Commitment?

Therefore a student athlete need only discuss it with the coach/school committed to and get a release to be free to enter the recruiting market.

In essence, you're saying that the kid can break his contract with the coach/school that he committed to. 

On the first page of this thread, you said that a commitment was a verbal contract.

Commitment is an act of entering into an agreement based on TRUST. Breaking the commitment is breaking of trust, same as lying or stealing or cheating. All of those are breaking of trust.

Verbal commitments are legal contracts in all 50 States. While it is much more difficult to win a case involving a verbal contract than a written contract does not make a verbal contract less binding.

Why can the kid break the contract, but a rival coach is not allowed to contact that recruit, especially when the paradigm has changed?

Coaches who take the hands-off approach to student-athletes who have firm commitments is the counter-part to what the kids should do. A kid who has committed is off the market. Period.

In one instance, you say that a kid who is committed is off the market,  You also say that the kid's committment to a school is a legal contract.  Breaking that contract is a breach of trust.  You're blaming Meyer for "poaching", but you have no problem with the kid's breach of trust when he (even on his own) backs out of his "verbal contract".  Explain why you think it's ok for a kid to break what you call a contract (he's the one who made the promise) but why a coach can't contact the kid once he committed.  It makes no sense.
 
Meyer was not OSU's coach when Pittman, Dodson or any of the other "flipped" recruits committed to wherever.  Meyer simply called these kids and probably others (including Kyle Kalis, who commited and signed with Michigan), and asked them one simple question - is there any interest in Ohio State.  If the kid (Kalis, for example) said "No", Meyer moved on.  In the case of Pittman, he said "Yes".  From what I read, Meyer's initial conversation with Pittman was pretty short.  Pittman then apparently called Dantonio, said he was going to talk to Meyer, then (as Meyer put it) began "recruiting" Ohio State.  The kid REALLY wanted to go to Ohio State, but the Tressel situation scared him off.  It may have just been a matter of time before he called Meyer anyway.

Coaches offer kids a scholarship and then decide that maybe it wasn't the best decision, for a variety of reaasons.  Meyer had a commitment from a player who got into legal trouble and pulled the offer.  He had a player he made an offer to, found out something new about the kid (an apparent character issue), and told him on signing day to not sign with OSU. 

Let me guess. Meyer called the kids in question, talked to them, explained his reasons and the agreement ended up severed. In all cases, if one can believe your post, the reasons were legitimate and not that Meyer had a more highly regarded recruit he needed to carve a spot out for. Regardless of the reasons, the student-athlete is better off not being kept in a program where he is not wanted.

Meyer pulled an offer from Roger Lewis (Pickerington Central WR) when the kid was charged with two counts of rape,  Meyer also had an offer out to Davonte Neal, who was going to sign with OSU on signing day.  Meyer told Neal to not send in the LOI.  I don;t know all the specifics - all I heard was that Meyer was spooked by something going on in the Neal "camp".

You apparently do not realize that "National Signing Day" is the beginning of a multi-month signing period.

Of course I do.  Terelle Pryor signed 4-6 weeks after signing day.  Meyer was waiting 10 days or so on Stephon Diggs to make his choice.  Not everyone signs on "signing day" but most players do.   What I meant was that you seem to think that once a kid makes his choice, he should be locked in.  It seems like you'd be fine for the kid to sign his LOI as soon as he makes that commitment.  Why bother with the whole thing?  Just let the kid commit as soon as he knows?  The truth is, nobody will go for that for a multitude of reasons.

Do you know how the verbal commitment came to be? Do you know the origins of the National Signing Day? Perhaps you should do some digging. Things were not always the way they are now.

I may not know the actual NCAA bylaws/rules, but I get the gist of it.  Schools can't send out more letters of intent than the number of recruits they can actually sign.  Verbal commitments are basically a way of the school knowing where they are in the recruiting process.  What I also know, and what we've heard from Urban Meyer, Gene Smith, Barry Alvarez, Jim Delaney and others is that recruiting is "open season" up to signing day.  Hell, Alvarez basically told Fat Bielema the Whiner to shut up, and that there was no such thing as a "gentlemen's agreement" amongst B1G coaches to stay away from committed recruits.  I understand that Jim Tressel and Mark Dantonio, being fast friends, had an agreement to not go after each other's committed recruits. But don't think for a second that those two wouldn't go after other players.  Tressel flipped, among others, Melvin Fellows from Ron Zook and Illinois.

It's admirable that you think people should keep their word.  Unfortunately, that's not how the world of recruiting in big time college football works, and as long as the system works like it does, I'm with Urban Meyer.  He has 9 other guys who better try to do it even harder next time. 

I really hate to be the one to say this but if the rest of the B10 doesn't put on their big boy pants Meyer is going to absolutely dominate the conference. He is doing nothing illegal or immoral, he is recruiting. Recruiting means never quitting just like you don't quit in a game. These kids change there mind all the time, some on signing day. It is not a committ until the fax comes in, otherwise its open season on players. You need to have fans spreding rumors your coach is getting fired, or the position coach recruiting them is leaving etc to see how tame the recruiting is so far. Meyer will have OSU in the top 5 every year where they belong, the only thing that will slow the recruiting down is when he has so many good players that recuits go to other schools to get to play sooner.

Urban sprawl baby!

In essence, you're saying that the kid can break his contract with the coach/school that he committed to.

Not quite. What I said was a kid can go talk to the coach and get a release. I said if the context of the contract changed due to unforeseen changes between the parties involved in the contract, the contract can be considered nul and void. Any contract can be severed with mutual concurrence by the parties involved and that is not the same as breaking a contract. That is disolving the contract and it is different in one very important aspect. All parties convey respect to all other parties. Many contracts are rendered nul and void by unforeseen exigencies. It is only the unilateral breaking of a contract that is disrespectful and wrong.

