Should The Hogs have a no visit rule for committed recruits?

[Vantage 8 dude]

Like Porkrinds, you missed my point.

If you want to chase commits from other schools, go for it.

Just dont make our commits live by a different rule. Let them go where they want, when they want.

Otherwise, youre a hypocrite.

Thats not self righteous. Its just righteous.

Didn't miss your point whatsoever. We have the right to establish whatever rules we want. And to NOT try to persuade other kids who may have made commits to other programs to consider the Hogs is down right recruiting suicide. So as to your "righteous" approach let's call it what it is: DUMB and self-defeating!!! BTW as has been pointed out numerous times, the recruits are plainly told what the rules/expectations are making a commitment are well before they elect to do so. IF the decide to do so and then visit elsewhere they know the consequences.

[PorkRinds]

I don't think it's character related at all. Kids make wrong, or perceived wrong decisions all the time. There's nothing wrong with them making sure they made the best decision for themself. All we do is ask them to de-commit, we haven't pulled their offer, or quit recruiting them, or burned the bridge down. This allows us to move on if necessary. We may have 1B who is ready to commit to that position and now knows that it's available to the next in line. If it's out in the public, everyone knows where everyone stands, although as you know, the schools can't mention the recruits, or tell their side of recruiting.

Exactly right. It keeps us from being left with empty hands on signing day.

[Steef]

Didn't miss your point whatsoever. We have the right to establish whatever rules we want. And to NOT try to persuade other kids who may have made commits to other programs to consider the Hogs is down right recruiting suicide. So as to your "righteous" approach let's call it what it is: DUMB and self-defeating!!! BTW as has been pointed out numerous times, the recruits are plainly told what the rules/expectations are making a commitment are well before they elect to do so. IF the decide to do so and then visit elsewhere they know the consequences.

I have never once said we didnt have that "right". Not once. I HAVE said over and over that its hypocritical to live by two sets of rules.

I hope Bret isnt a hypocrite.

Thats as plain as I can make it without using crayons.

[Steef]

You know, I understand where everyone is coming from on this but it does make our stance look a little disingenuous when we ask our players who commit to not make any other visits.

On it's face, I understand that stance and the reasoning for it. You are asking kids to have character and saying to them that if you want to commit, think carefully about it because once you give us your commitment, our expectations of you will then be that all other "official visits" or really, visits of any kind to other schools, cease. In return, we agree to guarantee you a scholarship spot in our future class and we will plan accordingly for you to be here to fulfill our needs at your position. We expect that kind of character and commitment from our future Razorbacks.

The question about this that I have is that if other schools have the same requirement that we have, yet we manage to dredge up some interest from one of those players committed to another school (whose status with that school hasn't otherwise changed from immediate scholarship to Blueshirt or the like) and they then want to come visit our school, do we view them as having less character and therefore, maybe someone we wouldn't want to consider as a result, because they broke the trust of the bargain that they had struck with the other school? Or is it all about how good the player is and then if we are successful, try to impose our standard on him, that he chose not to honor at the previous school?

Just asking.

If we're going to market ourselves as "uncommon" (havent seen evidence of that, but one can hope)...that directly implies we live by a higher code of honor.

Someone in the tgread earlier likened it to being engaged. If you ARE...then it's not unreasonable to expect your fiance to stop dating.

Why then, is it okay to ask someone who is engaged to someone else...for a date?

If they CALL you for a date, they are already displaying a willingness to violate their engagement...hence, they are already NOT uncommon.

If you dont want to live by a code of honor....so be it. But dont PRETEND that you do. As in....actually using "uncommon" on the tshirts you sell.

The solution is simple. If you want to woo commits from other programs....let your commits date around too. That wouldnt be particularly UN-common. But it wouldnt be hypocritical, either.

[ricepig]

I have never once said we didnt have that "right". Not once. I HAVE said over and over that its hypocritical to live by two sets of rules.

