I understand the logistics of both, that is not the reason for the thread; I however don't understand LSU's use of this tool. It's early in the recruiting process for 2009 and there are some great players that LSU wants to lock down early, so that they have the opportunity to spend more time on other "tougher" sells. But... what I don't understand is why would you give a kid an uncommitable offer this early? Wine him, dine him, tell him you really want him to play for you, but just need to see how well he performs this season and what position he looks like he would excel in... but why crush some kid with an offer and then have to call him and say, "Well its an offer, but just not right now because we need to see if we can pull anyone better than you". Montrell Conner looks like a solid LB prospect, so why would LSU offer this kid and then pull the "well, you didn't have a REAL offer". I understand... to an extent the Tahji Jones situation because of his grades... still, why even offer him. Why not tell him, "look, your grades are a big issue, so if you can improve in the classroom, then you will have an offer waiting from LSU". Even at this point, you can renig if you lock down another prospect corner, while still giving the kid an incentive for the year. But hitting these kids early with disappointment might not be the wisest approach.
A non committable offer isn't an offer at all. It's like offering someone a piece of cake and then telling them they can't eat it. IMO it makes no sense and only confuses the kid and his parents in at least some cases.
A scholarship offer is a written piece of paper. Prospects often think they have an offer because coaches tell them that we really want them to be a Tiger, or we may even tell them that they have an offer - but unless they have that piece of paper they do not have a real scholarship offer. Even with the written piece of paper, that doesn't guarantee we will accept a commitment at any point in time. We may give legit offers to 10 LB's, but we can't take all 10. The reason for all the confusion is that prospects want offers. They want to be wanted. The evaluation process is long and we don't want a prospect to get turned off of us because they don't have an offer when we may have one in the future. It's unfortunate that these instances happen where recruits commit publically, only to find out that they do not have committable offers, but it is a self-perpetuating issue. The prospects want an offer or they lose interest, and coaches want to keep them interested so they tell them they have an offer.
In the SEC only? I believe it's NOT done by the Big 10 or the Pac 10 although I can't say for any other conference.
CParso that still doesn't explain a "non committable" offer. You either have an offer or you do not, what is a "non committable" offer, a piece of paper with no writing on it?
Consider... A committable offer is getting invited in for a post-bar-closing drink. You're in. A non-committable offer is getting a phone number and a peck on the cheek. Is the phone number real? You don't know yet...
