Al.com published an interesting read on why and how college coaches recruit players committed elsewhere. Justin Fuente's policy on visiting other schools once committed is mentioned.
Virginia Tech head coach Justin Fuente tells his recruits that once they commit, they shouldn't be taking visits to other schools. If they aren't ready to do that, Fuente says, he doesn't want to accept their commitment. That mentality served him well at Memphis though he faces a different set of challenges in the ACC competing against strong recruiting schools such as Clemson and Florida State.
Fuente has this policy because once he receives a commitment, he calls the other players his program was recruiting at that position and says he no longer has a spot available. If a recruit is taking a spot but not truly committed, it can put a coaching staff in a bind late in the recruiting process.
Comments
Wasn't this Frank's philosophy as well?
This sounds a lot like the policy of Beamer. I am a fan of this open and honest attempt. It's fair for not just the school but to other recruits.
As a professional recruiter, the only way to run recruit is have an open door policy and be as trasparent as possible and make sure that the people you recruit are as transparent with you as you are with them. Otherwise you get crap with guys backing out last minute.
How Virginia Tech flips players
Anyone who wants to flip to or from VT should have to perform this before moving forward.
Could you see an OL doing this if he flips teams? Jesus, that would be a freak athlete.
So where is crystal balled to go?
Related:
I love Fuente's approach in theory. But I'm not sure it's going to be a reliable approach in the future. Crootin' appears to be more and more of a free-for-all anymore, so here's hoping his strategy won't backfire too much.
I think the key point is Fuente is not yanking an offer he isn't accepting an offer if a kid isn't sure yet.
I was going to mention something similar. It seems very cutthroat.
Do we have an examples of where we flipped a guy that was committed to another school? I certainly hope that if that is Fuente's policy after a player commits to VT, that he is not going out and recruiting players that are committed elsewhere...
We should see a few of them tomorrow.
Chris Durkin comes to mind. But it appears that we are well-positioned to flip a couple this year.
Isiah Ford is a big one, originally committed to Louisville. 4/7 prospects on campus this weekend are committed elsewhere and we have a good shot of flipping 2-3 of them
Ahh yes, Isaiah Ford was a big flip for us, and recent too.
Hmm... just seems a little 'going against what you preach to the kids' but i also believe that it is necessary to target anyone who may fill a need on the roster, even though they are committed elsewhere.
I mean - (for most people) until you marry someone, you can date any person you like (with and without repercussions of course)
Could it have been the two, Durkin and Ford, both made some overtures back towards us? Durkin had a connection to Lefty and wasn't the situation at Michigan State quarterback bloated with him low man on the pole? As well, maybe Ford was concerned about Louisville without Bridgewater and heard that we Hokies were getting a hotshot gunslinger from Texas Tech? I honestly don't know, but maybe it wasn't outright poaching and fell in a gray area and Beamer and staff took gentlemanly advantage.
a major reason ford flipped is because both Louisville and UF (both were above us in where he wanted to go) shot down the idea of him playing both basketball and football. frank told him he could play both that it would be his choice once football season ended, now even though that didn't work out that way it was more his choice than him being told he couldn't do it. Rick pitino and Billy D at the time were actually the ones who shot down the idea of him doing both. not the football coaches. and that played a huge roll in him ending up here. im not sure if he expected the success so early and now he is 100% focused on getting to the league so instead of hoops he is focused on the weight room and getting better. #sauces
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply once you've accepted a marriage proposal.
Or at least once you've faxed in your contract and deposit on a venue...
I mean, like GuitarMan said, you may be out some money if you choose to push your luck after the proposal, but it's not unlawful (in some/most states)
I had to look it up. I didn't know it was unlawful to "cheat" on your spouse in some states.
There are 16 states with anti-adultery laws: Source
I like how in Kansas, only 2 very specific acts are cheating. All others are fair game.
In reality though, all these laws would have to be unconstitutional, in light of Lawrence v. Texas (Supreme Ct case in 2003).