I hope Bret isnt a hypocrite.

Thats as plain as I can make it without using crayons.

Well, it doesn't matter what you or I think, Bret has his rules for our commits, and for our "recruits". It's called recruiting.

[zebradynasty]

Folks we are making this too hard! The policy is without a doubt hypocritical when we pursue kids when they have committed to other schools. The fact that other schools could adopt the same policy as BB is irrelevant. We would still pursue kids that have committed to other schools. I don't think this is a high crime against the states! It's what is best for our program and it's not breaking any rules and everyone is aware of it up front. As for how it looks...it's no different than telling your kid not to smoke long as he's in your house even though you smoke. Is it hypocritical? Yes, but it's still what's best for your kid. Your house your rules.

I've never like Arkansas marketing itself as the last bastion of morality in the NCAA!

[a0ashle]

I don't think it's character related at all. Kids make wrong, or perceived wrong decisions all the time. There's nothing wrong with them making sure they made the best decision for themself. All we do is ask them to de-commit, we haven't pulled their offer, or quit recruiting them, or burned the bridge down. This allows us to move on if necessary. We may have 1B who is ready to commit to that position and now knows that it's available to the next in line. If it's out in the public, everyone knows where everyone stands, although as you know, the schools can't mention the recruits, or tell their side of recruiting.

This is too difficult for the "jilted lover" fans to grasp. The policy Isn't a rebuke of visiting while committed, so not hypocritical for us to go after committed recruits.

People comparing to engagement are pulling that out of nowhere, but let's use the analogy to its fullest.

In this case, your soon to be SO says, "you can date, but I won't consider us to be engaged anymore, I'll be dating too and it's possible I find someone else, but if not we can be engaged when you are ready to stop dating." The difference between the engagement analogy told before and this one is anger, there is no anger, malice, spite in CBB's policy, no offers pulled, none of that. Just completely open, honest and up front understanding.


Now on the flip side, if we date an engaged person, whose fiancé is completely ok with dating during the engagement, how is that hypocritical? It's none of our business what agreement they have.

[PorkRinds]

This is too difficult for the "jilted lover" fans to grasp. The policy Isn't a rebuke of visiting while committed, so not hypocritical for us to go after committed recruits.

People comparing to engagement are pulling that out of nowhere, but let's use the analogy to its fullest.

In this case, your soon to be SO says, "you can date, but I won't consider us to be engaged anymore, I'll be dating too and it's possible I find someone else, but if not we can be engaged when you are ready to stop dating." The difference between the engagement analogy told before and this one is anger, there is no anger, malice, spite in CBB's policy, no offers pulled, none of that. Just completely open, honest and up front understanding.


Now on the flip side, if we date an engaged person, whose fiancé is completely ok with dating during the engagement, how is that hypocritical? It's none of our business what agreement they have.

It's easy to understand. Some seem to simply want to create an issue where there is not one. 

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

I will leave it to the guy who makes $4.5 mil/ur to decide

Same here.... I selected 3...

[Farmer Hogget]

I wondered who would ask it. Not surprised it was you.

And I agree with you. If we insist that our recruits dont visit other schools, we are hypocrites to recruit anyone who's committed anywhere else.

How is that hypocritical?  BB isn't responsible for determining the recruiting policy of all the other schools in the nation.  ONLY the policies for Arkansas recruiting.  If the other schools don't have that policy that's their business.  Furthermore, all you haters would be all over BB if there was a chance to flip a recruit from another school and he didn't try!  If other schools don't want their "commits" visiting other schools, then they are free to implement the same policy as Arkansas.

[Farmer Hogget]

If we're going to market ourselves as "uncommon" (havent seen evidence of that, but one can hope)...that directly implies we live by a higher code of honor.

Someone in the tgread earlier likened it to being engaged. If you ARE...then it's not unreasonable to expect your fiance to stop dating.

Why then, is it okay to ask someone who is engaged to someone else...for a date?

