You have to be fair with these kids. The kind of policy you suggest would kill us in the recruiting wars.
So, if every player USC or OSU offered a scholarship to tried to commit you think they could take them? Every school offers a bunch of players early on in the process that they would not accept a commitment from until they struck out with a more prized recruit. Happens all the time.
I remember one of the Big10 posters here talking about this specific process, even used a different but very specific name for it, and that it wasn't allowed in their conference. As for USC, I will get specific info from a few of our recruiting experts but it's my understanding that a scholarship is offered to the top tier guys and that the mid tier players are shown interest but not specifically offered until the coaches know we'll have a spot or that their grades are okay. When it gets to the end of the year, I read frequently about players who say they have talked to USC but are still waiting on an offer. Maybe it's just semantics but the concept/term of commitable or non-commitable offers is not something I'd ever read about until here.
I think that's right. But I also think words mean sh!t. If the words we use are stringing kids along dishonestly, then that's not good. But I doubt we really do that. Word would get out pretty quickly that unless there's paper, don't believe anything LSU tells you. I haven't read anywhere (even among his detractors) that Les Miles is anything short of a man of his word.
This doesn't look like a huge problem, but there was a kid last fall from Fla. I believe, and he 'committed' then was told he really didn't have a committable offer. This is an area for improvement by the football coaches. There is some confusion on the part of the athletes, and it should be cleared up.
Non-commitable offers are not offers at all. They are invitations to offer a commitment. It then gives the school the choice to accept or reject the player's offer to commit.
