Cale Millen
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
or even a cause for concern...Merriam-Webster defines "concerning" as: relating to, regarding, or about. It is a preposition, not an adjective
Last edited:
That's a big loss. Most good QB targets commit early and the rest are probably not considering new contenders.
It's kind of rotten that Cale decommits immediately after getting his first decent PAC 12 offer. Makes me think he reserved a spot but wasn't all in with the cats. Although it is a 17 year old so he's got to do what's best for him and priorities can change quickly at that age. Just wish he would've let the staff know he wasn't that interested a few months ago
It's kind of rotten that Cale decommits immediately after getting his first decent PAC 12 offer. Makes me think he reserved a spot but wasn't all in with the cats. Although it is a 17 year old so he's got to do what's best for him and priorities can change quickly at that age. Just wish he would've let the staff know he wasn't that interested a few months ago
It’s even more annoying that it wasn’t immediate. ASU and Oregon offered over a month ago, at which time he reaffirmed his NU commitment.
No clue. Always knew the PAC12 offers were coming. Sucks that they actually got him to flip, even if his next school is still TBD.
I think his decommitment was related to Comcast pulling the Big Ten Network.
Seriously, it seems like a pretty big challenge for NU to get commits from the west coast. Maybe it's the geographical or two time zone difference. They seem to have better luck getting players out of Texas and southern states.
Almost like perhaps he should have thought about that in the first place before committing.
Do you think this will alter the staff’s thinking about QB recruiting geographically? Lost a Tennessee guy to an SEC school and now a Washington guy to the PAC. Last three QBs from Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, firmly Big Ten country...
Maybe he did. Maybe he thought, "I'll commit to NU as a Safety School and see if something closer to home materializes". Happens all the time for nonathletes. He is well down the Oregon priority list judging from their other QB offers, which is why it took so long for him to get an offer.
Ironically being a NU commit probably helped raise his value. At least he didn't give a b.s. excuse about wanting a petroleum engineering major or something.
Two things
1. It's April, more than 9 months before signing day. It sucks, but the kid is like 16-17 years old. NU admissions doesn't even ask for a early commit before Nov. You guys are acting like he's Cushman on Jerry McGuore
2. I guess we should have expected someone named Millen(er) (sic) would want to do a hat dance
1. It's April, more than 9 months before signing day. It sucks, but the kid is like 16-17 years old. NU admissions doesn't even ask for a early commit before Nov. You guys are acting like he's Cushman on Jerry McGuore
2. I guess we should have expected someone named Millen(er) (sic) would want to do a hat dance
Corbi is the girl in the elementary dining room that will cut you if you don't go to her party.
Corbi, I agree with you. Your word matters whether you are 7, 17, or 70. And Fitz is apparently very clear with recruits that they should not commit until they are 100% sure they are set on their choice. Unfortunately, I’m afraid you’re fighting a losing battle here. “College” revenue sports are a multi-billion industry where the “workers” are compensated at a fraction of their economic value and this breeds unethical behavior at all levels. Yet another depressing testimonial to this via an OpEd in today’s WSJ. ( but before we get too sanctimonious, it appears that Fitz no longer waits for committed kids to publicly de-commit before NU staff chase them to fill a hole. You know the examples currently on our roster. )
You are throwing a "get off my lawn" moralistic hissy fit over the fact that a 17-year old kid decided he doesn't want to play football for the school that you happen to have (maybe) attended and now root for. Kids change their minds all the time--people change their minds all the time. Such things as new information, personal growth, and yes, even outside pressures, make us reevaluate and change our minds about things all the time. It's why colleges invented a binding early decision process in order to have some measure of predictability over their matriculation numbers. If you want a kid to be able to commit with binding effect on the spot, then take it up with the system. The kid didn't want to go to NU and in the end and that's fine.
This sounds like so much sour grapes it's frankly embarrassing.