If they CALL you for a date, they are already displaying a willingness to violate their engagement...hence, they are already NOT uncommon.

If you dont want to live by a code of honor....so be it. But dont PRETEND that you do. As in....actually using "uncommon" on the tshirts you sell.

The solution is simple. If you want to woo commits from other programs....let your commits date around too. That wouldnt be particularly UN-common. But it wouldnt be hypocritical, either.

If you don't see the Uncommon qualities of the Razorbacks compared to, oh, let's say, the Bobby Petrino era, then you're not really looking.  I'm amazed at the people who hate on a coach that tries to teach young men responsibility and values. 

[CDBHawg]

I voted "doesn't matter".

Because it doesn't. We've had kids visit other schools before and not had them decommit. We've also had kids "committed" elsewhere visit us.

And spin it anyway you want, Steef is right.

So, it doesn't matter and to be honest I don't care. Bret is a fine coach that doesn't cheat and appears to do things the right way. Now, just win baby!!!

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

Recruiting is really in a non-binding mess. Commitments mean nothing.  Nobody really knows what's going to happen until signing day, & all parties are trying to do what's best for them. If one party can be dishonest, why should the other party be held to a higher standard ?  If students/players can change their mind on signing day, why should the school's be held accountable to their verbal agreements?  An early signing period with half of the 25 scholarships available to use, could help solve part of the NSD problem.  At least by NSD, the coaches could have at least half of their class signed. Let's see what committed players are serious about signing with a certain school, or just playing school's along until NSD for a better offer.  By the same token, let's see what schools will let the players early sign...that are committed to that school.  Until a plan like this goes into effect, it's always going to be a complete crap shoot on signing day.  I'm voting NO to the no visit rule, since I don't think it would be beneficial for us.

[jbcarol]

SEC County: Should Bielema deserve credit, receive blame for sticking to no-visit policy?

"We have a very, very detailed conversation about, if you're gonna commit, this means we're done. You're not gonna go look at anybody else," Bielema said last fall. "It's kind of like you're getting engaged. We're not married yet; that happens in February. But you're not going out on any other dates. You're not gonna go have a cup of coffee with anybody else. You're gonna stay with what we are.

"I basically just think that in our program, you have to have an allegiance to [us]."

Those words have been proven sincere, though there's more to it than that...

He did let Patton and his family take some free trips and recruits players pledged to other schools.

[Piggfoot]

You are foolish if in today's world you believe a person's word or handshake is is bond.
The lawyers will tell you even a written contract can be broken, if there is money in it for them. Ask people who are divorced.
The commitment process is a joke.
If I were a coach and a kid I was  recruiting I may accept his commitment but if I was recruiting others at his position I would be up front. I don't expect others to have my standards. If a kid tells me he is committed and I accept and He then takes other trips I would also tell him that I would not consider his "commitment" binding. Kids taking trips are not committed. Period.

[Richard_white]

With this small class I would have that rule as well. 

In the long run, our coach is doing whats best for OUR program, not anyone else.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I voted doesn't mstter(to me).  The coach makes that decision and as long as he explains it well and treats everyone the same it's his problem.

Bigger things to worry about are APR, NCAA rules, wins and losses,  player conduct, retention etc...

[mizzouman]

to me it's hypocritical to tell your players they can't visit others but still go after  players committed to other schools . you want them to visit you but want yours to sit home . it isn't right to block our kids meanwhile chasing every one on other teams , We expect them to come even though they are committed to someone else . I know it would turn off a lot of players and push some of the top ranked players to by pass committing to us until the end

Bingo

[mizzouman]

You do know those other recruits could say to us, "no I'm committed to XYZ, I won't visit". So, it really isn't the same thing.

It's the exact same thing. 

Now, I don't care what CBB does in this regard, but cannot be a hypocrite.  If a player commits to Arkansas and CBB doesn't want him to take other visits, fine.  I'm good with that if that's how he wants to run his program.  But, at the same time, CBB cannot recruit a kid that is committed somewhere else nor should he accept a visit from that kid. 