As to the troll who keeps trying to get a rise out of me with his "... is scared..." trash, I have  to point out that MSU has been outrecruited for decades. We are used to it, so there is nothing to be scared of. As to my feeling on those players, let OSU have them. Obvioulsy getting free tatoos has not been stopped and any kid who does not know the meaning of the word honor probably will do just fine in Columbus.

After all, Darth Meyer has a well earned reputation for developing players with the highest moral standards. Just check the police blotters. 

Do you know how the verbal commitment came to be? Do you know the origins of the National Signing Day? Perhaps you should do some digging. Things were not always the way they are now.

I may not know the actual NCAA bylaws/rules, but I get the gist of it.  Schools can't send out more letters of intent than the number of recruits they can actually sign. 

Nope. The verbal commitment was put in place half a century ago. There were not computers or cell phones. There was no email and even fax machines were not around.  The verbal commitment and national signing day was put in place to make handling the paper work easier. Yes, there have always been some poaching, but for decades it has worked and worked well. A coach and a player shake hands and it is a deal, cemented with the personal honor of both parties to that commitment.

Now, with the only priority being winning and with tons of cash to be had, it is not surprising that things have devolved and it is also no surprise that the "ME" generation sees nothing wrong with it.

Se'Von Pittman showed some class. After he got the call, he went to Coach Dantonio and talked it over and got a release from his commitment. Too bad he chose to play for a classless coach. Still, we wish him well, although we do not expect him to get much playing time.

Since UofM has cleaned up in ohio, we should see the same from Cryer come the fall...When the national kids go to schools that are bowl eligible, he will have to offer the kids he thought ohio was too good for. Thought being the KEY WORD!

I'm not feeling the argument that a committment rises to the level of a verbal or oral contact.  For it to be a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration.  It's the consideration part that would be difficult.  In addition, we've all read about some teams that "over-recruit" then rescind the offer when they get someone better.  Shouldn't the committment be binding both ways?  The bottom line is I'd rather have players come to my school who really want to be there.  If they change their committment, they obviously want to be somewhere else and forcing them to "honor" their original committment will only keep a disgruntled player and possible "bad apple" that will spoil the team chemestry.

The question at hand is when is a promise something that means something?

If not in recruiting then anywhere. 

For it to be a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration.  It's the consideration part that would be difficult.

Maybe you need to open your textbook.

The consideration: scholarship in exchange for playing.

Bi-lateral promises made: I agree to play for you, let you coach met, etc. I agree to provide you with a scholarship, facilities, uniforms and equipment, medical coverage, etc.

Shouldn't the committment be binding both ways?

I contend it should be. Go back and look at some of the earlier posts.

bottom line is I'd rather have players come to my school who really want to be there.  If they change their committment, they obviously want to be somewhere else and forcing them to "honor" their original committment will only keep a disgruntled player and possible "bad apple" that will spoil the team chemestry.

That point was also covered in earlier posts.

I'll repeat myself, again.

When a recruit commits, all other schools should take a hands off position. Coaches do not call players who have not decommitted, who have not publicly announced a reconsideration of their commitment, nor have not seen their recruiting or program coaches depart.

When a recruit commits, his discussions with other schools end.

When a recruit commits, he does not visit other schools (there can be specific exceptions, like to watch a family member play).

A recruit can decommit when he believes his decision is not best for him. All he has to do is talk to the coach he committed to and they mutually agree to sever the agreement. Once a recruit decommits, he is available to all. The point is he has the discussion FIRST.
 
When the recruiting coach leaves the school, a coach from another school can call to ask if the recruit plans to stay put.

And, because it came up again, I shall emend the list with this:

No school may enter into verbal commitments with more players than they have available scholarships.

Anything less is dishonest and unethical.

Sparty I got a great idea-Dantonio and fat boy Brady need to stay up north where they belong.  Problem solved.  Sorry to say but if your a great football player in the state of Ohio chances are your going to OSU.  Your coach and fat boy are permitted to have our left overs.  Michigan should be called Leeche University-

So nice to get posts from mature, intelligent fans.

Apparently every OSU fan is so scared of another 6-6 season that they will tolerate, accept, support,  or turn a blind eye to anything  and everything so long as it results in wins. Ethics? Not a priority. Sportsmanship? Not a priority. Tatoos? Top of the list. Honor, integrity, morality? They never heard of 'em.

The last time I saw a school try to buy a championship, it ended in 3 year's of embarassment plus NCAA sanctions. It seems more and more likely that history is about to repeat itself. 

Sorry to say but if your a great football player in the state of Ohio chances are your going to OSU.

Not #2  and #3 (in some opinons) in the state...We'll see how Urban's "national" recruiting strategy plays out in the long run but for the time being I'm loving all the talent UM is snagging out of Ohio.

Verbal commitments are legal contracts in all 50 States. While it is much more difficult to win a case involving a verbal contract than a written contract does not make a verbal contract less binding.

Verbal commitments are not considered a contract because they lack several elements of a binding contract. You could argue that a formal offer isn't made until the school receives the commitment letter and responds with a formal offer. There definately isn't mutuality of obligation. Until a school officially agrees to offer the scholorship they can decide to not offer, even if the kid is verbally committed. There are probably arguments that there isn't consideration, and depending on the age of the verbally committed player, there may be an issue of competency. Of the six elements of a binding contract, verbal agreements are on shaky ground on half of them.