[Husker] Husker: Other side of the coin

[Steve Reichenbach]

> > Are they now saying to recruits: "We'll make you an offer if
> > we still think you're good enough in the spring."?
> 
> Yes, I think that's exactly what it says.  Nothing is final until
> signing day in February.  And keep in mind that this kid committed in
> April of last year.  When did the injury happen?  After the start of
> his senior season (according to Husker Illustrated, he had no
> defensive stats and half his offensive stats his senior year).  So if
> the kid has a season ending injury, let's just say one leg just falls
> off in a game, is Nebraska required to take him and put him on
> scholarship for 4 years even if he will never see the playing field?
> 
I believe that in the past NU has found other scholarships for
injured athletes.  If they aren't on the team, it doesn't count against
the scholarship limit.

> > In that respect, it's really irrelevant what other schools are now
> > willing to do and it's irrelevant that many students choose their
> > colleges late.  It sounds as if by counting on NU's promise of an
> > offer, this student missed out on other opportunities.  As for sour
> > grapes, there appears to be a good basis for being sour on NU.  I don't
> > feel bad about someone not being good enough to get a scholarship, but
> > I do worry if NU is not honoring offers that it has made.
> 
> I would agree that he may have missed out on other opportunities.
> That's a chance a kid takes when he commits so early (Junior year).

I thought it was both parties taking a chance by offering and accepting
early.  Only it appears that NU only appeared to be taking a chance.

> I just don't see a justification for the sour grapes.  Like the old
> saying, Oral agreements are worth the paper they're written on.  Until
> the papers are signed in February, its all talk.  Yes, you want
> Nebraska to live up to their commitments; we all do.  Its the right
> and honorable thing to do.  But I think we do have to be somewhat
> realistic in understanding that things happen between the initial
> commitment and the signing day.  I think if we look at the commitments
> we have now, and the signings coming in on Thursday (I think it's
> Thursday), we should see a pretty good record of offering scholarships
> to kids who committed. And the same goes to kids we've offered to walk
> on.  They'll get a chance to play too.
> 
I really disagree.  I'm one that still believes honorable people honor
their agreements, written or not.

> Recruiting is not about being honorable, though there are ethical
> practices to be upheld.  Its about finding talent that will will pay
> off for the University - good talent leading to more wins leading to
> championships leading to more revenue. And if a talent becomes less
> attractive before signing day, then cut him loose and look elsewhere.
> And it has to be pointed out that there doesn't appear to be any other
> recruits that have taken this kid's place.  They didn't drop him just
> to pick up some other player.
> 
Actually, NU just announced the "commitment" with another LB recruit.

If recruiting is not about being honroable, then why should anything
else be.  Why not try to get away with illegal substances and under
the table payments.  Hey, we could even sabotage other teams and
players --- the Tonya Harding route.

It's not about being honorable, it's about winning.  Right?

> Can't wait until signing day.  Then we'll know EVERYTHING!!  8^)
> 
> Nick
> -- 
> "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> Anatole France
>