|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
I know some will disagree with me on this
Jun 6, 2012, 12:52 PM
|
|
I fully support Dabo's view of commitment as a marriage.
However, I wish we required committed recruits decomit before visiting Clemson.
Acting high and mighty about McDonald when going hard after a UM commit seems like we take the stance "I wouldnt let my wife cheat on me but Im ok with someones wife cheating with me", which sounds funny but isnt exactly the moral high ground family environment Clemson is trying to show.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
how about instead of just TDing me, you tell me why you disagree***
Jun 6, 2012, 1:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
I disagree. Using Dabo's definition of commitment -
Jun 6, 2012, 1:04 PM
|
|
If a kid is willing to come to Clemson on a visit, then he's not really committed somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
you can say that but
Jun 6, 2012, 1:27 PM
|
|
Using that logic if a married woman is willing to sleep with me she isnt really married...but she is.
I respect Dabos view on commitment, Clemson has built a reputation that its not easy to poach our commits.
It just reminds me of last nights deadliest catch episode, when one of the captains hired a new deckhand, he personally went to the deckhands ols captain and explained he wasnt poaching his workers and the worker had come to him. Dabo is a standup guy. He is building a well respected program. We didnt accept davis's brother for a visit because he was committed, I just want more consistency across the board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94221]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95515
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If you just have to use the man/woman relationship...
Jun 6, 2012, 1:46 PM
|
|
then you'd have to use the Traditional Mormon model.
A man who already has many wives offers to husband a young woman on condition that she not entertain offers from other men. The woman agree and an engagement exist.
Why the hail did you pick out such a difficult example of commitment to explain and understand?
Now, a certain wife's younger sister wanted an offer but she was a slut and had already been seen with the mans sworn enemy.
Oh yeah, her breastestis were disproportional to her buttocks and her breath wasn't all that great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4269
Joined: 8/17/99
|
Re: you can say that but
Jun 6, 2012, 2:07 PM
[ in reply to you can say that but ] |
|
They aren't married until they sign. I don't want my fiancee seeing other guys. But, If your fiancee reciprocates my advances then game on.
In the end Dabo is doing what he thinks best for Clemson. He doesn't want lose out on other players for someone who he isn't 100% committed. He also wants to bring the best players he can regardless if they are committed elsewhere. He can't force them to visit. It has to be something they would like to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
There is nothing wrong with looking
Jun 6, 2012, 1:40 PM
[ in reply to I disagree. Using Dabo's definition of commitment - ] |
|
sometimes that reaffirms your committment to the school.
I'm married, but it doesn't stop me from going to the strip joint every now and then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19610]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17271
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: There is nothing wrong with looking
Jun 6, 2012, 1:42 PM
|
|
No way I'd ever put that on an open forum. You're brave lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11435]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14500
Joined: 1/2/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
I agree
Jun 6, 2012, 1:39 PM
|
|
I've said it before. We don't have much "moral high ground" on this since we will take visits from committed players. We are asking for the definition of committment to mean one thing for us and another for other schools. And maybe there are certain situations where that could hold. For example, we tell a couple of players that we are only taking 1 person at that position. Then we need to make sure to protect ourselves. But as long as we take visits from committed players, we can't have that as a blanket policy.
Recruitment is like dating. At most a committed player is "going steady." You aint married until you sign the NLI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Agree.***
Jun 6, 2012, 1:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [227]
TigerPulse: 43%
Posts: 568
Joined: 9/1/03
|
Re: I agree
Jun 6, 2012, 1:52 PM
[ in reply to I agree ] |
|
Agree..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24498]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13979
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I see the point. However, Dabo does not need to assume a
Jun 6, 2012, 1:55 PM
|
|
certain understanding the commit has with the other school. Dabo obviously communicates what commitment means to him: if you will do X we promise to do Y, IE, not recruit that other guy. Other schools do not do this. Its not for Dabo to figure that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 135
Joined: 1/28/07
|
I agree. Dabo has no way to know what level commitment
Jun 6, 2012, 2:26 PM
|
|
a recruit might have with another school.
If a young guy wants to make "sightseeing" visits he should do them first. Then if Dabo still has an opening the kid can take the offer. At that point Dabo wants the recruit to stop the process from his end - indicating a full commitment. The other schools can do whatever they like as far as continuing to contact the player - it's a free country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1429]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2450
Joined: 3/19/01
|
Re: I know some will disagree with me on this
Jun 6, 2012, 1:59 PM
|
|
I agree with you that it should work the same both ways. I actually don't care at all which way Dabo goes with this about allowing our "commitments" to visit elsewhere. However, I do believe he should be consistent. Otherwise, he comes off as a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2533]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 4161
Joined: 10/10/08
|
commitment is analagous to engagement
Jun 6, 2012, 2:30 PM
|
|
... not marriage. It can be broken off. Signing LOI and contract is marriage. Two different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
Not according to Dabo
Jun 6, 2012, 2:50 PM
|
|
He says commitment is like marriage, not engagement.
