I agree with Red. This kid made the commitment to us and he needs to honor it. It is a little strange though how we lose our coach and have a long "dead period" before our new coach is on board...a prime opportunity for another school to step into the picture without having to answer to anyone.
I actually like the rule that allows kids to break their commitment if there is a coaching change BUT in this case I think red hit it in that this family wanted to have some "love" from the new coach and didn't get any so now they are pouting a bit.
Not really, kids commit to coaches...#1 reason for landing kids, imo. PT, National Championship opportunities VERY important too but not #1. Anyway, that's why I say cut 'em loose but could certainly make an argument for either side.
It's not the buildings that make a business, it's the people in them. These commitments are initially garnered from a commitment to coaches. Dont take my word though, here are a few of many out there. Like I said, an argument can definitely be made either way. Coaching changes happen but being this one did before he got here I thought it was extenuating. Guess I see these things through the eyes of a parent. A year of a kid's life is a long sentence imo.
Zing AND OUCH ya sucka. :lol: That is why I made a point to say It's the total package, though so let me use your same logic to ask, if we can assume he wouldn't be interested in Brady w/out LSU, why not the opposite. Kind of goes with what I was saying- he commited to a package, removing part of it could be a deal-breaker. LSU w/out Brady= Brady without LSU. As far as technically though, red was right about what the LOI's literal/legal implications. Jus trying to have a peaceful resolution here, where's all that Southern hospitality? Bunch of hard-azzes. :wink: LSU certainly has no legal obligations to release him, the rules are very clear. Since the rules are clear, LSU is also not "Wrong" in deciding to make him sit out. Sometimes, however, you do things cause they're the right thing to do, they feel good. As far as we're concerned the damage is done, why not spread some good will, could be a gesture that catches other potential recruits attn. One thing I may be overlooking, anyone see any harm that could come in the future if we did release him?
If a rule is ignored for a period of tme it becomes common practice thereby setting a precident. The NCAA should put a stop to it without a petition by the athlete and a hearing.
“Every kid I’ve ever recruited, it’s always been my responsibility to get that young man to understand that he wants to pick a school based off of the institution and his teammates. That’s the most important thing. We want to have kids who want to be here.” Coach Trent Johnson 2theadvocate.com | Sports | Johnson touches on state of LSU basketball program — Baton Rouge, LA That says it all, doesn't it? What I want to know is under the rules how quickly do we have Morgan's schollie back if he does back out. To me the issue is the loss perhaps of that extra schollie for recruiting during the year b/c a lame recuit is sitting on it, but I don't think at this stage, with the circumstances with coaching change and available talent it matters tremendously. It'd be nice to know if you can throw a schollie at a kid like Chris Bass, though cuz you have one. Here are some of the available LA and TX '08 recruits if we wanted another kid... http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recr...acker/prospects?season=2008&pos=null&state=LA http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recr...status=null&toggle=state&season=2008&state=TX
