A while back, Jerimy Finch, a highly regarded high school football players, committed to play football for Michigan.
commitment [kuh-mit-muhnt]
an agreement or pledge to do something in the future
No, wait. That’s not quite right. He gave his commitment prior to signing day, so he could give only a verbal commitment. And that sounds great … until you realize that while a commitment typically holds some weight among the general population, a football verbal commitment isn’t much of a commitment at all. It’s more of a whim, or a suggestion, or a fleeting thought, like a promise ring in high school. I’ll love you forever, but only until I meet some other hot football program.
verbal commitment [vur-buhl kuh-mit-muhnt]
(college football) a non-binding spoken intent to attend and play football for a specific college or university
That’s more like it. See, after he verbally committed to Michigan, he had second thoughts. His compass turned southwest, towards the Crossroads of America, and he soon fell under the spell of that remarkable football (in other words, basketball) powerhouse, Indiana University.
Fortunately for Finch, he gave not an actual commitment, but a verbal commitment. So he made a call to the best friend of second-thinking athletic high school seniors: the decommitment.
decommitment [di-kuh-mit-muhnt]
(college football) the retraction of a verbal commitment
Having been swayed by Indiana’s fabulous basketball warm-up pants, Finch decommitted from Michigan and told Indiana he’d be traveling their way. But after the decommitment, rumors abounded: he’s sticking with Indiana! No, he’s thinking of coming back to Michigan! No, he’s moving to Tibet to become a Buddhist monk!
After all that, what happened when national signing day rolled around? Why, he signed a letter of intent to play football for the Florida Gators, of course.
So much for commitment.
But I’m not irked at Finch; he only happened to be the ripest target, having been a Michigan commit who changed his mind twice. Ultimately, my problem is not with him, or with any other recruit; instead, it is with the misleading “verbal commitment” that abounds in college football. If a recruit decides not to attend one school or another, that’s fine; however, I would rather not see any sort of commitment enter the picture until that recruit is ready to be held to that commitment in some way.
You’re too cynical on this one, Shnouders. For every disappointing story like this, there’s another one in which the kid commits to IU, and then later UM offers him a scholarship, but he stays with IU – not because he wouldn’t rather go to IU, but because he wants to honor his commitment. Ok, maybe the ratio isn’t one to one. But if you’re going to talk about Saban and Urban, it’s only fair to mention Bo (hey – you did!) and Alvarez and Schiano.
And in this case, the decommit is justified – those pants are awesome.
I think my thoughts weren’t clear enough — a common problem for me, the way I use twenty words to express a five-word thought.
I don’t have much issue with Finch or his desire to switch once or twice or two hundred times; my issue is with the silliness of verbal commitments that aren’t commitments. End the verbal commitment thing or make it meaningful. I really don’t care if Finch leans Michigan and then decides IU is more his style. I just don’t want any sort of commitment, verbal or otherwise, to enter the picture until he’s ready to say it and stick with it.
I may add to the entry to make its point more clear. I’m not mad at Finch; he’s operating within the system.
I added a paragraph; I hope it helps.
And yeah, the Indiana basketball warmup pants are great.
I don’t think you can get rid of verbal commitments unless you place a gag order on all recruits. With the firm signing deadline, all a recruit can do until that date is talk. To some people, a commitment doesn’t mean much; others are old-fashioned, and think “a man’s word is his bond”; others are really old-fashioned, and think a person’s “yes” should mean “yes”. A commitment is just a fancy way of a person’s saying what he intends to do. I don’t see how you can get rid of it. You could say “no verbal commitments”, but then, as I said, recruits would have to remain silent. Or you could make verbal commitments binding, which is just another way to say you want to get rid of the signing deadline thing. Or you could rename them “best guesses at this time”, but someone might really want to make a firm commitment to a team verbally (to stop being recruited, so his future coach can make plans, to keep the media from hounding for a decision, etc.), and I don’t see how you can stop him from doing so.
Your desire is good – make a man’s word meaningful. That’s just not going to happen full-scale in an unredeemed world. The best we can do is wear the striped pants and hope Florida loses early and often.
Maybe I’m just working in irrelevant semantics here, but I think there is — or could be — a useful difference between saying, “I like these schools/this school” and “I will play for this school when I graduate.” I’m all for recruits talking; I’d just like to see some caution in the choice of words.
“but someone might really want to make a firm commitment to a team verbally (to stop being recruited, so his future coach can make plans, to keep the media from hounding for a decision, etc.), and I don’t see how you can stop him from doing so.”
That’s why I’m not saying there should be no verbal commitments; if a recruit wants to make a commitment for any of those reasons, that’s fantastic. I’m good with that. But if he wants to make a verbal, and then make another verbal, and then make another verbal, I’m not good with that. I don’t want verbals to be as binding as NLIs, but I want something. Maybe give a recruit limited decommits, so if a guy really wants to switch once, he can, but he can’t keep jerking around programs by making them think he wants to play for them. If he wants to keep his options open (you know I love that!), he can, but then the program knows to be ready for a signature or a departure.