Now, if the kid decommits, then it's OK.  But as long as he's committed, then he should back off.

[mizzouman]

No, we expect ours to say no. If we ask a committed recruit if they wish to visit us, that's between them and the school they are committed to. We can't stop our commits from being recruited by other schools, we can ask them not to take other visits.

Also, some recruits say up front that while they are committing to a certain school, they will take other visits, Bret asks our commits to be finished with their visits before committing, nowhere near hypocritical.

Look, if CBB knows he's committed to another school, he shouldn't recruit or even ask him to visit in the first place. 

[mizzouman]

CBB uses being engaged as analogy.  I get it and understand it.  If he wants to run his program that way, I'm good with it.  No issues.

But using that same analogy, if I'm engaged and CBB was a friend who is trying to hook me up with another girl, then what kind a friend is he? 

This, is basically what he's doing.

Either stay with the analogy all the way or not.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Only time it's hypocritical is if you tell a recruit we are only taking you but we keep recruiting other players for that position.  You never stop recruiting a position of need and that's true at any school.  At the end of the day our commits can de-commit and visit any school they want.  Nobody is committed until signing day and if you are taking visits you sure aren't.  I understand the rule and I'm fine with it the way things work.  On the other hand I have no proof it's the best rule so I leave it up to the coach.  It's his ass!

Also to me it's telling a player we are committed to you and you have a position on our team, if that's what a player wants his recruiting is done.  Obviously he can change his mind and if he's honest he will simply de-commit like coach ask.

If other schools don't have the same policy that's absolutely no business of ours.  We are simply recruiting to fill out needs.  The world of recruiting doesn't require you to worry about the other school nor them about you.  All are even all are duplicate.

[Pig Power]

I voted no. After going through the process with my son, there is a ton of pressure to get a verbal on the visit and I felt for him as he liked several schools. It was the last visit however, that he made the choice and we are at peace with it.

[ricepig]

Look, if CBB knows he's committed to another school, he shouldn't recruit or even ask him to visit in the first place. 

Go find that God awful Mizzou board, I don't care what your opinion, although wrong is. Bret sets his rules, other schools will likewise.

[mizzouman]

Go find that God awful Mizzou board, I don't care what your opinion, although wrong is. Bret sets his rules, other schools will likewise.

Don't care yet thinks it's wrong. Contradiction.

Anyway, that's for caring enough to make this statement.

[ricepig]

Don't care yet thinks it's wrong. Contradiction.

Anyway, that's for caring enough to make this statement.

GFL

[lasthog]

You are foolish if in today's world you believe a person's word or handshake is is bond.
The lawyers will tell you even a written contract can be broken, if there is money in it for them. Ask people who are divorced.
The commitment process is a joke.
If I were a coach and a kid I was  recruiting I may accept his commitment but if I was recruiting others at his position I would be up front. I don't expect others to have my standards. If a kid tells me he is committed and I accept and He then takes other trips I would also tell him that I would not consider his "commitment" binding. Kids taking trips are not committed. Period.

You have rightly convicted our culture, whether one is referring to business, or personal relationships, notable exceptions notwithstanding.

So guys, never, never tatoo any female's name anywhere on your body, with the exception of "Mother."

Analogous to this was the case of the young man who was so committed to Auburn that he got a tatoo proclaiming this, only to later sign with Alabama.

[mizzouman]

GFL

German Football League

[roothawg]

doesnt matter. up to coach.

[jkstock04]

Explain your reasoning after vote.

I say no. Too many double standards involved in the recruiting game. These coaches lie to the kids and their parents and vice versa. It's not like our coaches play it right down the middle either.

If we implement that rule it would do nothing to help us. "Arkansas won't even let you take other visits....we will." It's not like kids would be bound by law to follow this anyways. We don't hold the cards to do something like this even if we wanted to...we are extremely lucky for any legit SEC type athlete we get to commit regardless if it's a soft commit.

