2024 Recruiting Thread (offers, visits, highlights, etc)

Funny how you don't see a lot (any?) UGA commits taking officials to other schools. Any reason we can't play that type of hardball game, too? A commitment works BOTH ways.

 

The following players committed to other programs currently have Official Visits scheduled to UF. Should we not let them visit? Goes both ways (UF commit visiting elsewhere)


Chance Robinson (UM commit)
Jeremiah Smith (Ohio state)
Jonathan Echols (Tennessee)
Dealyn Evans (Texas A&M)

I don’t like it either but we cannot expect our commits not to take visits while other schools commits visit UF. Some kids just take free trips. Others may be looking for bags. Probably most of them just doing their due diligence and covering all their bases. Assistant coaches leave, off field coaches leaves, kids situations may have changed post commitments. It is also fun to be treated like royalty and eat fine meals and, for some, build their brand (social media) by interacting with additional fan bases.

it is what it is and I don’t blame the players for wanting to do visits even while committed elsewhere. Though I don’t like it.

 

It does happen with other schools, but it seems quite rare with players commited to Bama or UGA. I assume this is because they don't allow it or strongly discourage it. I think that's the right position. Maybe you don't pull the ship from the kid, but you let him know you don't consider his commitment as being very strong if he's visiting other schools.

 

clemson I do know doesn’t let - or says they don’t - let commits visit other schools.

I think when you are winning titles it is an easier thing time do. I read that Mario at Miami has been trying to implement the same rule- and yet he has a commit visiting UF next month. Win titles and we can probably dictate this more.

 

Unless he is on a covert mission to turn thier commits to the good guys

 

My take is if he is visiting other schools then you take a commitment from another RB that is more "committed."

 

That's a great point, Bobby. We've had precious few commit to us then flip somewhere else under Napier.

 

Unless you actually have the ability to fill their spot with a better/equally talented kid it’s an empty threat. That why only a couple schools can actually do it.

 

If that's correct (and I don't recall otherwise), that means the staff STRONGLY discourages it...which is as it should be.

I agree with whomever posted above that we're not elite enough yet to give our solid commits ultimatums. Maybe one day we'll be there again...

 

I agree Bobby. While I still have a problem with kids using the word “commitment” too loosely, actually trying to keep our commits from taking other visits kinda smacks of insecurity.
I doubt Saban has to restrict his commits from taking visits - they’re probably not willing to risk losing where they are. That’s where we need our commits to be, so it’s their choice to shut down visits. And as stated by you and others, this seems to be happening under Napier.

 

They have another top300 kid at all times looking for their spot at Bama and Georgia. Start looking around there and you’ll find yourself on the outside looking in.

 

This all raises a big question in my mind: what is the logic in not allowing kids to send in a signed LOI until NSD (or early NSD)? I understand that being the deadline, but why can’t they hard commit with a signed letter before that date?

To me, it would be logical to allow kids to secure their spot on a team any time they want. Then, to help the schools out, they would be able to keep recruiting any position they want until the kid signs. Right now, the school is bound by the kid’s verbal commitment but the kid is still free to flirt with other schools and “de-commit” any time they want. All this could be resolved very fairly and equitably by simply saying a commitment doesn’t mean anything until the kid and university both sign on the line. And that can happen any time they want, up to and ending with NSD. Until they sign, it’s wide open.

What am I missing here?

 

I would think that the original reason for one date was to make it easier for compliance so that there would not be a lot of recruiting violations when a recruit committed. Keep in mind that the early signing date was championed by schools who had a hard time holding onto recruits who blossomed their senior years. Better for the lazy coaches, but worse for the kids.

 

the schools are not bound by a players verbal commitment - in any way.

every single year UF (and every good football program) has players committed that UF “nudges’ out of the class and or replace recruits with better players. The verbal commitment is non binding on both sides.

 

Heard on Hightop Sports the Gators are burning like forty (40) official visits for the June recruiting fling. As in 40 of an allowed 58 or so?

Hope we sign 8 - 9 ................... thats ALOT of visits in one outing!