I'm fine with your viewpoint, I'm fine with Dabo's viewpoint. I just want it to be a two way street for consistencies stake.
If we don't let our commits go on visits, make commit to other schools decommit if they want to go on an official visit to Clemson.
If we let our commits go on visits to other schools, feel free to think of a commitment as "engagement" and continue to go after all recruits, regardless of whether they are committed somewhere else or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
That is the problem. You are defining commitment the
Jun 6, 2012, 11:36 PM
|
|
same for each school. Dabo defines it for Clemson. Other Coaches allow players to take visits and so they define it for their programs. He is not going to impose his definition on other schools. So coaches and recruiting services are using the same word for 2 different things. Although it would make it easier to understand you don't get to define it for them.
the marriage analogy breaks down in this way. Its marriage to Clemson to give a commitment.
Its Engagement at other schools and going steady at still others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16264]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12790
Joined: 11/14/09
|
I see no hypocrisy in Dabo's approach to commitments.
Jun 6, 2012, 3:06 PM
|
|
He views a commitment to Clemson as a special event for a young man, and the beginning of a long and trusting relationship between our program and the athlete. If they're committed elsewhere yet they're willing to entertain offers and overtures from us, then they're not truly committed elsewhere. If they're committed to us and they're doing the same, then they're not truly committed to us and can therefore be dropped from our pursuit.
I don't know if it's as much about "commitment" in general as a measure of a young man's character as it is about being "committed to Clemson." Dabo's building something special in the hills and he views those kids who choose us over our competition as bringing something special into the equation. His history shows he drops kids who are not being above board with their actions concerning recruiting, which he feels will spill over into other areas of the program once they're in the program.
He knows full well that all of our current commitments are still being recruited by other programs, and will be up until signing day, and he is, rightfully so, doing the same with other schools' commitments. It doesn't mean that once he has a commitment to his program, and that commitment becomes tainted in some form or fashion, that he's not in a position to release the commitment. He wants kids who are fully committed to our program, and there's nothing hypocritical or unethical about that approach at all. It's just the way he rolls, and so far the results have been very positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
I agree committing to Clemson is very special, heck
Jun 6, 2012, 3:51 PM
|
|
When I decided just to attend Clemson, let alone play a sport, it was a special moment. However, we are basically asking commitments from kids and their parents, special kids yes, but still kids. Everyone that cares about these kids is looking for one of these big time programs to try and screw them. Lots of these people have seen kids getting the shaft their entire lives. If that asst coach hadnt posted on twitter, I doubt nearly as many people would be upset with him arguing with Dabo.
The thing is, Clemson should draw a line somewhere. If you truly believe committment to be as special as what you tell your players, respect all commitments as such. Just because she isnt your wife doesnt mean her marriage is meaningless.
With high schoolers, I guarantee Clemson would gain more as a program by consistency than having a grey area when it comes to our commits and other schools commits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2683]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2751
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Here's the difference as far as I can tell
Jun 6, 2012, 4:02 PM
|
|
I think that Dabo and Clemson view a scholarship offer as binding if the player commits verbally. Once that verbal is given, the scholarship offer will not be rescinded regardless of whether there are other, more highly-rated players that might come our way.
I'm not sure that all other schools do things that way. Receiving an offer and verbally accepting it, at some schools, may not mean a whole lot - the scholarship offer might be pulled if a better prospect comes along.
Since Dabo is really committing a spot in the upcoming class, he expects a similar commitment from the player giving the verbal commitment. But since a verbal commitment at other schools may not mean that the school is as committed as Clemson would be, we allow athletes with verbal commitments to visit Clemson.
Please correct me if this is all a bunch of hooey. It's just what I infer from what I've read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
I understand you perfectly, and you are right, other
Jun 6, 2012, 4:08 PM
|
|
Schools will not take commitment as seriously. However since we do, we should explain to our recruits how seriously we take it. If you are interested at all in playing for the tigers, you dont commit to another school, because in our eyes commitment means you arent interested in us, therefore we arent interested in you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23426
Joined: 8/16/03
|
You can bang a stripper before signing day.***
Jun 6, 2012, 4:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
As long as you are ok with your future cosigner doing the
Jun 6, 2012, 4:20 PM
|
|
Same
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23426
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Equality of stripper banging is my political agenda.***
Jun 6, 2012, 9:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I don't see a problem. Clemson makes it clear that if you
Jun 6, 2012, 4:19 PM
|
|
commit then don't visit other schools. That is pretty plain and if the player commits then stick to your word or don't commit in the first place. If say Georgia doesn't care if their committments visit other schools then why should Clemson not let them visit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
Mainly because of how our recruits and those that care about
Jun 6, 2012, 4:25 PM
|
|
Them see it.
