I have been pretty caught up in the "game" of recruiting lately, even defending over signing but got a bit of insight at the lives it effects by reading the above story. Good article about number of recruits vs number of scholarships. Just another reason to hate Iowa too.
I have no sympathy for this kid.
He could have accepted, and Iowa would have been under the same pressures to accept him as every other program faces.
Shaw waited, the class filled, they no longer want him.
This isn’t a case of injustice, this is a kid learning that life is fair – that sometimes you have to pay the price for your actions.
On the bright side, PSU has offered and looks to have a lot of room (and need) in their signing class.
ProveIt - January 31, 2012
I realize I'm a kneejerk hater of the University of Colorado-Iowa City
But look a little deeper into the article. They brought him out on an official visit on the 20th. The article says he committed and was turned down “this weekend.” He was also told that Iowa had 7 scholarships for 9 players, but that he was in good shape with them on his visit. He only waited a week, and was then told they had no room.
I realize that stuff happens, and you’re right, it’s only fair if the recruit was vacillating for months on end. We’re talking about a week here. If Iowa needed his commitment at the time of his visit, they should’ve said so. Unless the recruit’s lying about something (possible, not particularly likely), then this is a low class move by Ferentz and his staff.
Good coaches employ ethical recruiting practices and are honest with their recruits. It may lose us a recruit once in awhile, but I’m glad we have Pelini. He’s always done things the right way in this area.
jdhusker - January 31, 2012
Good coaches get the best possible prospects.
In the intervening week+, obviously Iowa came to realize they could do better.
This included signing 2 RBs.
While it may have been just a week+, it is also most of the time between his visit and signing day.
The kid had his chance, he decided to wait while others took the opportunity, so now he is looking at plan B – nothing here is unethical (except maybe an athlete blaming others for his actions).
ProveIt - January 31, 2012
So
You don’t think coaches have an ethical duty to be honest with their recruits? He was told they had room for him and clearly didn’t tell him he was on the clock. Whether it was a lie of omission or commission, (looks like some of both to me) they still lied to him, and that’s my problem with what Iowa did.
jdhusker - January 31, 2012
In short, no. In detail...
I think they were honest – here’s a scholarship offer – sign and you’re in.
Almost every recruit is on the clock – when the class fills the position, it is filled – nothing new here.1 week later after signing 2 better RBs, there is no spot left.
This is false.
Iowa didn’t know 2 better RB recruits were about to commit within days.
There was no lie or omission, just changing circumstances.
I believe this is false.
You are looking for a problem with Iowa – this is your justification after the fact.
No matter how you phrase it, the time line is:
1. He was offered in a class with signing room for at least 2 RBs. He sat on the offer.
2. In the interim, 2 other RB recruits signed with Iowa.
3. When he decided to accept the offer, the Iowa class was full at RB.
…good luck trying to spin this into a moral or ethical issue…
ProveIt - January 31, 2012
We're of two different minds
Again, in my opinion, an ethical recruiter keeps his recruits fully informed of the situation. If you tell a recruit that he’s in good shape to get a scholarship, that means he’s in good shape to get a scholarship, not “until of course we give your scholarship away to someone else we want more in 2 days.” That’s extremely disingenuous behavior.
He clearly wasn’t aware of this. Had Iowa’s coaching staff told him “we’re looking to close out our class and we need a response in 24 hours” and he waited a week to choose Iowa then I’d feel very little sympathy for him.
I’m fairly certain these new running back recruits just didn’t appear out of thin air. Assuming that Iowa had been recruiting them too, then they did in fact commit a lie by omission by telling him he was in good shape knowing full well that they’d leave him out in the cold if the other two running backs signed before him. A situation like this is a lie by omission by definition. Sure everything they told him was true, but what they didn’t tell him changes everything.
In any case, no this isn’t about Iowa specifically. While I’m happy to get another reason to hate their worthless program, I’d be saying this about any other team or staff in the country that pulled this, including ours. Generally I view Ferentz as a stand up guy in a program that doesn’t deserve or appreciate him (seriously, getting Iowa above .500 consistently takes some doing). This would be an exception to that general view.
In any case, this has the feel of a debate that’s going nowhere but south, so I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.
jdhusker - February 1, 2012
My mind is set basing the conclusion on the facts and evidence...
…not creating circumstances to support an assertion.
Obviously, this is a definition created to fit your assertion.When Iowa said there was room in the class for RBs, there was multiple slots for RBs.
If you have to define terms tailored to make your conclusion valid, you don’t have a valid conclusion.
This is a lie.
Every recruit knows there are limits to a signing class total size and by position.
At no time does the recruit claim he wasn’t aware of this.
This is false circumstances created to support your conclusion.
Iowa did not know 2 better recruits were about to sign.
If you have to create false circumstances for your assertion to be valid, you don’t have a valid assertion.
This is another false circumstance created to support your assertion.
Iowa didn’t lie – they did not claim the scholarship would be open forever, they did not claim they weren’t pursuing other recruits at the position, they did note they were pursuing more recruits than scholarship openings.
If you have to alter reality for your assertion to be valid, your assertion has no basis in reality.
You responded to my comments, and your continued participation is, of course, fully voluntary.
No matter how you phrase it, the time line is:
1. He was offered in a class with signing room for at least 2 RBs.
2. He sat on the offer.
3. In the interim, 2 other RB recruits signed with Iowa.
4. When he decided to accept the offer, the Iowa class was full at RB.
…good luck trying to spin this into a moral or ethical issue…
ProveIt - February 2, 2012
plus...
Iowa is in desparate needs for as many RB’s as they can get, what with the rate they eventually transfer away from Iowa City.
Conspiracy* - January 31, 2012
Iowa signed 3 RBs in this class.
1 is a top prospect, 2 are mediocre.
Adding a 4th mediocre prospect won’t help them at RB.
ProveIt - January 31, 2012
It would've if Shaw stayed more than two seasons.
Salt Creek and Stadium - February 1, 2012
While Ferentz isn't the greatest recruiter...
…I believe that over the next 2 years he can do far better at RB
than tScout.com’s 183rd ranked CB.
ProveIt - February 2, 2012
I hear ya
But you’d think they at least had a scolly avail for him mon his official visit right? They should have let him know “hey we got this last scholarship for you. Are you in or out” or something…it would be interesting to find out when they knew they didn’t have one for him
Conspiracy* - January 31, 2012
I would guess they knew...
…after they signed 2 other mediocre RBs between Shaw’s visit and declining Shaw’s interest.
Shaw kept looking and considering options – so did Iowa.
ProveIt - January 31, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Corn Nation to post a comment.