"He told me once I'm fully committed, he didn't want me to take any more (official) visits because Miami is the place to be and no other place is really worth visiting if you really want to be committed to the new Miami," Clarke said Tuesday night.
"I was kind of shocked. ... Usually coaches are like, 'Go ahead and take your visits because you don't get a lot of them.' I do kind of feel like I still want to take my visits. I'm still thinking about it right now. But I do just want to stay humble to Miami. So, I want to see (the next) game, see how it goes."
"He doesn't really want anybody to take official visits and be in contact with other colleges because at the end of the day, if you're committed, you should be 100 percent committed.
I mean, on one side, I can see the line of thinking that if you're committed, you're committed and you shouldn't be visiting other programs...on the other hand, I understand how reality works and that these are 16, 17, 18 year old kids. They have a change of heart, circumstances come up that could lead them away. I can't see that working out to well, telling a kid that once you're committed, cut communication off with all other schools. As much as it sucks to lose a commit, I don't think this is a great approach. Unless Miami was my dream school, if I were a recruit this approach would definitely turn me off a little.
Thoughts?
Comments
Didn't CJF do something similar with the early signing period?
Edit: I know it is different, because it's visits versus signing, but I feel like this is a stance that's becoming commonplace, no?
Yep he did state that, but then he has also offered kids who have already committed elsewhere...
It sounds like it was turning off that recruit. Just don't commit until you have made all your trips. Drive all the fan bases nuts.
Yup. Tossing this out there:
Definitely has a tone of eff you.......with a "bless your heart" tone.
coach diaz: sorry son you're no longer a fit for us. humble just isn't what we are looking for in a recruit at miami. thank you and enjoy the rest of your visits.
Telling them not to commit until they make all their trips is a bit like telling a cat to come in or stay outside, just pick, it ain't going to happen.
Recruits "commit" because it get's them better offers. They are using the modern infatuation that grown man boosters have with their every action to their advantage. There is no advantage to committing to VT 8 months early unless you are trying to parlay it into better offers. Let's not fool ourselves.
in some cases this certainly is true. unless you already have better offers. then what?
Uh, no.
The two obvious examples here are:
1. Kids who really want to go to VT. They commit because that's what they are looking for.
2. Kids who are reserving a spot. This happens every year, kids get their spots pulled because their position is full.
Just because you are a natural cynic doesn't make you Nostradamus when things are bad.
I feel like that attitude doesn't work with this generation (I say that as a millennial). Its a once in a lifetime opportunity, and for the majority of the kids, they are not going to get courted at the next level like they will for college programs. Enjoy a free trip to a school and have them tell you how much they love you and how great you are.
Kids that are going to big D1 schools have put in a lot of work, and maybe haven't got out much outside of traveling for games/tournaments. Go see things. That way, when they walk into a "pro" stadium for their own home games in Miami, the kid may not be so starry eyed.
There are actually a decent number of coaches who do this.
I would almost expect every coach to say they don't want commits talking to other schools. The question is how they react when a kid doesn't follow the plan.
I can understand why the coaches want them to stop taking visits after the committed, but I can't blame the kids given all the games coaches play with recruiting (mostly because the system forces them to).
It's easy to see why a kid might commit early to make sure they have a spot on the team locked up rather than waiting to late and risk having the offer pulled. In these cases I can see why a kid may want to continue to take visits to see if they can improve their position. If you are a 5 star or highly ranked 4 star you are getting a spot no matter what, so no rush to commit for those guys, but for the barely 3 star guy I can see the thinking on locking up your best offer early.
If the coaches want to have this philosophy then they also need to not pressure the recruits into committing on the spot. With the threat of positions filling up and not having a commitable offer if you wait, it makes sense to lock something down while you check out the other options. It is an inconvenience to the coaches of these programs to have to deal with this, but it's just part of the business. The first coach that pulls a scholly from a recruit for visiting another school will be the first to start losing badly on the campaign trail. The reality is the kids have the leverage and they would be silly to give it up.
I think Fuente did this one time....
Kinda. Fuente was upset because the prospect went back on their word.
My understanding of that situation was that the prospect promised not to visit additional schools, one in particular. Then they broke their word and did anyway because of pressure from a friend/advisor/family type influence in their lives. Had the prospect been up front with Fuente and told him,
then I don't think Fuente would have had the reaction that he did, because the prospect was being up front about the situation.
Then don't commit until you take all your visits?
Exactly.
When you commit, you're giving up something.
ugh my GF said the same thing.
It's true.
I can see both sides of this one.
