You have some valid points. Let me play devil's advocate. Many kids get held on the rope with the promise of an offer down the line.......if someone better doesn't come along. So in the context of engagement, it would be like telling a girl that you'd like to propose but will wait to see if someone hotter happens to walk by. Players on the "B" list learn to play their own hand then by accepting an offer but still wanting to take a visit. Some kids don't really know themselves where they fit in terms of other talent. Okay, if you're Julio Jones you do but that's not the type of player we're talking about. The Julio's of the world either know where they are going or they are popular/talented enough to know they'll get an offer regardless. Kids who didn't camp and don't know how they measure up would still like the opportunity to travel to other parts of the country, see other teams and facilities, and be admired. Who wouldn't and I can't blame them for wanting to take advantage of such an offer even if they are "committed". While CLM may not be the type to pull a schollie, there are coaches who would and where does that leave the recruit? Players are aware they may get the shaft so they do what they have to. In the end, don't you want someone who REALLY wants to play for your school? If a player can commit but then be swayed by a visit, just how committed are they? If you force an early commit there's always the possibility of the recruit feeling some resentment. CLM clearly communicates his policy so at least the kids he's talking to know the score. But what if he left it on the table that LSU is THE program, that if player X doesn't want to commit, then player Z will. Honestly the engagement thing doesn't really make a great analogy unless you're talking about a 4 year marriage. These kids will spend 3-4 years playing college ball and then it's over or for a very few, it's on to the NFL. It's a short term decision, not a lifetime commitment.
Well, I'm not against a recruit taking all of his visits. You're right. It IS his right. But if a recruit wants to take all 5 visits, fine...don't commit until you're ready. Miles' policy reguarding this is a little gray...it isn't black and white like it would appear. Miles has revoked schollies to players for committing to us and then continue to take visits (primary example is that kid from West Monroe last season) while unexplainably allowing others to take additional visits (such as Ernest McCoy last season who visited West Virginia after committing to us). Don't know the trend as to which players have gotten which treatment, but in the case of last season, we needed DE's and time was running out. And when you NEED a player at a certain position, and they keep you hanging so-to-speak, by going to additional visits, then Miles pulled the scholly on a player that was obviously on the fence, in favor of a player that possibly wanted to come here but until that point, didn't have a scholarship offer. Davis had his scholly pulled for visiting after committing, but McCoy didn't. We needed DE's in last year's class and had some wiggle room as far as the OL was concerned. So that's possibly why he pulls some schollies and not others.
I'd say it's pretty clear. McCoy's situation was pretty explainable. He made another visit because they told him he could play DLine (not his natural position, but what he preferred), and he was allowed to because at the time LSU didn't have an OLine coach. Luther's scholarship was pulled, period. He lied & it got pulled, regardless of our need for the position and what other prospects we had out there. We didn't chose to take the Mobile guy over Luther, per se. We chose to cut Luther & take our chances with what else was out there. We happened to come out ahead (or at least so it appeared at the time, we won't know how their careers turn out for some time). We needed OLine just as much as DE. Position need had nothing to do with it. Miles values character and Luther displayed a lack of it, while McCoy was honest with the coaching staff.
VBall, Why are you always picking on me?? lol You are correct with your devil's advocate stance, but I think the university offering the free ride should be in the driver's seat...not the recruit. Call me old school, naive, whatever...but although the kids obviously bring something to the table, you yourself admit that it's the education that matters...which is what the university is offering...so they should dictate the rules of engagement, and the recruits should abide by those rules...if not, see ya'.
Certainly didn't mean it as picking. Sorry about that. In this case, I see both sides of the argument and see how it can work either way. It's not really the school that's dictating the rules as much as each individual coach deciding what works for them. And if you think about it, telling the recruit to take visits IS being in the driver's seat. If you're a top notch football program like LSU, one recruit leaving doesn't create an abyss of talent but simply opens the door for a more willing combatant. While I see what you're saying about the value of an education ($150-200k at private schools over the 4 years), it's eye opening to realize just how much "power" some of these high school kids have. Look no further than the new text messaging rule from the NCAA. Coaches were texting these kids hundreds of times a day! Big name recruits help to recruit other big names. Big names put butts in seats and butts in seats leads to more ticket sales, support group membership, increased revenue for the school and increased value for the school's copyrighted items and logos not to mention the part they play in winning which helps to secure a coaches livelihood and salary increases/bonuses. I also suspect that the number of kids who would commit and then de-commit is in the minority but since it's out of the ordinary, it gets our attention. How many threads do we read about "Hey player X is still with us!"
