Is recruiting coverage the answer?

We report when any big-time player "commits" to a big-time school. But I became convinced of the nonsense it when our top FB lineman committed early to Notre Dame, then Fat Charlie changed defensive coordinators, the kid said he was reopening the process and the next night Urban Meyer was at his house getting him to change his mind. The kid is now at Florida.

Then there was the QB who made a "commitment" to a certain school, whose coach jumped to the NFL. He bailed on that commitment, was courted by 5 or 6 other schools, then decided just before signing day to sign with the school he originally "committed" to.

The only good part of these two stories is we had writers who were on top of both situatuions because they were high-profile players and the players actually called our writers to keep them up to date on what was happening so we had both stories before the so-called State paper.

 

In both of those situations, something unforeseen and drastic changed. Not the best examples of flighty high school kids apt to change their opinion as often as their shirt.

 

Oh, and a few years sgo we had a big-time kid who has been a starter for 3 years at USC. We followed his recruitment very carefully, wrote about Pete Carroll showing up unannounced at his schjool one day, about another USC coach parked in his driveway when he got home from school one day, etc.
And when he went on ESPN on signing day to make his announcement, we already had it in the paper that morning becuase he called our guy the night before.


And we got a bunch of vitriolic e-mails for fawning over one kid while ignoring hundreds of others.

 

Yeah, spnited. Why the venom?

If your kid had committed to a school and the coach left, would you tell him that it's tough luck or back him if he wanted to look at his options again?

 

No venom. My point is if you overdo the recruting coverage, you're going to be hurting yourself elsewhere.

When the aforementioned coach announced he was taking an NFL job, the first thing we did was call the QB to see what he was going to do. His first response was "I'm still committed to going there." Two days later, he called back and said "I'm not going there under any circumstances."

A month later, he signed to go there. And this is NOT some naive, uninformed kid. His reaction to the whole thing "Hey, I'm a 17-year-old kid. I change my mnd about stuff every day."

 

So true.

I look back and laugh -- EVERY year, without fail, the same guys who are emailing me like crazy trying to get the inside scoop on who's committed or who's thinking of committing are in the next breath asking who's going to transfer to make room for this kid. And the kids they want gone are the ones who one or two years ago they were so certain were going to be the difference-maker for their team.

It's a fucking joke.

 

Look, I understand it's an abuse-filled system. But you're using the abuses to suggest curtailing coverage of it. Things don't work like that. Just because something's broken (re: the Pittsburgh Pirates) doesn't mean to stop covering it.

 

As I have said, Shot, we cover/report on our players "committing" to D-1 programs. Not being in a big college area, we do not have to do wall-to-wall recruting coverage.

 

A much higher percentage than those who are drafted by NFL teams that will actually end up making a roster. Exactly 0 out of 58 Dolphins drafted in the past 8 years are on the team. A tiny percentage (Chris Chambers, etc.) made it and were traded elsewhere. The great majority had zero impact. And absolutely zero were All-Pro.

NFL teams can try to cover up their mistakes by signing (and then cutting) an unlimited number of free agents. Colleges can't. These are the 25 you signed this year. These are the 25 you are stuck with,

Mock recruiting if you want, but it is every bit as important to State U. as the draft is to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

i think spnited's spot on.

i'd quote him and write that, but this freakin' site won't let me.

 

is this permanent?