Recruits want to take their visits, but watching a recruit go on other visits after they're 100% committed must be like watching your girlfriend go on a date with someone else. Once they've got a job, why are they still interviewing? Makes them look more like they're 800% committed.
I maintain at least part of this is a language barrier. We call the kid's oral statement of intent a "commitment" and his written commitment a "letter of intent." Makes no sense to me. If we described this early step as a "statement of intent," and the written confirmation a "national letter of commitment," it would be easier for some folks to understand.
"This kid stated his intent and then changed his mind."
sounds very different from
"This kid made a commitment and then broke his word!"
Yeah, maybe they're just 800% intented.
This fraud left Temple Bellichick style the moment the U came calling. Fraud. Laughable. Can't take a word of this seriously
No wonder he has trust issues.
You just know other schools will use that against him in their recruiting process...I mean demanding loyalty when your own history of it is suspect at best? That's big cojones or good old fashioned outright stupidity...or both
It would have been priceless if the recruit had asked Diaz if he was committed to be Temple's coach before he took the Miami job.
Just another example of a coach making millions trying to strip the power of a teenager trying to make a life changing decision. He'll have to get over it.
Aint Fu do this with Capehart?
Yes, and it was a good decision. Capehart is the last person we need tying up a scholly right now.
My understanding about Capehart was that it wasn't the visit to Maryland, it was that he was asked directly if he was taking a visit and he lied about it. If this is wrong, someone please correct me!
Is Manny 800% committed to this philosophy? I bet he changes his mind.
Diaz wants loyalty after spending 10 days as the Temple head coach before going to Miami?
GTFOH
I get wanting to hate on the man for this, but with literally any other profession you are told to put yourself before the company because the company will never put you before them. If you just accepted a job, it would be hard to turn down a higher profile comparable position that has a clear ability and authority to pay much more.
Now apply this thinking to recruits....
Yeah, his thought process is fucked. I agree completely. I was just pointing out that it's hard to hate on the guy for looking out for his own best interest.
Every HC does this and it's why some kids don't have spots late in the game.... You had one and committed then went and visited 2 other schools and got told no there.
If you commit and then go take a visit elsewhere you're telling the HC I'm still looking for a 10 but you're a 7-8 so I'm comfy here if I need to be.
Ironically, Diaz got the head coaching job at Miami because Richt wasn't committed to his contract with the school.
I give Richt credit. He retired from coaching and is not coaching this year. He didn't announce his retirement to get out of a contract and then immediately sign somewhere else. Thinking about Junior Seau from the Chargers to the Patriots.
Originally I looked into this comment because I wondered if these events could possibly be related to Seau's mental health but then I discovered that the actual events aren't particularly close to what you described. Seau was traded from the Chargers to the Dolphins in 2003, played three seasons with the Dolphins and was released in March 2006, and announced his retirement in August 2006 before signing with the Patriots a few days later. Anyway, it doesn't appear to me that Seau did anything nefarious with his retirement and the guy almost certainly paid the ultimate price as a result of playing football, so I'm just going to leave it at RIP.
don't let the facts get in the way of a good narrative though!
I agree with you, I was just more pointing out the hypocrisy for Manny.
If this is the kind of loyalty Diaz expects, he should respect other athletes' commitments and not recruit them after they have announced a commitment. Street goes both ways.
Smash cut to Tahj Capehart
Hypocrite.
Didn't that article about Bagmen a while back talk about how recruits get paid to take the visits?
I'll just leave this here....
I think it's very likely true but it's also Gilbert Arenas and will be dismissed by most of the public and never investigated by the NCAA because they have way too much to lose to rock the boat with their cash cows.
Words matter to me. "Commitment" means you have my word.
If the NCAA wants this to be an option, then they should offer recruits the ability to sign an LOI the moment the scholarship is offered.
and then the big dogs came in
A few thoughts..
Supposedly, this is a policy with Dabo at Clemson as well. Dabo has lots of success to back him up while Diaz is trying to retool/rebuild @ Miami. Wondering if Manny's on-field sucess can match his ego? If you don't win, this could actually serve to drive more players away than help.
In theory, I'm fine with commanding a level of commitment from recruits. It is certainly super frustrating when kids commit only to decommit, sometimes within weeks. Unfortunately, coaches also have many unscrupulous tactics such as the "non-commitable" offer which is essentially their tactic to try and string kids along until or unless they find something better. If there's one thing I think that could be improved in recruiting it would be requiring schools to provide official written offers to recruits that are immediately "committable."
Also, I do think DC has a point. For some kids commitment seems to lead to an immediate ratings improvement and garner more attention from larger programs. I do agree that some seem to use "committing" simply as a step in the process.