[jkstock04]

Man I find it highly comical reading through this seeing people spin this as being ok to have this rule yet at the same time still try and recruit committed guys away and get them to visit. I mean talk about hypocrisy/rose colored glasses/homer spin job.

"Uncommon"

[ricepig]

Man I find it highly comical reading through this seeing people spin this as being ok to have this rule yet at the same time still try and recruit committed guys away and get them to visit. I mean talk about hypocrisy/rose colored glasses/homer spin job.

"Uncommon"

All those other players committed elsewhere have to say to Coach Bielema is, no thanks, I'm committed to XYZ.

"Realist"

[PorkSoda]

Yes,

if you are going to visit, decommit or wait to commit.  we should still recruit them, and welcome them to recommit after their visits, but it they aren't sure, just be honest about it.  with signing rules, we can't afford to count a commit that is not going to sign. 

[PorkSoda]

Man I find it highly comical reading through this seeing people spin this as being ok to have this rule yet at the same time still try and recruit committed guys away and get them to visit. I mean talk about hypocrisy/rose colored glasses/homer spin job.

"Uncommon"

If they flip, I guess they werent all that committed now were they.

the only thing that matters is the LOI, until then its all recruiting.  the idea of a commit is a fictional concept.

[southeasthog]

I say no. Too many double standards involved in the recruiting game. These coaches lie to the kids and their parents and vice versa. It's not like our coaches play it right down the middle either.

If we implement that rule it would do nothing to help us. "Arkansas won't even let you take other visits....we will." It's not like kids would be bound by law to follow this anyways. We don't hold the cards to do something like this even if we wanted to...we are extremely lucky for any legit SEC type athlete we get to commit regardless if it's a soft commit.

Please give examples of this and "All coaches lie to recruits to an extent" is not an example.

[jbcarol]

Here's another perspective related to a current event

When Ole Miss commit Jonathan Hess first learned of coach Hugh Freeze's resignation Thursday, he thought and hoped it was a rumor.

Later Thursday, when Hess realized it was no rumor, he was suddenly forced to question his college football future.

Hess, who committed to Ole Miss last month, continues to be a sought-after recruit. Alabama and Auburn recently invited him to their camps. He declined the invitations - the camps occurred before Thursday's unexcepted news.

Hess also said other schools stopped contacting him after he shut down recruiting in mid-June. But on Thursday, his phone started ringing again.

"I like for my yeses to be yes, and my nos to be no, but that is a very big change that I did not think would ever happen," Hess said...

https://twitter.com/jdhess7/status/888184882190577665

[mizzouman]

Here's another perspective related to a current event

https://twitter.com/jdhess7/status/888184882190577665

Yeah, Bielema cannot tell his commitments to not visit other schools else the offer is pulled and at the same time recruit kids that are committed elsewhere. 

[Cinco de Hogo]

Here's another perspective related to a current event

https://twitter.com/jdhess7/status/888184882190577665

That is apples and oranges, here you have a PLAYER who likes to honor a commitment and even at that NOBOdY will blame him for looking elsewhere given the situation at Ole Miss.  CBB is looking for guys like that!   Come on down Mr Hess.

[mizzouman]

That is apples and oranges, here you have a PLAYER who likes to honor a commitment and even at that NOBOdY will blame him for looking elsewhere given the situation at Ole Miss.  CBB is looking for guys like that!   Come on down Mr Hess.

I think you read that wrong.  Bielema invited the Ol' Miss commit BEFORE Freeze resigned. 

If I'm not mistaken, he has the same philosophy at Wisconsin and complained when Urb stole some of his commitments while Bielema tries to do the same thing. 

[ThisTeetsTaken]

I think you read that wrong.  Bielema invited the Ol' Miss commit BEFORE Freeze resigned. 

