Verbal Commits

[Stone]

After seeing the discussion about Tavo Motuapuaka de-committing and the speculation that it was a mutual parting, I am curious how that process works in general (I saw this speculation with another recent de-commit, so the inquiry is not necessarily specific to Tavo).

If the U offers a scholarship and a kid verbally commits, the kid is obviously able to change his mind up until actually signing. But it sounds like the U sometimes essentially revokes the scholarship offer for no fault of the kid. Maybe this is a widespread practice, but it seems like a delicate situation that could lead to serious blowback if a school routinely recruits someone, gets a verbal commitment, then rescinds the offer before signing day because the school thinks they can find someone better. It also seems inconsistent with Whit’s style. 

Again, I recognize the athletes do this all the time, but they are all one-off individuals. It seems like a school/instutition doing this type of thing would develop a bad reputation. Can someone explain this recruiting strategy?

[Johnny]

It depends on what was offered. Some guys will count as a preferred walk on, maybe a scholarship offer next year, are they going on a mission? Many things we have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes.

If there’s one thing I appreciate about Kyle and his staff, it’s their tight security level. Nobody outside the coaching staff knows anything really.

[Hellhound152]

Somehow it seems preferable to the SEC method where they just don’t renew kids year to year to free up space.  I am sure the discussion is framed in the athletes best interest.  Kids and their families would rather be told the truth up front than be lied to.  Verbals are provisional offers on both sides.  

[MDUte]

In the case of Tavo, I believe Utah had offers out to their preferred guy Tyler Knaak and then their “safe” offer to Tavo in the event that Knaak didn’t come through. Once Knaak committed, I believe the lead recruiters for Tavo reached out to let the kid know that they really like him but given that another recruit at his position also committed they urge/recommend Tavo to keep his options open where he might find a more solid opportunity to play. Seems almost like another sales pitch to get the kid to reopen his recruitment and go elsewhere. I don’t think they actually tell the kid they are pulling his scholarship but I might have it wrong. In most cases, I think kids go where they feel wanted and see the best opportunity and if that changes they get on board quickly to look elsewhere. That’s how I understand the process, but would love to hear from anyone that has better insight.

[Charlie]

Without knowing for sure, I believe all schools have several decommits every year. I expect often athletes have schools lose interest over time just like athletes lose interest in schools. Athletes and schools will move on if substantially better options appear. Most all schools save spots or create spots to take advantage of fallout from schools farther up the pecking order. I don’t think our objective is to avoid ever moving on from a commitment, rather, I believe we want to about like most other schools. I think a year like our current one, starting slow and looking subpar then getting hot and passing all expectations, puts lots of pressure on that concern. I can only imagine the athletes we thought we could draw has changed big time since the first of October. Actually, we would be p**sed if we felt the coaches did not take advantage of what should be very recent opportunities.

[Johnny]

It’s probably more passive like this. This day and age with young guys seeing to love sent out to guys at your position on Twitter or whatever, yet not getting the calls or the regular stroking. That can cause a guy to start looking elsewhere.