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

[HogFoo]

Explain your reasoning after vote.

[sowmonella]

It's like getting engaged.  Once you commit you don't continue going out with other women.

[ricepig]

Explain your reasoning after vote.

Did you vote, if so, where's your explanation?

I voted yes, if the staff and the recruits know about it up front, it's not a problem.

[FBREW000]

either way doesn't matter.  If a coach sets a standard and sticks with it, then the recruits know the rules and the standards.  Kind of like OJ... If you commit you cant acquit?  Or if it fits, you must commit... or...
LOL

[HogFoo]

Did you vote, if so, where's your explanation?

I voted yes, if the staff and the recruits know about it up front, it's not a problem.

yes I voted.  I am leaning more towards them NOT having a rule.  I was sitting on the fence with it. But after some thought, I think it may be more beneficial if they didn't have the rule.  Take Ford for example.  It was said in the Ford thread that apparently Luke stated if the Hogs didn't have the rule that he'd more than likely still be ''committed'' to Arkansas.    Yes, we know, commitments aren't what they used to be.  now we have terms like 'soft commit'  hard commit'  etc..  Obviously, if a commit is taking visits it'd be more of a 'soft commit' but as one poster stated in the other thread that made me start thinking about it.   If we removed the Hog offer to a commit because he wanted to take visits, or in Mr Fords case, he  de-committed before he started visiting other schools.  What link do they really feel towards Arkansas then afterwards?  At least if they are still 'committed' however 'soft' it is, at least there is still a link.  If they are no longer committed in any form, then they really don't have to think about Arkansas ever again if they don't want too. 

Schools that have talent oozing out the state borders I feel could have this policy with every recruit they are after.  But schools like Arkansas that don't have enough in-state talent, I don't believe that we should have a policy as this.  I think it hurts us.  Sure, we may get surprised come signing day if the player does a late switch, but the chances of us keeping that player I believe would be greater if we didn't have the rule.    Just my opinion on it. 

[ricepig]

yes I voted.  I am leaning more towards them NOT having a rule.  I was sitting on the fence with it. But after some thought, I think it may be more beneficial if they didn't have the rule.  Take Ford for example.  It was said in the Ford thread that apparently Luke stated if the Hogs didn't have the rule that he'd more than likely still be ''committed'' to Arkansas.    Yes, we know, commitments aren't what they used to be.  now we have terms like 'soft commit'  hard commit'  etc..  Obviously, if a commit is taking visits it'd be more of a 'soft commit' but as one poster stated in the other thread that made me start thinking about it.   If we removed the Hog offer to a commit because he wanted to take visits, or in Mr Fords case, he  de-committed before he started visiting other schools.  What link do they really feel towards Arkansas then afterwards?  At least if they are still 'committed' however 'soft' it is, at least there is still a link.  If they are no longer committed in any form, then they really don't have to think about Arkansas ever again if they don't want too. 

Schools that have talent oozing out the state borders I feel could have this policy with every recruit they are after.  But schools like Arkansas that don't have enough in-state talent, I don't believe that we should have a policy as this.  I think it hurts us.  Sure, we may get surprised come signing day if the player does a late switch, but the chances of us keeping that player I believe would be greater if we didn't have the rule.    Just my opinion on it. 

We didn't remove any offer, he chose to visit other schools and wasn't considered committed to us by our staff. If someone names another school as their leader, they wouldn't be committed to you, lol. When you are only going to take one at a certain position, you can't recruit other guys when you have someone who's committed for that position, although in reality, they aren't.

[PorkRinds]

As I said in the other thread it's CBb's ass on the line. If he feels like it's a policy he needs to implement then go for it.  I'm not in a position to know.

[hamsam]

If you are going to have that rule, maybe we shouldn't take any verbals until at least midway through a players high school senior season... So I voted no.

[ricepig]

If you are going to have that rule, maybe we shouldn't take any verbals until at least midway through a players high school senior season... So I voted no.

Maybe recruits should visit all the schools they are interested in before committing??

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Explain your reasoning after vote.

Should the Hogs be able to have players that are committed to other schools come for a visit in hopes that we can flip them? Would we refuse to accept their commitment to us because they were previously committed to another school? Sure we would.

[ricepig]

Should the Hogs be able to have players that are committed to other schools come for a visit in hopes that we can flip them? Would we refuse to accept their commitment to us because they were previously committed to another school? Sure we would.

Which isn't the question.

[HogCzar1]

Which isn't the question.

