On the premium message boards, I've read several times that certain players have an "offer" but that it is not a "committable offer", and that there is, indeed, a difference between them. The attorney in me is highly confused by that. Can someone explain this to me? If an offer is not amenable to being accepted, is it really an offer? Or is it just a symbolic statement that we're not just interested, we're "really interested", but not "highly interested." Under what circumstances would you use a noncommittable offer rather than a full-blown offer or simply not offering at all?
Don't know exactly what premie articles you're talking about so it's a guess here but a few possible things come to mind. Players who are juniors in high school can't receive a "legit" offer that they can respond to so coaches extend one verbally with the understanding that when their eligibility date comes up, the offer will be made formal. The other one would be if a coach indicates to a player that they are waiting on another player(s) to make a decision and if a schollie somehow becomes available, the formal offer will be made. Lastly, an offer could be made contingent on grades or test scores i.e. can the player qualify to even get in the school. It's a big dance really. Players want lots of offers and can/will say things to get them (see Sam McGuffie). Coaches have a delicate balance between managing available schollies, keeping the best players interested but also keeping a few good ones in your back pocket in case the others fall through. Offers are often reported by players when in fact none was made so recruiting services may choose to report it as an offer while others may wait until it's confirmed by both sides.
Some players think that they have offers when they really don't. Some players claim offers from schools that haven't really extended them. Coaches send out hundreds of offers. Obviously, we cannot accept commitments from all of the athletes, so it must be managed. To my knowledge, there's technically no such thing as a non-commitable offer. However, even though some kids have a legit offer, coaches may not accept a commitment from a particular player. The offer is not a contract, which is how we can get away with it.
Reminds me of the difference between a chicken and a pig at breakfast. The chicken makes an offer, the pig makes a committment.
Well, when I posted this, I was mainly talking about message boards, not articles. At least one prominent LSU 2008 recruit that is often talked about on message boards is said to have an "offer" but not a "committable" offer. Then Scout came out with a front page article that actually puts the question squarely out there. http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=107&p=2&c=653074 Spencer Reeves has an offer, but when he tried to commit, he was told it would not be accepted. He had an "offer", but not a "committable offer". Apparently he does not know the difference between them either.
Maybe I missed it but nowhere in that article did I see that LSU had offered him. I saw that the player contacted LSU and wanted to commit.......LSU in kind, said show up at camp and we'll take a look see. He's using the argument about position switch as a reason to now save face (IMO) since it's pretty clear that he didn't have an offer. On top of that he doesn't plan to camp this summer-not such a good idea if he wants coaches to see him at a particular position. Either way, this is exactly what CParso and I were talking about. Players like to think they have an offer, say they have an offer, pretend to have an offer, and unless the school confirms it, I never believe it. Even then, the offer can still be contingent on grades, camp performance, and schollie availability.