I could care less about UGA, in fact Id love to screw em over. However our commits and their family may see it hypocritical to not allow them to go with the rest of their elite-level-players high school team to see a school when we are begging one of thats schools commits to come visit here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The recruit and their families KNOW what is expected
Jun 6, 2012, 10:26 PM
|
|
when they commit. I don't think that Dabo is stuttering when he tells them. If they think that it is a problem, the DON'T COMMIT!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
I'm aware that they know what is expected. However, that
Jun 6, 2012, 10:47 PM
|
|
doesn't mean it isn't a little off to do the exact opposite in respect to other recruits.
I'm with you that the parents/recruits know, however, if we are more consistent in handling it, they'll like that policy a lot more.
If I was a recruit, and someone said to me "hey, if you commit to us, you can't take any visits elsewhere" and then say "but if you commit somewhere else, we still want you to visit us"... I'd be a little perplexed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1431]
TigerPulse: 56%
Posts: 2153
Joined: 1/29/12
|
Nobody's actually committed...
Jun 6, 2012, 4:36 PM
|
|
until they send their papers in on national signing day.
Visiting another school after "verbally committing" is no different than going to a strip club for a bachelor party. So long as it's "look but don't touch", no rules have been broken...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2642
Joined: 7/14/11
|
And thats a perfectly valid way to look at it, as
Jun 6, 2012, 4:48 PM
|
|
Long is you dont consider "your commits " different from "everybody elses commits"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's an agreement between the recruit and Clemson. The terms
Jun 7, 2012, 1:13 AM
|
|
of the agreement are perfectly laid out, for both parties. If you reneg on the agreement, then the agreement is null and void. Period. An 18 year old can vote and go to war; he is expected to understand the simple terms.
I know you're not the smartest bulb in the closet, Faddy, but please stop exposing it so readily. Let me know if you need to be smacked in the face again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [44]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 149
Joined: 6/5/12
|
Re: I know some will disagree with me on this
Jun 6, 2012, 9:28 PM
|
|
Several points here:
First, Clemson doesn't just "let" prospects that are committed to other schools visit Clemson. If the coaches have the understanding that a committed prospect elsewhere has interest in CU, and CU has them high on their board of need, then they will certainly and strongly encourage the prospect to visit Clemson. They play a very strong role in it. So yes, it's blatantly hypocritical...
Second: Clemson's coaches will hard-sell Clemson to prospects to commit early to them: they bring in top prospects high on their board, who visit during Junior Days, camps, etc., and take them into their offices, close the door, and oftentimes keep them there for several hours hard-selling their program, trying to get the prospect to break down and commit.
It's been reported many times, going back to when Bowden was HC, but carrying on into the Swinney era. There have been many times where prospects committed, then shortly afterwards de-commit saying the reason was they felt pressured at first, but then they get home to their parents, and are told to de-commit because it was too premature....
We all know the trend for recruiting in football is to commit earlier and earlier: used to be, the only commitments you got prior to a prospect's senior season starting was due to it being a Legacy, or a kid of alumni who was raised knowing he's going to that school...
Nowadays, we're seeing more and more commitments in the summertime, and even into the spring. With this trend in recruiting, a coaching staff insisting on a prospect to make a commitment, then hold onto it regardless of what happens later in the process, without being able to at least look elsewhere, or even go to summer camps with his HS teammates to prepare for his final season, is a very hard sell for any college program.
IMO, this practice will ultimately hurt more than help CU. There will be prospects who felt rushed into committing who later on find out there are other possible options opening up. They were still honestly, sincerely wanting to come to CU, but now they are losing their offers. As with Prince, and now with McDonald, the CU coaching staff seems to be making spectacles out of themselves with their responses to those kids or their coaches, when the kids' reasons sound rational.
Those things will linger with those high schools, their coaches and the kid's families. Long after Swinney has moved on.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2061]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 1665
Joined: 1/26/05
|
You are correct!!!!
Jun 7, 2012, 7:48 AM
|
|
I DO disagree with you on this
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Good point***
Jun 7, 2012, 7:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4898
Joined: 6/27/03
|
Quite the conundrum***
Jun 7, 2012, 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
