View Full Version : Babbitt decommits and commits again

06-11-2007, 02:23 PM
Goodbye, Ohio State.

Hello, Nevada.

"There's no place like home.
There's no place like home.
There's no place like home."

Tap Tap Tap


06-11-2007, 02:43 PM
Wow! Coach Fox landed quite a lunker. Seems like Nevada will be just fine without Fazekas after all.

06-11-2007, 02:48 PM
Maybe we can go for the trifecta and get him to come to GU? :-)

06-11-2007, 03:53 PM
I am really surprised by Babbitt's decision. Not that he would back out of his decision to go to Ohio State, but that he would go to Nevada. Within the coaching fraternity, Mark Fox is viewed by some as being a cobra that's waiting to strike at the right BCS opportunity. The line of thinking is that being at Nevada is allowing him the opportunity to stay away from the Nebraska type jobs for now. Of course this assessment could be wrong, and if he starts bringing in more recruits like Babbitt, he may just decide to stay. But several analysts have already predicted that Fox's name is going to be first in line on the carousel next offseason.

06-11-2007, 04:47 PM
Here's a link to the story:


06-11-2007, 05:36 PM
That "playing in front of the family" component might dry up when Fox leaves. Good kid....let's keep an eye on young Luke. Remember.....he went to Ohio State because he had family there too;)

06-12-2007, 06:37 AM
I'm on the road for business reasons so seeing the above news was a big surprise.

Nevada will still miss Nick Fazekas, but they have the nucleus of a good team for the next several years.

Babbitt could have the same kind of impact on his hometown team as Ammo had for the Zags. . .but first he has to finish high school.

From the Reno newspaper:

STORY LINK (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070612/SPORTS06/706120339/1018/SPORTS)

"It's just nice to get this done so I can relax and focus on next year," he said.

Of course, young Luke said the same thing when he verballed to OSU. . .

06-12-2007, 08:07 AM
Unhappy folks in Columbus (http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=145#S=145&F=3156&T=613338). If a coaching staff were to back out of an offer, they would be called "evil." This type of thing is not good for college hoops. How many kids has Few stopped looking at because he believes Poling is true to his word? It also makes me wonder if Nevada is a school that actively recruits kids that have already given a verbal.

06-12-2007, 11:56 AM
I'm with DeCourcy on this one. From a Sporting News article (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=108166) he wrote after Eric Gordon recommitted from Illinois and committed to Indiana:

Until a prospect signs on the dotted line, he's fair game
July 13, 2006

The truth is, we can't even get the language right.

Verbal commitment? Oral commitment? Non-binding commitment? How about just "commitment"?

No one even knows what to call it, so there's no reason anyone should view such a pledge as sacred.

In the past few seasons, it's become an issue that many coaches continue to pursue prospects who have made public commitments to particular colleges. Currently, the fuss surrounds Indiana because the Hoosiers maintain an interest in landing 6-3 shooting guard Eric Gordon of Indianapolis, one of the nation's top 10 players. Gordon committed to Illinois as a high school junior. The current Indiana coaching staff was not in place then.

Well, this has got to stop.

Not the recruiting.

The complaining.

Programs have every right to continue recruiting prospects who have yet to sign letters of intent. That's what the letter is for -- that's all the letter is for. When a prospect signs one, the recruiting process is done. But no basketball prospect can sign until November of his senior year. The colleges have the power to pass a rule allowing players to sign prior to that, or any time at all after making a decision. They choose not to. So Indiana is playing by the rules of the game.

And any griping that what IU is doing is "legal" but "unethical" is simply a matter of trying to gerrymander those rules while the game is being contested.

This issue has become more prevalent lately because the colleges accelerated the recruiting process gradually over the years -- first by introducing the November signing date, lately by allowing juniors to accept recruiting calls and make official visits. In and of themselves, these new rules were not detrimental. But they had repercussions.

I love your high ethical standards, MickMick, and I enjoy your posts here on the board, but on this one, gotta disagree.

06-12-2007, 12:08 PM
I love your high ethical standards, MickMick, and I enjoy your posts here on the board, but on this one, gotta disagree.

I changed my mind and I'm with you on this one too. I believe there are fundamental changes to recruiting rules needed to make a coach's life easier. If Babbitt type events bring the issue to the forefront, I am all for it. There really needs to be a means to make rosters more predictable.