlife is getting better...I think we need to relax.<div>
</div><div>2 words, The. Pony.**</div>
</div><div>2 words, The. Pony.**</div>
I like how Mullen is handling this. I think it is pretty obvious that in previous years the Brown's would have been listed as commits at this point. The policy appears to be that they won't be considered a commit unless they shut it down. With the 25 man limit, we need to have a list of guys we can count on. Visits just confuse things for everybody.
If you want to visit, don't commit.It's the kid's choice if he has an offer.
If you want to visit, don't commit.It's the kid's choice if he has an offer.
I agreed.
If a recruit wants to take his visits then he needs to take them. They need to understand they run the risk of not having a scholly because they played the game too long. Example Asian Ruff.
On the other side I don't like being played either. We offered Brandon Glover a scholly when he was injured and not sure of his recovery. Brandon committed to make sure he had a scholarship while still shopping. He ended up leaving us and going to South FL once they offered late in the game.
If a recruit wants to take his visits then he needs to take them. They need to understand they run the risk of not having a scholly because they played the game too long. Example Asian Ruff.
On the other side I don't like being played either. We offered Brandon Glover a scholly when he was injured and not sure of his recovery. Brandon committed to make sure he had a scholarship while still shopping. He ended up leaving us and going to South FL once they offered late in the game.
I put neither agree nor disagree, and the reason why is I really think it's up to the player period.
If you're a player that's really high on the school's board, you have the power. If you want to "commit" but be a "soft commit" so to speak and keep looking, you can do so without worrying about losing your spot to another player if numbers get tight.
If you're a middle of the road player on a school's board, and you want to "soft commit", you can still do that, but in that case, the school has the power, and they can and will easily drop you if they have someone else that's a guarantee that they like as much or better.
I always liked Orgeron's confidence when it came to this part of the game. He's take a commit from a kid and then encourage them to take other visits to compare. Obviously some would shut it down to avoid the phone calls, but some would look. He took the approach that he had the best show in town, and the more you look around, the more firm you'll be with your commitment to play for him. Obviously he was not a great coach, but that's the kind of swagger that I think translates well on the recruiting trail.
If you're a player that's really high on the school's board, you have the power. If you want to "commit" but be a "soft commit" so to speak and keep looking, you can do so without worrying about losing your spot to another player if numbers get tight.
If you're a middle of the road player on a school's board, and you want to "soft commit", you can still do that, but in that case, the school has the power, and they can and will easily drop you if they have someone else that's a guarantee that they like as much or better.
I always liked Orgeron's confidence when it came to this part of the game. He's take a commit from a kid and then encourage them to take other visits to compare. Obviously some would shut it down to avoid the phone calls, but some would look. He took the approach that he had the best show in town, and the more you look around, the more firm you'll be with your commitment to play for him. Obviously he was not a great coach, but that's the kind of swagger that I think translates well on the recruiting trail.
It's very simple, and Ole Miss people turn it into something it's not. We don't tell recruits what they can or can't do. We are just saying, "hey, if you are visiting other schools, you aren't committed." We aren't saying, "you can't visit another place." We are saying, "if you are visiting that place, then you are not committed to Mississippi State University yet."
There is no such thing as a soft commit and a hard commit. Ask your wife if you can give her a soft commitment and see how that goes. You are either committed or not and if you are, you aren't interested in visiting other schools. It's very simple.
There is no such thing as a soft commit and a hard commit. Ask your wife if you can give her a soft commitment and see how that goes. You are either committed or not and if you are, you aren't interested in visiting other schools. It's very simple.
If you commit, you don't go to other schools knowing they want you to waver in your commitment. But this is really irrelevant for the vast majority of the recruits. If you want to visit other schools, just stay uncommitted until you're finished with your visits. It only matters for the borderline recruits that we put on a first come, first serve basis. Not sure how many that is each year, but assuming not a lot.
If a high school kid has a chance, he should take every visit he possibly can. This is the best time of their lives, and they should enjoy it.
Coaches don't really use it. It's either you're with me or you aren't. All that really matters is where they sign and the coaches know that. The whole commitment thing is so Gene and Yancy can make money. Telling a coach you're coming is like reserving a spot, that's why most of them do it anyway. Once they get a bunch of options they re-think things (human nature). <div>
</div><div>I bet Marcus Dupree "committed" to every school on his list. </div>
</div><div>I bet Marcus Dupree "committed" to every school on his list. </div>
The term commit is a term that recruitniks came up with years ago. It really has no strong definition. It's all you've got these days. If you are leaning hard to a school the barrage of scouts and coaches make you state this ambiguous term. Yet something may change. Just look at your priorities when you were 17/18 years old; you may declare a Biology major and learn later that you really like economics. Fortunately for you, your every whim is not publicized on the Internet everywhere.
Funny how nowadays it's all Nutt's fault. Orgeron is now a badass recruiter. And oh yeah, Hugh Freeze is exactly the guy you wanted. <div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
I could never fault the guy's effort. He put everything he had into the job. I can deal with that much more than I can deal with a coach being lazy and losing.
And as far as recruiting goes, Orgeron knew the best way to go about it. His transition class was a mess, primarily because he didn't officially take the job until January. His last class was also a mess, primarily because it got deconstructed by our athletic department late in the game, but his plan of attack you can't argue with, and the amount of research they did on players was as good as it got.
No one can deny the guy's 2006 class was the best, deepest class we've had in our modern era, and even the 05 and 07 classes that hurt our depth some had some very good players at the top.
