T1B

What are your thoughts on coaches who try to “flip” recruits who have already given a verbal commitment to another school? Scummy move or perfectly fair?

If you were a head coach, would you go after verbal commits, or would you stay away out of respect for the other program? Or would you base your tactics on what other coaches in your conference are doing?

Just curious to see how people feel about this issue.

Given how many kids switch those verbal commitments I think you have to keep recruiting your verbals and those other recruits on your list.

That said I would prefer that the NCAA allowed football plays to sign their LOI in the fall like other sports are allowed to do. This would reduce the practice of recruiting verbal commitments.

Agree with all of that, I'm asking about the ethical side of it. If you were a head coach, would you do it?

I agree with Lefty. Coaches have to keep recruiting and staying in close contact with their verbals because there's always someone out there who will try to sway them. It's part of the recruiting game, for better or worse.

If I were a coach, I probably wouldn't waste any time and energy on a kid who gave a verbal to another school unless he initiated contact with me after giving his verbal.

Until there is an early signing period, coaches have to do it. But I think there are different ways to go about it. The Urban Meyer method of telling kids to lie to the coaches of the school they are currently committed to is really scummy and I wouldn’t want ND to do that with kids. But I know that ND’s staff keeps in contact with just about every kid they began recruiting by calling him and emailing him to check up to see where things stand. They already have one kid this year flip from USC (Max Redfield), but he decommitted from USC first and everything seemed above board. They have a couple of other kids (Greg Bryant and Will Fuller) who committed early in the process but decided to open things back up, which I don’t really consider flipping.

Flipping kids goes both ways and it usually ends up about even in terms of gaining and losing commitments, unless you had a horrific season. ND lost Devonte Greenberry last year on a last minute flip, but got Gunner Kiel. They lost Alex Anzalone to UF, but they might flip Eddie Vanderdoes, Sebastian LaRue or Ty Issac from USC. I don’t think what UF did was scummy in the Anzalone recruitment, but I think the kid was a little dishonest with ND.

I have no problem if both parties are honest. It’s a business decision on both ends.

Around UM boards flipping kids is referred to as "snake oiling". A reference born out of Joe Tiller accusing RRod of peddling the elixir when he pulled Roy Roundtree on signing day.

I used to be dead set against it. Like others, if the kid decommits, all's fair. Continuing to recruit committed guys smells a little slimy to me. I know that Urbie is lurking around these parts nowadays. He pulled a 2014 TE out of Cass Tech, a UM feeder, and visited Sparty verbal Drake Harris in Grand Rapids. Word on the street is that Harris is very interested in Ohio.

I think Urban Meyer is going to change the complexion of recruiting in the B1G, and what used to be a gentlemen's agreement to leave verbal commits alone will turn into a cut throat operation with Michigan being the primary target...or anyone else he thinks might be gaining ground on his program.

Killian wrote:Flipping kids goes both ways and it usually ends up about even in terms of gaining and losing commitments

Maybe it goes both ways for the blue blood programs. But when a school like ND or OSU flips the highest rated recruit from, say, Purdue, that's going to be a net loss.

It's all business now. Fariness, ethics, integrity, class, etc. is out the window. Compliance is all that matters. No one gets slammed for Lack of Ethical Control.

Interesting...interwebs are all a flutter about Harris maybe flipping and we have a topic

I guess in Wolverine Steve's eyes it was ok for Hoke to come in and flip Kalis when the tat gate stuff was going down...and don't think part of a decommittment is a coach flipping (I would say 90% of the cases) a kid

Damon Webb verballed to OSU a CB out of Cass Tech...if he flips so be it...I won't cry about it...

I am with Indy...everything is out the window...the coaches don't have any loyalty to these kids (When they leave to go to other schools, etc)...so why should the kids...

I think like basketball the answer is the early signing period...


Yeah it will change in the B1G...if you want to compete with the SEC you have to recruit the best PERIOD...we have seen over the last 7 years the rest of the country is kind of lagging...

don't you think?

good discussion...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Killian wrote:Flipping kids goes both ways and it usually ends up about even in terms of gaining and losing commitments

Maybe it goes both ways for the blue blood programs. But when a school like ND or OSU flips the highest rated recruit from, say, Purdue, that's going to be a net loss.