If I'm not mistaken, he has the same philosophy at Wisconsin and complained when Urb stole some of his commitments while Bielema tries to do the same thing. 

Pretty much.

[Deep Shoat]

I think you boys don't understand CBB's policy.  It isn't "you can't visit".  It's "I can't consider you committed if you visit, because I don't want to be left holding the bag when you commit elsewhere on signing day".

[colbs]

I don't see anything  wrong with it at all.  It worked on Hayden and Brown last year.  First off the recruits know this before the commit.  Like someone pointed out above BB just says we will not consider you a commitment if you visit elsewhere but will continue to recruit you.  So it says hey go ahead and visit someone else but we are going to recruit a player for your spot until you a solid commitment to us.  If you want to look around then we will too.  His policy doesn't say anything about talking to other coaches. 

IMO I don't see it as being hypocritical.  If a player is looking around and committed elsewhere I am sure BB doesn't see him as being fully committed anyways.  Like I said above he is okay with them talking to other schools.  What if a kid says that he wants to decommit from a school but wants to visit first? 

[colbs]

I think you read that wrong.  Bielema invited the Ol' Miss commit BEFORE Freeze resigned. 

If I'm not mistaken, he has the same philosophy at Wisconsin and complained when Urb stole some of his commitments while Bielema tries to do the same thing. 

If I remember correctly he was complaining about Urban using negative recruiting to get them to change their commitment.  Not so much him going after guys that are committed elsewhere-big difference.

[colbs]

Yeah, Bielema cannot tell his commitments to not visit other schools else the offer is pulled and at the same time recruit kids that are committed elsewhere. 

The offer is not pulled, they are just not considered a commit.  The staff will still continue to recruit that player.  There is a difference in saying hey if you visit elsewhere you are gone for good and if you visit elsewhere you still have an offer but we will not consider you a commit.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I think you boys don't understand CBB's policy.  It isn't "you can't visit".  It's "I can't consider you committed if you visit, because I don't want to be left holding the bag when you commit elsewhere on signing day".

They refuse to understand the distinction.  It's simple, if a player is still visiting other schools he isn't committed to Arkansas, if he is visiting Arkansas he isn't committed to any school.  That is Not contradictory in the least.

[ThisTeetsTaken]

If I remember correctly he was complaining about Urban using negative recruiting to get them to change their commitment.  Not so much him going after guys that are committed elsewhere-big difference.

I remember Bielema complaining that Urban was recruiting his committed players and saying that wasn't how it's done in the Big10.  I remember thinking what a crybaby, try recruiting in the SEC. 

[PorkRinds]

Yeah, Bielema cannot tell his commitments to not visit other schools else the offer is pulled and at the same time recruit kids that are committed elsewhere.

Yeah, he can.

[Piggfoot]

It's not hypocritical to ask our recruits to get all their visits done before they commit. Its risky, but not hypocritical.

But if you do ask that, then it IS hypocritical to recruit a kid who has already committed to another school.

You're asking someone else's commit, to do something you dont want your commit to do.

That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

I disagree. The topic has become twisted. As I understand things if our coaching staff offers a recruit a scholarship and that recruit verbally pledges to commit to Arkansas and Arkansas accepts his pledge to commit to Arkansas then I should think that Arkansas is bound by that agreement. I'm not aware of our offering and then witholding an agreement. However if that recruit continues to take visits presumably looking for a "better deal" then I would question his sincerety. Telling him if he continues to be recruited by others then he should consider our offer nonbinding. There's nothing hypocritical about that. If I recall correctly when Bielema was in the Big 10 there was apparently a gentlemans agreement not to recruit another teams commits. When Urban Meyers started recruiting other teams commits he quickly learned the rules were different in the SEC. In the SEC if you don't recruit other teams recruits then you will be picked clean. People must remember that a commitment is not binding until signing day for the recruit But, unless you are Alabama or other elites then it would be suicidal to jerk an offer in the eleventh hour unless the kid doesn't qualify.