Sanders Decommits
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
MarkRedman
Well-known member
Moose post=440752 said:
Last edited:
Much as what happened with Wiggins and Wilson, once the kid commits somewhere he'll become an afterthought on this board. Till then, there will be some chatter about him and potential landing spots. Of course, if he winds up at SH, and turns out to be a decent player, we may be talking about him for another 4 years.
Last edited:
stjohnschris
Active member
That's an odd list for someone who wanted to steer clear of Far Rock. As many have said, we should move on...
To those of you who keep saying that "we need to move on", who exactly are you talking to? Im sure that he staff has "moved on" so far as closing the door on Sanders and pursuing other options. So you can't be talking to them. Not that they would be listening anyways. As for this board, I don't see anyone still pining over this kid. So we've certainly moved on. If "moving on" means not discussing this rather unusual situation(I'm being as diplomatic as I can), or where this kids lands, then I hate to disappoint you but we'll be discussing this for a while. My suggestion for anyone who wants to move on; stay off a thread titled "Sanders Decommits", since there's a pretty good chance we'll be discussing Sanders' Decommitment.
Last edited:
Why not bring back that after a verbal or signing a NLI and
then transferring within the same conference, you must sit
and use up a year of your eligibility.
I think it adds to some cleansing and reduces the shenanigans that goes on.
It also ameliorates the sting of transferring intra conference.
then transferring within the same conference, you must sit
and use up a year of your eligibility.
I think it adds to some cleansing and reduces the shenanigans that goes on.
It also ameliorates the sting of transferring intra conference.
Not sure how you enforce a nonbinding agreement but lets say you can...Where does it stop? Say you give some serious penalty to reneging on a verbal commitment. Great. All that will accomplish is that no one will give a public verbal anymore.
Then we'll have "soft verbals" where they only tell the staff and don't make it public. (Can't WAIT for those chatboard leaks). Then you have to ban soft verbals because some 5* gets into a "He said, He said" with Calipari over whether he gave him the super secret handshake or not. Where do you go from there? "He wore a St John's onesie as an infant" so if he doesn't go there he has to sit two years? /media/kunena/emoticons/smile.png
Oh...and it doesn't bind the school.
allnet post=440801 said:
A verbal does not bind anyone, player or school. Schools have a still keep recruiting players and if they wind up getting someone they perceive as a better player, things change. Just like a school deciding not to except a LOI from a player they recruited because they received an LOI from a better player.
And a verbal is not a contract.
It's not a legal contract but a De Facto one because in the real world it has worked that way. Substance
is more meaningful than form.
How many recruits do you remember our school reneging on! How many good ones cancelled us !
We have gotten stung and reneged on by a few high profile recruits. Really hurtful ones.
This not only disappoints us but can be a big blow strategically to our recruiting plans.
A school is reluctant to cancel a recruit as among other things it gets a bad reputation in the recruiting industry. This can be a deterrent toward our getting future recruits.
SOLUTION:
Have the fleeing recruit lose a year and sit if he wants to stay in the same conference.
Have the accepting school lose a scholarship that same next year.
The most severe blow to any school is a decommit that ends up in the same conference.
This will make verbals and NLIs more meaningful and the procedure more equitable and reciprocal.
is more meaningful than form.
How many recruits do you remember our school reneging on! How many good ones cancelled us !
We have gotten stung and reneged on by a few high profile recruits. Really hurtful ones.
This not only disappoints us but can be a big blow strategically to our recruiting plans.
A school is reluctant to cancel a recruit as among other things it gets a bad reputation in the recruiting industry. This can be a deterrent toward our getting future recruits.
SOLUTION:
Have the fleeing recruit lose a year and sit if he wants to stay in the same conference.
Have the accepting school lose a scholarship that same next year.
The most severe blow to any school is a decommit that ends up in the same conference.
This will make verbals and NLIs more meaningful and the procedure more equitable and reciprocal.
A verbal is not a Defacto or any other type of contract or agreement and all coaches know that, Kids changing their minds on a college destination after giving a verbal happens all the time (you should see how often in college football). That’s why it doesn’t count until you get the NLI. You can’t penalize someone for changing their mind on a verbal because it isn’t a legal written agreement and you can’t penalize a school for accepting a kid who changes his or her mind. To add some of these verbals are made by kids prior to their turning 18 which is the age of consent to enter into legal document.allnet post=440852 said:
Based on what you want, Mo Harkless would have had to sit a year before playing for us because he gave a verbal to UConn.
You have to be released from a NLI (there are certain conditions if met doesn’t require a formal release).