True, but I don't see the top of the line programs flipping a kid from a mid-teir program that often. I know it happens on occasion, if a blue blood is looking for a player for a specific position, but I don't think this happens regularly. For example, I could see ND taking a look at Purdue, IU, etc. to see if they have a MLB that fits their system after Anzalone flipped to UF, but I don't think Kelly and his staff will target those schools on a regular basis.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Killian wrote:Flipping kids goes both ways and it usually ends up about even in terms of gaining and losing commitments

Maybe it goes both ways for the blue blood programs. But when a school like ND or OSU flips the highest rated recruit from, say, Purdue, that's going to be a net loss.

True, but I don't see the top of the line programs flipping a kid from a mid-teir program that often. I know it happens on occasion, if a blue blood is looking for a player for a specific position, but I don't think this happens regularly. For example, I could see ND taking a look at Purdue, IU, etc. to see if they have a MLB that fits their system after Anzalone flipped to UF, but I don't think Kelly and his staff will target those schools on a regular basis.

Anzalone committed to like 4 schools...that kid is a train wreck...probably good ND, PSU or OSU didn't end up with him...

his dad is kind of a meddler...

we'll see how it plays out...


another thought...what about a kid like Kiel...commits to IU, then says no...LSU...then what a couplafew days before he was due on campus he bolts and goes to ND? Why do we not hold kids accountable to some degree if we are going to rag on coaches...

buckeye_in_sc wrote:Why do we not hold kids accountable to some degree if we are going to rag on coaches...

Two reasons:

1. They are kids. Coaches are adults. Kids and adults should never be held to the same standard.
and
2. When kids make that choice and sign on and go to school there, they can't just up and change their mind and go from OSU to Michigan without a penalty of losing a year of eligibility. If all coaches had to sit out a year as well as lose a year's paycheck when changing jobs, you'd see fewer 7 year contracts as well as voluntary coaching turnover. In the current system, kids are punished for changing their minds. Coaches have zero accountability.

Indy...partially see some of that as a point...but at the same time...if you are 17/18...you are old enough to drive/vote in some case gamble (sup Johnny Football) so me thinks calling them "kids" eh...

but that is another point...why not have the coaches sit out if they quit and go to another school, or something of the sort. I agree that would cut down on the voluntary turnover and quit maybe coaches changing jobs...

that is one of the huge irks for me...coach goes to school A...is there for 2 years and then leaves for another school (maybe bigger? maybe another conference?) why aren't the kids allowed to move at that juncture without penalty? Eh...whatever I guess

Whole new can of worms we have opened here today.

Some of you may remember that I used to post my top 10 changes to the NCAA each off season. One of the top 3 each year was changing the LOI and scholarship system.

1) Why do we ask kids to make a 4 or 5 year commitment to a school, but the school only makes a one year commitment to the player while at the same time restrict them from going somewhere after that one year?

2) If we don't like coaches moving from one school to the next, then why do the schools allow them to add language to their contracts where they can leave?

3) Why do we insist HS players wait to the second semester of their SR year to sign an LOI, but if they have the credits they can matriculate prior to signing their LOI?


My suggestions to these questions has remained the same for years. Allow players to sign their LOI in early Oct of their Sr year. Then make the scholarship binding for 5 years with a few exceptions. This would put the school on the hook for the players education even if they were injured and unable to continue playing or even if the player was cut. If the player wanted to transfer this would void the remainder of the scholarship, but the player would still have to sit out a season. The team could void the scholarship for certain legal trouble, grades, etc. However, the player would be unable to sign elsewhere for two years if separation was due to such.

As far as the coaches go I have no problem with them moving. We all hope to advance in our current careers and if a competitor offered a promotion and more money most of us would take it. Why should coaches be prevented from advancing? At the same time if a coach does leave it should not allow for all players to up and leave if they want. Players should be signing with a school not with a coach. It may sound good now to say that players should be allowed to leave if the coach does, but that is equal to the death sentence for a program.