Yea, and some states go as far as making the engagement ring a symbol of a binding contract for marriage, meaning if the engagement is called off, there are laws set forth for where the ring goes.
That much I can understand. The whole idea that a multi-thousand-dollar ring is a gift completely unrelated to the promise of marriage can really get under your skin if you're the guy.
Give her a fake until after you're married, then swap it out with a real diamond.
Ummm...many over the years.
I'm with HOAT on this one. I hope this strategy won't backfire but I think we get screwed by some recruits in the years to come because of it.
I would prefer an early signing date of Sept 1st with official visits allowed mid Jan of junior year. That would keep coaches from throwing out offers left and right.
Up here in PSU country they used to talk about how they'd recruit the right way and there was sort of a gentleman's agreement amongst the Big Ten schools that they wouldn't try to poach recruits from one another. SEC teams didn't care and reeled in their committed guys.
Now since Meyer arrived at OSU, PSU got Franklin, and Harbaugh went to Michigan, the PSU folks are realizing that the old ways aren't going to be respected anymore and that you gotta do what you gotta do.
The PSU die-hards up here aren't all that happy with it but by and large they appear to be resigned to the fact that they need to live in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it to be.
When it comes right down to it, I think we're hitting that realization as well and I agree that I hope we ultimately blend a principled approach to recruiting in the way the game is played when it comes to crootin'.
This definitely sounds honorable, but I can't help but be worried that with a policy like this we're attacking recruiting with one hand tied behind our backs.
This was my biggest takeaway:
It's all about morals for me.
Kids change their mind, situations change, they might feel pressure from other sources (family, coaches, friends), etc. It's sucks for the team, but it's doesn't mean they have poor morals or are lying
Let's say Jim has been dreaming about playing at VT his entire life, but for whatever reason we tell him we likely won't have space. He then commits to some other school. Suddenly, one of our players flips on us, or gets in legal trouble, etc - whatever the case, there is now an opportunity for Jim to be on our team. Is this kid supposed to throw away his life long dream because he 'committed' elsewhere? Does this make him a bad person?
I agree I wouldn't 'commit' until I was 100% sure about my choice - but some kids might think they are 100% sure when they are not, they may have doubts come up later, etc.
I think ultimately that is what Fuente wants his recruits to do. If recruit isn't willing to shut down visits, etc, then don't commit. Once recruit commits, be committed by the definition of the word. However, I don't think kids will care and will still commit and then shop some more.
The problem is, 'commit' is a meaningless concept, completely invented by the universities. Like a pre-engagement ring. We accept commitments because everyone else does.
I wish we would just do away with the concept of commits and the signing day, and allow prospects to sign as soon as they are otherwise able.
That's sort of the direction that I wanted the "early signing" recommendation to go. Unfortunately they were throwing around Dec 15th (or there about) which isn't early enough IMO. They decided to table the recommendation until 2017 where they plan on looking more at recruiting rules.
Not sure how I feel about people complaining about the recruits. They get the short end of the stick.
Coaches lie all the time to recruits, play around with numbers and pull scholarships. Then assistants will wait until after singing day to officially leave to ensure that recruits will stick with their school:
LINK
Then once in college they are punished if they transfer as the school can dictate where they go and they have to sit out a year...whereas coaches (who are getting paid millions) can come and go as they please.
It is a totally unfair system, from top to bottom, and the power is not in the hands of the players and I'm not going to spend my time wringing my hands over 17-18 year olds.
I think the wisdom to be gained from this - the hot girl controls the relationship. We get jilted more than we jilt. Bama jilts more than they are jilted.
Side note:
In the long run, when I talk about recruiting, I mean the process of identifying good talent and high character guys that we'd be proud to have in the program, making verbal, and, when appropriate, written scholarship offers to student-athletes to participate in the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University athletic program.
But when I talk about crootin', I mean stealing prospects from other schools, offering unlimited Hardee's coupons, undermining the competition, and general chicanery related to landing the best prospects we can.
I think this is understood, but I thought I'd clarify.
Clear as mud HOAT /s.