I vote yes. I like the policy, as long as everyone knows up front. If you commit, then you are saying you are done with your recruiting.

If, in the case, of Luke Ford, he changes his mind, then the coaches are then free to look for another player for the spot.
If Luke, or any other recruit had remained committed, then changed his mind on NSD, we would be in a bad situation.

Also, sure, we would accept a visit from another kid committed to another school. Whether or not the coach at the other school would be cool with it would be up to him.

[HogFoo]

We didn't remove any offer, he chose to visit other schools and wasn't considered committed to us by our staff. If someone names another school as their leader, they wouldn't be committed to you, lol. When you are only going to take one at a certain position, you can't recruit other guys when you have someone who's committed for that position, although in reality, they aren't.

Yes, I know, he de-committed.  He knew what Bielema had said and in the interview someone posted in another thread.  If that had not been a rule, then he said that he would probably still be committed to us. Of course it could be a two way street. If a player who is committed wants to take visits, then coaches could bring in other TEs for visits.  It goes both ways.  That might solidify one who's a 'soft commit' when he sees other recruits at his position coming in for visits.  It may also make the recruit angry.  That's when you say "well, you are taking visits, we're just making sure we aren't left holding an empty bag"  or whatever..   It makes a point to the recruit.   

  I will say that I think that the only time that we would ever really want to tell a recruit "if they visit elsewhere then we don't consider them a commit to us'' is if you are indeed only looking for 1 at the position the kid is being recruited for.  Which, in Luke Ford's case, we were only looking for 1 TE.   

    Other than that though, my opinion is that you don't tell a recruit that. Texas used to do that all the time under Mack Brown.  If you took a visit and you were a texas commit, then they pulled your schollie. Which, I always thought that was rather arrogant of them and silly.   I believe that's what Saban does as well.   But, when you are on top of the heap, you can do those kinds of things. 

[Nashville Fan]

Men make commitments Boys make promises. It says a lot to expect men to be a Razorback. I wouldn't change a thing. They know the rule when they sign.

[ricepig]

Yes, I know, he de-committed.  He knew what Bielema had said and in the interview someone posted in another thread.  If that had not been a rule, then he said that he would probably still be committed to us. Of course it could be a two way street. If a player who is committed wants to take visits, then coaches could bring in other TEs for visits.  It goes both ways.  That might solidify one who's a 'soft commit' when he sees other recruits at his position coming in for visits.  It may also make the recruit angry.  That's when you say "well, you are taking visits, we're just making sure we aren't left holding an empty bag"  or whatever..   It makes a point to the recruit.   

  I will say that I think that the only time that we would ever really want to tell a recruit "if they visit elsewhere then we don't consider them a commit to us'' is if you are indeed only looking for 1 at the position the kid is being recruited for.  Which, in Luke Ford's case, we were only looking for 1 TE.   

    Other than that though, my opinion is that you don't tell a recruit that. Texas used to do that all the time under Mack Brown.  If you took a visit and you were a texas commit, then they pulled your schollie. Which, I always thought that was rather arrogant of them and silly.   I believe that's what Saban does as well.   But, when you are on top of the heap, you can do those kinds of things. 

It's pretty simple, he says don't commit if you wish to still take other visits, so either commit and don't take visits, or not. We had some other TE's we were on before Ford, his commitment sent them elsewhere, now look at us.

[tophawg19]

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

[factchecker]

It's pretty simple, he says don't commit if you wish to still take other visits, so either commit and don't take visits, or not. We had some other TE's we were on before Ford, his commitment sent them elsewhere, now look at us.

Yep.  Ford ate up a slot when he committed.  How mad would this board have been if we let him visit while committed and he decided to flip on signing day to Bama leaving us with nobody or a lower rated recruit?

As long as we are up front with kids then Bielema's policy doesn't bother me.  Recruiting is a dirty business.  I remember Charlie Strong had kids who were committed elsewhere silently commit to Texas and flip shortly before signing day.  He also had kids go on official visits to other schools (us included) and try to convince other recruits to come to Texas. 

The whole committed but not really committed thing is just as stupid as the offer but not really an offer crap that Bama pulls.  You don't have to commit.  Nobody is forcing you to do so.  If you want to take other visits then do so.

[factchecker]

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

That's not an applicable analogy.

The analogy you are looking for is if we were to tell our commits not to visit elsewhere while bringing in higher rated recruits only to pull the original commits scholarship.  AKA the Saban method.