Great points lefty...but

consider Barkley's situation at USC (no I am not trying to get Van or Schmick out of the woodwork)...Petey bolts for the NFL..Barkley is a soph when the sanctions are handed down...he wasn't able to leave unless he sat out a year...

that is more my point I guess...I have no problem with coaches wanting to advance their careers...but having kids sit out is what kills it, so then you might have square pegs in round holes ...I mean when RR got to Michigan most of those kids were recruited to run a Pro Style offense not a spread/option speed attack...so you had kids playing out of position, etc...I would allow them to transfer without sitting out a year...jsut my opinion

I agree with you to a point on the sanctions issue. Like in the PSU situation those kids should be given an outright release. Same as we currently have with players who have graduated and have have a year left. Let them transfer without penalty.

I am torn on what to do with other sanction situations. On the one hand I think if you get caught cheating players should have the ability to leave without penalty. It just makes the penalties for cheating more severe. On the other for a one year bowl ban I don't think the whole team should be able to up and leave. The right thing would prolly be for the SR class to be able to transfer since they wouldn't be able to play in a bowl.

buckeye_in_sc wrote:Indy...partially see some of that as a point...but at the same time...if you are 17/18...you are old enough to drive/vote in some case gamble (sup Johnny Football) so me thinks calling them "kids" eh...

And that's why their decisions are binding. But acting like they're equal partners in the negotiating process is ludicrous. A player goes through this situation once in his lifetime; a college coach goes through the same dance 75 times in a single recruiting season, not to mention the player is deciding between two or three schools while the school has offers out to 10 different linebackers.

Killian wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Killian wrote:Flipping kids goes both ways and it usually ends up about even in terms of gaining and losing commitments

Maybe it goes both ways for the blue blood programs. But when a school like ND or OSU flips the highest rated recruit from, say, Purdue, that's going to be a net loss.

True, but I don't see the top of the line programs flipping a kid from a mid-teir program that often. I know it happens on occasion, if a blue blood is looking for a player for a specific position, but I don't think this happens regularly. For example, I could see ND taking a look at Purdue, IU, etc. to see if they have a MLB that fits their system after Anzalone flipped to UF, but I don't think Kelly and his staff will target those schools on a regular basis.

Most flips probably align with kids the school already targeted before their "commitment." I'm guessing most coaches keep in contact with kids they lost but were deep into the process with and have developed a sense for which are soft and which are firm and will eventually tail off on the firm commitments. On the flip, I'm sure they've also developed a sense for which of their own commitments are soft and double down on the ones they want to keep and go casual with the ones they really don't mind seeing decommit.

Much is made in Michigan cyberspace of Hoke's policy to treat any official visits after their commitment as a decommit. I don't know what to think of it. On one hand it demands accountability, so good; but on the other I'm always a little leary that the kids who commit so early in the process haven't done their due diligence. I suppose on balance the policy is a good thing since we've only dealt with a couple decommits. I'm sure it would have been a lot more had the policy not been in place.

OSU did pull that dude out of Cass Tech, causing Michigan fans to freak out that Urban tapped into our pipeline. I don't know what pipeline they're worried about. Cass Tech? Wake me when one of the 15 stars we pull out of there doesn't rob the pizza guy.

you called them equal partners not me kemosabi...

I merely pointed out that at 17/18 they are old enough to do many things and THINK and understand what they are doing/committing to is not too much to ask. Maybe it's how I was raised...in the old school your word is your bond type of society...not this everyone gets a trophy, let's make sure johnny or joey's feelings don't get hurt...

fuck that...if you make a decision stick with the fucker unless there are extenuating circumstances (family illnes, etc)...I would have no problem for the MSU verbal to tell urban to fuck off I am going to state...

buckeye_in_sc wrote:you called them equal partners not me kemosabi...

I merely pointed out that at 17/18 they are old enough to do many things and THINK and understand what they are doing/committing to is not too much to ask. Maybe it's how I was raised...in the old school your word is your bond type of society...not this everyone gets a trophy, let's make sure johnny or joey's feelings don't get hurt...

fuck that...if you make a decision stick with the fucker unless there are extenuating circumstances (family illnes, etc)...I would have no problem for the MSU verbal to tell urban to fuck off I am going to state...

You'd also have no problem with him if he returned a pick 6 against Michigan (to make the score 37-14, Buckeyes).