Last edited:
You can spin it all you want but the facts don’t paint Mr. Millen and/or his father in a good light. NU’s recruiting pitch is quite clear. Commit to us and your scholarship is guaranteed regardless of subsequent injury, level of play or availability of a better recruit. The recruit is told not to commit unless he is sure NU is where he wants to be but once he commits he has certainty that the scholarship is his. In return NU asks for the same level of certainty that the recruit won’t withdraw his commitment. It is a verbal agreement that is unique in College football because no program I am aware of provides that level of certainty to recruits who commit. Seems like a fair deal all around as long as both parties honor their word. NU under Fitz has proven they will honor their word to recruits. Unfortunately Cale and his father didn’t feel compelled to honor theirs. That says aomething about them. The fact that you don’t recognize that says a lot about you.
Last edited:
Spare me the pot shots. Your willingness to ascribe untoward motivations toward a high schooler whom you haven't met, haven't spoken to, and frankly know nothing about, just because you seem to believe that NU exists on some sort higher moral plane than the rest of the world and your desire to affirm your existing biases by putting together some circumstantial evidence is uncalled for. Lou, who has actually at least spoken to the kid on multiple occasions, doesn't have such animosity or ascribe such motivations to the kid or his family. The kid and his family made a choice that you disagree with...it's not a moral failing.
“Spare me the pot shots” when you accuse him of throwing a “moralistic hissy fit”? Is your first name Donald?
I am not ascribing anything. The kid gave his word and went back on it. That is a fact. That means something in my book. I was raised with the core belief that your word matters and have raised my kids with that same core value. I don’t mean to sound corny. Not too long ago what i am saying would not not have been too controversial. I guess it is a sad statement on today’s society that my point has generated so much pushback.
I described what he's doing, while he's insinuating negative character flaws. See difference between "You're overreacting." vs. "You're a bad person because you don't agree with me."
And then I'll point out Fitz poaching commits, and then you'll again circle back to the "NU means more" point and we would have completed the circle. You wan't to apply a bright line rule, but conveniently give yourself an out when the bright line rule may be applied against you...it's inconsistent.
Was there truly any doubt about whether Duke was going to honor Flynn Nagel's commitment? IIRC he literally flipped the day before signing day. If he does nothing, he's a Blue Devil without a doubt. How do we justify his flip as not completely going back on your word to an institution what was 100% ready to honor every promise it made to him?
Commitment is a two way street. If you don’t give it you shouldn’t expect to receive it. That is also fair. When coach after coach cuts bait on a recruit because the player gets injured or a better player becomes available, they establish a course of dealing that justifies the actions of the recruit that bails on the coach. When coaches behave this way, there is no implied commitment from the coach and one should not be expected from the player. This is very logical and fair behavior from a moral perspective but also from a legal perspective.
What Cale did does not make him a bad person, but it does set a precedent that makes it more likely that he will go back on his word in the future. Once you get away with going back on your word once, it makes it easier to talk yourself into doing it again. It’s a slippery moral slope that is hard to reverse and can lead to poor character.
What you just said is ignorant at best. Each player on NU's roster receives a guaranteed 4 year contract for a package of goods, services, and in pocket cash worth upwards of a million dollars or more. It's the best deal out there for teenagers pursuing their athletic dreams. And most reap the rewards without ever moving the "value" needle by impacting butts in seats or viewers on TV. So please stop the baseless group think. It's a popular notion with zero factual support in Evanston and elsewhere.
Scholarship football players as workers compensated at a fraction of their economic value? Just exactly how much more than a guaranteed $250,000 annually are they worth? And keep in mind that, unlike at NU, NFL players have to make the team each year to realize their riches.
GOUNUII
I'll put aside the legal inaccuracy and just reiterate my question: Was there truly any doubt about whether Duke was going to honor Flynn Nagel's commitment? IIRC he literally flipped the day before signing day. If he does nothing, he's a Blue Devil without a doubt. How do we justify his flip as not completely going back on your word to an institution what was 100% ready to honor every promise it made to him?
Does Cutcliffe have a reputation I'm not aware of?
I'll take at face value that you don't think Cale is a bad person, though will note that it's a bit of a walkback from previous statements. I surely hope you're not relying on the same slippery slope fallacy that you're so ready to attack in other contexts.
I think I’ve said enough on the subject. The last thing I’ll say is that I challenge you to find a post in which I said Cale was a “ bad person”. I never said that. I said this type of behavior sets a bad precedent in a young person that can lead to poor character. I stand by that.
