Recruiting Debate Poll

[aphilso1]

I’m curious what most people think on these two issues.  Not necessarily what your answer is specific to this particular recruiting cycle and its recent turn of events, but more so what your general thoughts are on the matters.  I personally answered “Yes” to both questions.  Here’s my logic.

 

First of all, speaking as someone who writes and negotiates contracts for a living, a change of this nature absolutely is considered a rescinsion of an offer.   So technically speaking, the offer has been removed and replaced with a different scholarship offer.

 

Logistically speaking, I think the definition of pulling a scholarship wouldn’t even be debated if you view it as an academic scholarship rather than an athletic one.  Can you imagine if your kid had a full-ride academic scholarship based on her ACT score and class rank, and then a year later the school comes to her and says the scholarship is now contingent upon completing a year of additional non-collegiate schooling?  Would you really look your kid in the eye and say “Cheer up, Honey.  They didn’t pull your scholarship.  They just added some additional contingencies and are making you delay your life for year”?  Nope, nope, nope.  You’d view it as a scholarship offer that is no longer on the table, and move on to whatever school is Plan B.  I’m not opining that what was done was right or wrong.  But c’mon people, call a spade a spade. 

 

On to question #2.  For a school with limited historical success like DONU, there is more value in keeping one scholarship open, rather than signing a kid who may or may not ever crack the rotation.  More often than not, we’re not going to sign the prototypical Top 50 player out of high school.  But we can posture ourselves to land guys like Paul White, who is looking for a school at a time when most teams don’t have a scholarship available.  So would you rather sign a 13^th player in the spring, knowing that he will likely not crack this year’s rotation of 7-9 players?  If so, you’re hoping that he will develop into a decent role player within a few years, but the odds are that he will transfer after his frosh or sophomore year.  Or would you rather keep that position open for a potential game changer?  I’ll admit, often those potential studs come with risk (such as White’s health, in this particular case).  If you’re Duke, you can say no to high risk/high reward players and just roll out a roster of 13 low risk/high reward players.  We’re not Duke.  We can always recruit enough role players to fill out a rotation, but getting program changers requires taking on some risk – risks like only fielding 12 scholarship players, and signing guys that may never get back to 100% healthy.

[nustudent]

Neither answer is black or white/yes or no.

 

Does it constitute an official pulling of the offer?   No.   But it certainly doesn't look good and some people can perceive it as such, because you are amending the offer to the extent it's not actionable now.

 

As far as the scholarship numbers go....you never want to take a guy for the sake of taking one.   But at the same time....you always want to strive to be full at the end of the signing period.   Attrition can and will happen.

[49r]

Neither answer is black or white/yes or no.

 

Does it constitute an official pulling of the offer?   No.   But it certainly doesn't look good and some people can perceive it as such, because you are amending the offer to the extent it's not actionable now.

 

As far as the scholarship numbers go....you never want to take a guy for the sake of taking one.   But at the same time....you always want to strive to be full at the end of the signing period.   Attrition can and will happen.

 

Not actionable?  How do you figure?  I mean, how was it ever actionable in the first place, and if it was, what makes it not so now?  

 

 

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "actionable"?

[nustudent]

 

Neither answer is black or white/yes or no.

 

Does it constitute an official pulling of the offer?   No.   But it certainly doesn't look good and some people can perceive it as such, because you are amending the offer to the extent it's not actionable now.

 

As far as the scholarship numbers go....you never want to take a guy for the sake of taking one.   But at the same time....you always want to strive to be full at the end of the signing period.   Attrition can and will happen.

 

Not actionable?  How do you figure?  I mean, how was it ever actionable in the first place, and if it was, what makes it not so now?  

 

 

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "actionable"?

 

What I mean by that is that we are not allowing him to sign and come aboard now as was the original expectation when the scholarship was verballed two years ago.   Does he still have an offer...sure...but it's not for another year.   The offer for this year really doesn't stand anymore.

[49r]

Okay.  I thought you were saying that he wasn't able to sue us any more, implying that he had been before.  Didn't make any sense.

 

 

Carry on.