Charlie Weis = hypocrite?

[Point of Order]

The wise-ass in me is going to emerge with this comment....

A letter of intent is a verbal commitment because technically, verbal, means consisting of words and a letter of intent has words in it. What kids give prior to that should be called a spoken or oral commitment.

Yeah, but "oral commitment" just sounds like it involves a blowjob.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

It usually does.

Too easy.

 

[Billy Pritchard]

And what happens to the kid who signs with ND during the early period in, say, August and then in Dec. fat Charlie decides the NFL offer is just too good to pass up?
Do you think the pompous asses at ND are going to let that kid out of his SIGNED commitment?
If not, and the kid decides not to go to ND, he'd have to sit a year. So let's screw these kids some more to keep the ****ing scumbag coaches happy.

So you build that escape clause for the kids into the wording - it's already an issue in basketball, and I think it will be worked out eventually.

Just for the record, the letter of intent has a portion to remind the students they are signing to attend the college, not to play for a particular coach. So if the coach bolts, as often happens, the kid is screwed. Then again, maybe your college choice shouldn't come down to whether the head coach is a neat guy so I want to go to school there.

 

[Pringle]

And what happens to the kid who signs with ND during the early period in, say, August and then in Dec. fat Charlie decides the NFL offer is just too good to pass up?
Do you think the pompous asses at ND are going to let that kid out of his SIGNED commitment?
If not, and the kid decides not to go to ND, he'd have to sit a year. So let's screw these kids some more to keep the ****ing scumbag coaches happy.

So you build that escape clause for the kids into the wording - it's already an issue in basketball, and I think it will be worked out eventually.

Just for the record, the letter of intent has a portion to remind the students they are signing to attend the college, not to play for a particular coach. So if the coach bolts, as often happens, the kid is screwed. Then again, maybe your college choice shouldn't come down to whether the head coach is a neat guy so I want to go to school there.

Yeah, I know about that. It's a quaint little clause, built in as if it somehow continues the illusion that this is about education, while all the while schools rake in billions.

 

[Pringle]

On second thought, you guys are right. There is hypcricy to this. Crusader Charlie wants to clean up college football and teach kids what a "commitment" means - but he has no problem accepting kids with open arms who didn't know what a commitment meant when that commitment was made to Iowa or South Carolina or Lousiville.

 

[slappy4428]

If you are going to hold kids to verbals, then coaches need to play by the same rules and stay away once they offer a commitment. Period.
If that's not acceptable, then leave the system the way it is..

 

[Blue_Water]

We need the early signing period. It'd resolve quite a few of these problems, really. And it would kill the unseemly recruiting services bit by bit.

Other sports have the early signing period and all it does is move the problems up several months.

 

[ForSaleByOwner]

For those who don't know, there is a book out there called Year of the Dog that details some of Weis' shady recruiting tactics. That part of it got lost in all the Mitch Mustain drama, but Weis has no place to talk about recruiting ethics.

 

[D-3 Fan]

Two words, hondo:

Eric Mangini

Two more words, hondo:

Romeo Crennel

 

[Just_An_SID]

What's the most ridiculous aspect of this is how everything is slanted towards the coach/institution and against the kids.

Signing a letter of intent commits the kid to the school for 4 years, but the institution is only committed to the kid for 1 year. The scholarship is renewed every year at the school's discretion (even if the kid is hurt) but the kid cannot leave without being released.

Actually, the letter of intent only binds a player to a school for one year. They can transfer after that, following the rules that all athletes have to follow (whether they sign a letter or not).

Schools don't have to belong to the letter of intent program and high school athletes don't have to sign letters.
Participation for both is voluntary.

 

[Lester Bangs]

Wonder if Chuckles would have left Jimmy Clausen alone had he orally "committed" to SC after, say, his sophomore year?

What's the most ridiculous aspect of this is how everything is slanted towards the coach/institution and against the kids.

Signing a letter of intent commits the kid to the school for 4 years, but the institution is only committed to the kid for 1 year. The scholarship is renewed every year at the school's discretion (even if the kid is hurt) but the kid cannot leave without being released.

Actually, the letter of intent only binds a player to a school for one year. They can transfer after that, following the rules that all athletes have to follow (whether they sign a letter or not).

Schools don't have to belong to the letter of intent program and high school athletes don't have to sign letters.
Participation for both is voluntary.

Yes, and monogomy in marriage is voluntary ... but do you really have a choice? There are rules for everyone, but it's certainly a master/slave relationship in that players can leave ... with penalty, but coaches can drop scholies ... without. Fair would be, just as players must sit a year when they transfer, a program should lose a scholie for a year if they drop a kid who is making sufficient academic progress and who does not have a conviction on a felony or gross misdemeanor.

And Micro guy hit it on the head about Charlie wanting the "rules defined." The rules are defined, so what's he clucking about?

 

[Just_An_SID]

Coaches can't drop scholarships without cause because not having the ability to compete at a certain level is not a permissable reason to remove a scholarship. Student-athletes have rights and when a school attempts to take away a scholarship, the S-A gets a chance to appeal to a non-athletic body to get the scholarship back and most times, the S-A wins.

Guys will usually transfer and try to play elsewhere instead of appealing a scholarship non-renewal because they just want to play. Female athletes will usually appeal -- and win. Ask the school that you cover if they have anybody on a scholarship but not competing and you will find 1-2 at each school.

 

[Pringle]

Coaches can't drop scholarships without cause because not having the ability to compete at a certain level is not a permissable reason to remove a scholarship. Student-athletes have rights and when a school attempts to take away a scholarship, the S-A gets a chance to appeal to a non-athletic body to get the scholarship back and most times, the S-A wins.

Guys will usually transfer and try to play elsewhere instead of appealing a scholarship non-renewal because they just want to play. Female athletes will usually appeal -- and win. Ask the school that you cover if they have anybody on a scholarship but not competing and you will find 1-2 at each school.

Didn't Spurrier do this when he got to South Carolina? I assume the kids didn't bother to appeal?