It needn’t be 100% binding, but it needn’t be 100% subject to the fickle whims and egos of high school kids. (Knowing how much the NCAA loves to legislate everything, I’m surprised they haven’t weighed in on this subject.)
But yeah, I know this sort of thing won’t ever really be fixed in this world, so any sort of “fix” will be only halfway.
Bring on the striped pants.
I am with you in theory, but some sort of hybrid might actually make things less clear than they are now. If the system itself explicitly allows a recruit one penalty-free switch, that’s tantamount to saying it’s acceptable to switch once. Right now, I think most recruits see a verbal commitment as morally binding – to switch, they have to rationalize somehow. So most don’t switch. I think most who give verbal commitments really have committed to a school. Under your proposed system, that moral hesitancy would be removed – there would be no need to rationalize one switch. So really, a recruit could commit when he had his choice down to two schools. If he changes his mind later, so what? Right now, a coach is surprised (at least somewhat) at a switch. If the system allows a switch, a coach can’t really count on a verbal commitment.
Maybe a better way is some sort of informal professional pressure on the coaches. Did the kid switch to Indiana because that’s near his family? That’s ok. Did he switch to Florida because the Florida coaches keep bothering him after he announced his decision? Maybe the Florida coaches should get a call from their AD, saying We don’t do that here. Or maybe at the next SEC coaches’ meeting, there should be a few pointed questions to the Florida coaches around the punch bowl. I know “bad men” will take advantage of informal rules, but informal rules seem more appropriate here. I guess I’m being naive in the world of Div-IA football.
I don’t think a coach can absolutely count on a verbal commitment now anyway, so I’m not sure how allowing only one switch would cause new problems for the coaches. I’m just trying to mesh ideals with reality here. Recruits can switch whenever and for whatever reason they want — and it’s really not hard for any of them to find a rationalization — so I’m trying to acknowledge the reality of switching while putting certain limits on it.
Besides, if a recruit did put some value in a verbal, I don’t know that allowing a switch would make him more willing to switch. It might do that for a few, but I think it would have fewer negative effects on those more committed recruits than it would have on the wavering recruits. They have no reason to place value in a verbal now, so if they do, it says something for their character. I don’t know that limits on verbal would change their character.
After I posted, I actually thought about the coaching/recruiting side of things. And I think related limits would have to follow limits on verbals. That might help slow down the switching. If a kid says he wants to play at school A, coaches (coughcoughUrbanMeyercough) from schools B and C would have to stop pressuring the kid to reconsider school A. I don’t think the recruiting all the way through a signed NLI is a good thing when a kid has given a verbal. Like you said, if a kid switched because his family is nearby, or some such reason, then he’s switching for his own good.
And I’m talking about actual rules because I think informal rules would handcuff principled coaches and scarcely affect the other coaches.
But if you had a college football mafia to “discuss” informal rules violations with the offending coaches…
It’s not called “organized” for nothing. The mafia would definitely take care of Mr Urban.
I think you misunderstood my point on the good-character kids in the one-switch world. It would affect them, not because they would suddenly lose their good character, but because it would be ok – morally acceptable – to switch. I think lying is wrong, and I avoid it; but if I’m playing poker, I have no problem bluffing (i.e., lying), because the rules of the game take away the wrong-ness of the deception. If the rules of the recruiting game say go ahead and switch once, and that’s ok, the good kids will have no reason to avoid their one allotted switch, since it’s not going back on one’s word. For my $30,000 a year I am now able to label this phenomenon: the pedagogical effect of the law.
I actually think the present system works well enough. The coaches are really the only ones hurt by a recruit backing out – they’re the ones who put their time in, planned other recruiting around this guy, whatever. But the coaches know how the game works. I think they know better (especially a coach at IU) than to write a name in pen before signing day. They may say, “this guy is a 50% lock, or a 75% lock, or a 99% lock”, but they’ll never treat a verbal commitment as a 100% lock. It annoys fans, it annoys the media (not really – just more fodder for them), and it annoys those of us who think words and commitments are important and not just pawns in some recruiting game. But it seems to do a pretty decent job of 1) letting coaches get a firm idea of what their rosters will look like, and 2) not completely locking some 17-year old kid into a decision too early. Really, the whole thing would be solved if it were called something other than a commitment.
I really don’t know why they don’t limit coaches as you mentioned, after a verbal commitment has been made. As you mentioned, the NCAA has no problem regulating the minutiae of every other aspect of recruiting; why leave this glaring and exploited hole?
I see your point. Darn you and your high-falutin’ education!
I can agree that the system works “well enough” in that it is functional and not mass chaos, but I would also say it could be much better. Even with all the recruiting limits, it still seems a bit loosey-goosey at times. But I guess that makes it fun, too. Ah, well. I can still want the word “commitment” to mean something, even if it’s essentially impossible to make it so.
And I think the NCAA is too busy changing the timekeeping rules to worry about coaches and recruiting. TV commercial is far more important, you know.