[ricepig]

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

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.

[tophawg19]

not really . to me , you can't tell your commits not to visit but then go out and try to get other teams commits to come visit even though you won't allow yours the same privilege .but yes it's a dirty business

[ricepig]

not really . to me , you can't tell your commits not to visit but then go out and try to get other teams commits to come visit even though you won't allow yours the same privilege .but yes it's a dirty business

It's not like we don't expect people to ask our commits to visit them, we just expect them to say no, same opportunity those we ask to visit us, have.

[VirginiaHog]

Simply said, if you want to visit other schools than your not commited.

[ArkansasI]

If you're visiting other schools, then you're not committed. Much ado about nothing.

Sorry Virginia, didn't intend to duplicate your post.  You are clearly wise. ☺

[SRV]

Try the "committed but still looking around" approach with your girlfriend/wife.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Which isn't the question.

It's just the other side of the original question.

[Steef]

It's just the other side of the original question.

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.

[ricepig]

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.

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.

[Steef]

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.

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.

[1highhog]

It's like getting engaged.  Once you commit you don't continue going out with other women.

This ^^^!!!!  I couldn't agree more with the above statement and this should me the lump sum of this whole thread.  Once you go out and sample the taste of what others have to offer and then commit to someone, that should be it.  I know the recruit hasn't signed on the dotted line, but why even say you've committed anywhere until you know for sure?

[a0ashle]

Quite few on here are looking at this wrong in my opinion. Some on here act like it's a punishment to the recruit... how exactly is it punishing them? This policy takes the decision out of their hands early in the process where otherwise they may struggle with the idea of decommiting until late in the process. He isn't mad at these kids, he wants to free them up to mAke the RIGHT decision for them.

[zebradynasty]

Nothing wrong with the policy as long as we are upfront with the recruit and his parents...Now is it hypocritical for us to pursue kids that have committed to other schools? L yes! But that's the nature of the business. NCAA is full of hypocrisy and this is minor in comparison. Sometimes it will work for us sometimes it will work against us. Even when it works against us it's not all bad. If he's not truly committed then why would we want him anyway? Why stand in a kids way of going where he really wants?

[ricepig]

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.

Nope, other schools are free to recruit our kids, just as we do other's. If they choose to visit us, fine.  Our commits are free to visit other schools, we just ask that they de-commit if they do. Is it our fault the other schools don't do the same? RD says a couple of LSU commits say they plan on visiting, should Orgeron make them de-commit? I guess in your world, nobody should recruit a player after he commits to a school?

[Steef]

Nope, other schools are free to recruit our kids, just as we do other's. If they choose to visit us, fine.  Our commits are free to visit other schools, we just ask that they de-commit if they do. Is it our fault the other schools don't do the same? RD says a couple of LSU commits say they plan on visiting, should Orgeron make them de-commit? I guess in your world, nobody should recruit a player after he commits to a school?

In my world, you live by your rules or live with tge label of hypocrite.

If you're going to recruit a kid who's committed elsewhere, then don't ask your own commits to stop taking calls or visits.

[31to6]

Explain your reasoning after vote.

Doesn't matter.

Reasoning: It is up to the coaches and the recruits to decide what the "committed" means. For some coaches and programs that seems to mean "official leader". For other coaches and programs that seems to mean "you are 100% on board".

Up to the program.

[ricepig]

In my world, you live by your rules or live with tge label of hypocrite.

If you're going to recruit a kid who's committed elsewhere, then don't ask your own commits to stop taking calls or visits.

So, we should ask any recruit that is committed to another school to de-commit before they visit us, lol. We can't dictate what the other 127 FBS schools do with their internal recruiting policies, only ours.

We don't stop them, we only ask that they de-commit from us.

[Steef]

So, we should ask any recruit that is committed to another school to de-commit before they visit us, lol. We can't dictate what the other 127 FBS schools do with their internal recruiting policies, only ours.

We don't stop them, we only ask that they de-commit from us.

Wiggle around it all you want. Its hypocritical.

No, you dont ask someone else's commit to do anything. You leave them alone.

If you want to poach...then dont ask anything of your own commits.

Pick a standard...or lack of a standard, and apply it to both sides.

[ricepig]

Wiggle around it all you want. Its hypocritical.

No, you dont ask someone else's commit to do anything. You leave them alone.

If you want to poach...then dont ask anything of your own commits.

Pick a standard...or lack of a standard, and apply it to both sides.