For the most part this has nothing to do with old school, my word is no longer my bond values. Coaches are ruthless salesmen and the recruits are the sucker with a gold card and no idea what MSRP is. You can reference willing seller/willing buyer all you want, but we all know how psychology works on the sales floor. Now apply that to a 16-year-old who gets a phone call from Urban Meyer and is told he's their #1 target but better commit before this other guy does. And even when a recruit does commit, either verbally or by signing an LOI, at no point is the agreement ever equally binding. The institution can renege on their commitment at any point in the process. The recruit only has that VERY SAME OPTION during the recruiting process.

The obvious solution to this shit show are the things Lefty mentioned, though I like your analysis that this is society's fault though and not the inevitable outcome of an arms race. That certainly explains the flipping phenomenon.

Ethically speaking, it goes against my grain, unless the kid in question has decommitted and reopened the recruiting process, or contacts you first.

But given the nature of recruiting today, I think you have to do it.

I personally think (like Lefty and that has been mentioned)...you want to discourage flipping...add an early signing period...much like basketball...why doesn't football do it? Makes all the sense.

I just added that I come from a different era man...period. I realize today word is bond doesn't mean shit...and yes there is an arms race (I pointed to that prior)...I guess the end game is there are a multitude of variables that lead to flipping/decommittment...end of story

schmick wrote:The NCAA needs to put in an early signing day, let kids sign with the school they want on August 21st, then if any school other than the one they have signed with contacts them, that's a recruiting violation and the contacting school loses scholarships.

Careful what you wish for, SC "fan" and all.

schmick wrote:The NCAA needs to put in an early signing day, let kids sign with the school they want on August 21st, then if any school other than the one they have signed with contacts them, that's a recruiting violation and the contacting school loses scholarships. Allow the player out of the early commitment if there is a coaching change at the school they signed with in August.

No way do you have signing day in Aug. Earliest I would want to see that would be the last week of Sept and would prefer the first week of Oct. This would still allow for campus visits during the Sr season.

No way in hell would schools agree to let recruits out of their LOI if there was a coaching change. Again you are signing with a school not a coach. Nowhere on the LOI does it mention the coach. It does however mention the school multiple times.

Don't you know, hypotheticals only extend so far as Lefty would like them to.

Agree that any time after a kid signs no other schools can contact or talk to them.

I don't agree on either coaching changes or signing before the season starts. If a player wants to play for a coach instead of a school then don't sign until the first game. Otherwise you are signing with the school.

As for the signing date this isn't as big a deal for me, but I think kids should still be able to take visits during their sr season before they sign.

Totally disagree on player movement when coaches move. Might as well let everyone transfer at the end of every season.

Left Seater wrote:Totally disagree on player movement when coaches move. Might as well let everyone transfer at the end of every season.

Yeah, you might as well, since that's when their scholarship ends.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Totally disagree on player movement when coaches move. Might as well let everyone transfer at the end of every season.

Yeah, you might as well, since that's when their scholarship ends.

You must have missed the part where I wanted the scholarships to be binding on the school's part till graduation (5years).

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Totally disagree on player movement when coaches move. Might as well let everyone transfer at the end of every season.

Yeah, you might as well, since that's when their scholarship ends.

You must have missed the part where I wanted the scholarships to be binding on the school's part till graduation (5years).

Sorry, that must have been in one of your posts that go more than two sentences. I don't read those.

Good to know you like your info in twitter size bites.

Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is ethical.

Case in point: the entire SEC.

Jsc810 wrote:You follow those rules, you are ethical.

Slavery used to be legal.

Yes, over signing is completely ethical. Cutting kids on scholarship is completely ethical.

So everything that is legal is ethical? Excellent analysis.

So if I call you something that is sexist, racist and goes against all common decency, as long it isn't libel or slanderous it is ethical?

Jsc810 wrote:Right, and many of our Founding Fathers had slaves.

You can't apply today's standards to history.

If no rules are broken, then there is not a problem. If you don't like the rules, then change them.

But don't bitch about someone who is following the rules.

Oh I get it: slavery was ethical at the time.

If it's ethical so long as there's no rule against it, then there would never be any reason to change the rules.