View Full Version : Article on recruits who decommit - changes on the way?

08-09-2007, 11:44 AM
From Decourcy at TSN:


Also from a recent Gary Parrish blog:


Updated: Aug/06/2007 02:38 PM

Fix the problem: Make a commitment just that

I didn't get to it in last week's column because I was too busy injecting Larry King into the debate (note to message board folk: You guys took that part of the column a tad bit too seriously), but Dave Telep actually has a way to fix the growing problem of players decommitting from schools.

His solution?

Eliminate the traditional signing periods.

"We'd be telling college coaches that if they want to take a commitment from a player, then they have to be comfortable signing him to a letter of intent," said Telep, scout.com's national recruiting analyst. "If it's a freshman, it's a freshman. So be it. But if he's signed, he's bound to your program."

In other words, non-binding, verbal pledges would be a thing of the past because if a school genuinely wanted a prospect who genuinely wanted to attend said school, then a national letter of intent would be signed, regardless of whether it was the fall of a recruit's freshman year or summer before his senior year. This, Telep believes, would prevent schools from tendering premature offers and keep prospects from making half-hearted decisions because there would be no turning back without significant penalty.

Under Telep's plan, once a player is signed, he's signed.

That means other schools are prohibited from making contact.

"And," Telep said, "here are the stipulations for getting out of the letter: If you sign when you're a freshman or sophomore, nobody knows if you're going to be admitted to that school. So if you're not admitted to that school, you're out of your letter of intent. If that coach leaves that program, let's be honest, we're not committing to schools, we're committing to coaches, so you're out of your letter of intent. And if a school wants to get out on its end, it can, but it's going to cost them a scholarship."

And that's it. Unless the prospect doesn't qualify or there is a coaching change, the prospect can't renege on his commitment without losing a year of eligibility, and the school can't renege on its commitment without losing one of its 13 scholarships.

Will Telep's proposal ever come to pass?

Doubtful. But if nothing else it's at least nice to see somebody thinking, trying to figure out a way to fix a burgeoning problem.

"This would put some of the focus back on evaluating these guys," Telep said. "It would put the onus back on people making good decisions."

We could all use more of that, no question.

08-09-2007, 11:57 AM
That's a really interesting idea. I think there would be a boom in transfers a couple of years after it was instituted, but eventually the dust would settle. I'm not sure it would be a good rule for GU, though - a freshman in high school is a perhaps more likely to be wowed by the flash and bang a big BCS school (and campus environment) brings to the table and commit than he would be by the family atmosphere at GU. Or maybe not - I guess we don't have that problem now. Perhaps more recruits would wait for the last minute and make a more informed, well-rounded decision, which could highlight some of the intangibles GU has over bigger programs...

Just thinking 'out loud.' Thanks for the article, CDC. Interesting stuff.

08-09-2007, 12:26 PM
interesting topic.

I think in the spirit of reform that the problem does not just rest just with the kids and their parents but, the coaches and schools & leagues as well. The whole process.

And herding all those cats could be very difficult, if not impossible.

thus if basketball wants to look at this aspect, it needs to follow the whole trail to see what needs to be done to level the playing field, imo.

08-09-2007, 05:25 PM
I love this idea. It'd make coaches be alot more careful about offering, and make players far more cautious in making their decisions, both of which would be good things.

08-10-2007, 07:45 PM
I love this idea. It'd make coaches be alot more careful about offering, and make players far more cautious in making their decisions, both of which would be good things.

I'll second that!!