No wiggle to it, we only ask that they de-commit if they choose to take other visits. We have no control what other schools do.

[PorkRinds]

Wiggle around it all you want. Its hypocritical.

No, you dont ask someone else's commit to do anything. You leave them alone.

If you want to poach...then dont ask anything of your own commits.

Pick a standard...or lack of a standard, and apply it to both sides.

Our standards are ours. What other schools do isn't something we can control. This policy is to make sure we aren't left at the altar on signing day. 

[gmarv]

I voted yes, the kids know where CBB stands and thats enough for me.

[Vantage 8 dude]

I have no problem at all with the requirement. And the reason is very simple: The coaches/staff set the rules; agree with them or not, understand them or not, it's ultimate their "rear ends" on the line when it comes to recruiting/signing the talent to hopefully produce the wins. Therefore, they get to set the rules. BTW while I didn't always necessarily agree or like the rules/regulations set out by employers, I also realized that if I clearly understood them both before and after I began working, I really didn't have an option IF I wanted to work there.

And as PorkRinds also pointed out in his last post: our program's standards are ours. We can't control what other programs do/don't do. We also have the right to try convincing other kids who may have already committed to other programs to change their minds. It's called doing your best job as a recruiter/coach to develop the most effective program possible. And no, unlike the self-righteous approach of Steef, it isn't being hypocritical. I can promise if we weren't doing our best to continue pursuing kids from other programs we would hear plenty of loud complaining and gripping that we weren't being aggressive enough.

[Steef]

I have no problem at all with the requirement. And the reason is very simple: The coaches/staff set the rules; agree with them or not, understand them or not, it's ultimate their "rear ends" on the line when it comes to recruiting/signing the talent to hopefully produce the wins. Therefore, they get to set the rules. BTW while I didn't always necessarily agree or like the rules/regulations set out by employers, I also realized that if I clearly understood them both before and after I began working, I really didn't have an option IF I wanted to work there.

And as PorkRinds also pointed out in his last post: our program's standards are ours. We can't control what other programs do/don't do. We also have the right to try convincing other kids who may have already committed to other programs to change their minds. It's called doing your best job as a recruiter/coach to develop the most effective program possible. And no, unlike the self-righteous approach of Steef, it isn't being hypocritical. I can promise if we weren't doing our best to continue pursuing kids from other programs we would hear plenty of loud complaining and gripping that we weren't being aggressive enough.

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.

[parallaxpig]

Bottom line it's the coaches descrestion.  If he is successful he is rewarded. If not he's out....

[The real Hogules]

I'd vote no. My reasons are simple, we're not one of the teams that has a bumper in state crop every year, or is able to recruit on name alone. It's to our advantage to get some recruits that have already given a verbal to another and in a lot of instances higher profile universities. And how can you ask our recruits to honor their pledge to Arkansas, while trying to convince other recruits that are committed elsewhere to visit our school?

[ricepig]

Our rules are for our commits, what another school does, or doesn't allow, is up to them.

[ricepig]

I'd vote no. My reasons are simple, we're not one of the teams that has a bumper in state crop every year, or is able to recruit on name alone. It's to our advantage to get some recruits that have already given a verbal to another and in a lot of instances higher profile universities. And how can you ask our recruits to honor their pledge to Arkansas, while trying to convince other recruits that are committed elsewhere to visit our school?

That's the other school's problem. If LSU doesn't want their recruits to take other visits while committed to them, then the need to adopt that policy.

[Steef]

Our rules are for our commits, what another school does, or doesn't allow, is up to them.

You have made that point more than once. It has nothing to do with my point.

Nothing.

What other schools do is not our business. When WE use one set of rules for our kids and another set of  rules for their kids, it's
1. Legal
2. Commonplace
3. NOT 'Uncommon'
4. Hypocritical

Im done here. I get it that you disagree.

I hope Bret picks one set of rules (whichever) and applies them universally.

[ricepig]

You have made that point more than once. It has nothing to do with my point.

Nothing.

What other schools do is not our business. When WE use one set of rules for our kids and another set of  rules for their kids, it's
1. Legal
2. Commonplace
3. NOT 'Uncommon'
4. Hypocritical

Im done here. I get it that you disagree.

I hope Bret picks one set of rules (whichever) and applies them universally.

And your point is still worthless, he has his set of rules. Nobody is holding a gun to those kids to come visit us, just as kids can de-commit and go visit other schools.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

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.

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.

[ricepig]

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.

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.

[Paul]

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