If I could build a coach for our program using from attributes of other coaches, Orgeron's recruiting strategy and effort put into recruiting would be one part of it. He had fatal flaws that I wouldn't take back under any circumstances, but if you could give me that piece of Orgeron and combine it with a coach that players want to win for and a coach who stays on the cutting edge with his offensive system, that's what I'd want.
The reason we had success in 08 and 09 is because we had a combination of the best Orgeron had to offer with the best Nutt had to offer, and they overlapped for a few years. It was a pretty good combination. Neither of them on their own works for our job, but both had redeeming qualities.
No coach is all bad. Most of them have redeeming qualities, even if they failed. Orgeron and Nutt gave us a blue print based on their strengths. On Freeze, I'll admit I was a little hesitant with him back in early fall before we fired Nutt, but the more I looked into him, the more I liked him. Same thing happened for me with Hudspeth, and that's why they were my top two by the time we really got into the search. Ultimately, I think Freeze has the potential to bring a combination of the best of Orgeron and Nutt, along with a much more creative offensive mind than either. Time will tell if it will work out for him, but his plan and his qualities as a coach match up with what we I believe we need. He'll need to build up a strong staff over the years to make it all work, but like I said, time will tell.
And as far as recruiting goes, Orgeron knew the best way to go about it. His transition class was a mess, primarily because he didn't officially take the job until January. His last class was also a mess, primarily because it got deconstructed by our athletic department late in the game, but his plan of attack you can't argue with, and the amount of research they did on players was as good as it got.
No one can deny the guy's 2006 class was the best, deepest class we've had in our modern era, and even the 05 and 07 classes that hurt our depth some had some very good players at the top.
If I could build a coach for our program using from attributes of other coaches, Orgeron's recruiting strategy and effort put into recruiting would be one part of it. He had fatal flaws that I wouldn't take back under any circumstances, but if you could give me that piece of Orgeron and combine it with a coach that players want to win for and a coach who stays on the cutting edge with his offensive system, that's what I'd want.
The reason we had success in 08 and 09 is because we had a combination of the best Orgeron had to offer with the best Nutt had to offer, and they overlapped for a few years. It was a pretty good combination. Neither of them on their own works for our job, but both had redeeming qualities.
No coach is all bad. Most of them have redeeming qualities, even if they failed. Orgeron and Nutt gave us a blue print based on their strengths. On Freeze, I'll admit I was a little hesitant with him back in early fall before we fired Nutt, but the more I looked into him, the more I liked him. Same thing happened for me with Hudspeth, and that's why they were my top two by the time we really got into the search. Ultimately, I think Freeze has the potential to bring a combination of the best of Orgeron and Nutt, along with a much more creative offensive mind than either. Time will tell if it will work out for him, but his plan and his qualities as a coach match up with what we I believe we need. He'll need to build up a strong staff over the years to make it all work, but like I said, time will tell.
EAVdog said:
Hey you never know. Wonders of the internets and all. Just don't insult Michael Oher or I'll come through your intertubes wires and put a choke hold on you.
On the expectations, why is it low expectations to think that it's possible that going for an up and comer might be a better option than going for someone who has been around for 30 years?
As I said, one of the things I think our job (and yours) needs is someone who is driven. Mullen is driven because he's an up and comer with something to prove. He's trying to MAKE a name for himself. He didn't come with one already. We don't need a program manager or a CEO coach that's already achieved something. We aren't one of those types of programs. We need someone who will get their hands dirty. Time will tell if we made a good choice, but if it fails, I hope that we go after another up and comer who is trying to rise through the ranks.
I think Freeze is sort of a gamble but all coaching hires are unless you hire Nick Saban.
The thing about hiring guys who have 'their offense' is it better work or your stuck in a difficult situation. Croom was adament he'd run the West Coast offense and his ego was his downfall. If he'd have been more of a managerial type and brought in someone like Al Borges from day one then he'd have been a whole lot more successful.
The thing about hiring guys who have 'their offense' is it better work or your stuck in a difficult situation. Croom was adament he'd run the West Coast offense and his ego was his downfall. If he'd have been more of a managerial type and brought in someone like Al Borges from day one then he'd have been a whole lot more successful.
That's very true. You have to have someone that's adaptable but also smart enough to know how much to adapt without overhauling everything. One of Nutt's major downfalls is he tried to do too many different things offensively. We never had an identity. Were we a spread option team? Were we a power I team? It's one thing to have different sets, but you need a base, or else your players spend a lot of time missing assignments, and your team looks really bad. Early 2010 was a great example. We were lost offensively because we were caught between a spread option and a pro style. Once we committed to Masoli and the spread option, after a few weeks, the team settled in and started clicking offensively. We still lost games because our defense was horrid, but the early season results were ugly offensively because players didn't even know where to line up sometimes.
The thing I like about Freeze is the fact that he, Malzahn, and Chad Morris all still talk and share ideas. You'll see a lot of similar threads in what they each do offensively, even though they each take a slightly different approach. Point being, I think it's a good thing that he understands he doesn't have all the answers all the time. That's very important for a coach, especially an offensive one.
The thing I like about Freeze is the fact that he, Malzahn, and Chad Morris all still talk and share ideas. You'll see a lot of similar threads in what they each do offensively, even though they each take a slightly different approach. Point being, I think it's a good thing that he understands he doesn't have all the answers all the time. That's very important for a coach, especially an offensive one.