Really? Perhaps the fraction was a big fraction, but guess I’ve learned something. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment. BTW, did you read the WSJ OpEd? Just curious.
Cale Millen
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
Really? Perhaps the fraction was a big fraction, but guess I’ve learned something. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment. BTW, did you read the WSJ OpEd? Just curious.
“Slippery moral slope that is hard to reverse and can lead to poor character”, over a 17-year-old changing his mind? I find this to be a little, mmmm, dramatic.
When I was a high school senior, I applied, (non-binding) early action to a certain catholic university in Indiana. My dad went there. I could name the two-deep on the 1988 and 1993 teams. I told my dad, yup, that’s the decision. I was excited! I wanted to make my dad happy! Choosing a college would be a great relief, an end to the questions! So, heck yes I wanted to spend my first foray into adulthood in South Bend.
And then, three months later, I got into NU, I learned more about Medill and quality of the alumni network, and I drank on the landfill. I changed my mind, and nobody cared. (Well, my dad, who stopped loving me until my younger brother chose that certain catholic school, three years later.) And, while that conversation was tough, it was absolutely the best decision for me; I would have been miserable at my initial first choice, and I found a perfect fit at NU.
And again, nobody cared.
It reflects poorly on anyone here that we care so much. These are kids. They’re allowed to change their minds, especially when they’re locked into a system that offers severe penalties for changing their minds after February of their senior year. He had a 15-month window to change his mind, and he did.
Now, it’s possible that Millen “used” Northwestern, that he was always holding out for a better offer, and that he only considered NU a deep fallback option. That’d be a little greasy of him (but, frankly, given the rarity of P5 offers and the relative dearth of West Coast programs, not entirely indefensible.)
It’s also possible that Millen got swept up in the moment, and said something that he found himself regretting. He got to tell his dad he was following in his footsteps, a real-life D1 QB. He got to make Fitz and the staff happy. He got the relief of getting that decision out of the way, and of getting those reporters and those schools off his back. And then, over the last few months, he came to regret the decision.
Which would be worse: A decommitment now, when NU has almost a year to find a replacement, or a half-hearted enrollment in September, and a subsequent transfer following his freshman season, when he realized that, yes, he missed NFL games starting at 10 a.m. and , indeed, he preferred In N Out to anything, even Portillo’s.
Good for him. I hope he loses to NU in the 2022 National Championship game.
I don't find it dramatic at all. The deal he had with NU and Fitz was that once each party gave their commitment, they would stick to it. Cale Millen went back on his word. That's not an admirable thing in the eyes of some people.
All that plus he may have met a girl who can't get into NU.
Verbal commitments are totally useless and unenforceable. Just another made up thing by the NCAA, along with the "student athlete".
We are checking out a UCF commit right now, should he flip would that be the same thing?
Naaah. NU only recruits high-character kids.
It’s tough to argue against this. I was initially pissed off that the kid strung us along, but if Duke offers similar scholarship guarantees that we do, Millen and Nagel are on the same moral ground.
What it specifically says is that the Mullen family will deceive others, to the other's detriment, if they see it as advantageous to their own interests. I've had to deal with more than a few of those in my career. All losers.
GOUNUII
I’m sure I underestimated it. The latest numbers I found are for 2015. NU’s football expenditures were 25 million. Divided by 85 scholarship players takes the average to just under 300K per player. And that doesn’t include the value of the Taj Fitz or the degree’s lifetime earnings bump or the sometimes priceless value of the media exposure.
In that same year, NU’s football revenues were 36 million. So 70 percent of the pot directly benefits the players. The balance helps fund all the non revenue sports.
GOUNUII
I assume you think Flynn Nagel is a loser, too.
Pretty safe, common sense assumption. Maybe Coral or GCG can think of a football budget item that doesn’t inure to the benefit of the players. I can’t. Can you?
GOUNUII
Administrative expenses in relation to season ticket sales? Day of game operations?
Duke doesn’t extend the same guarantees that NU does and doesn’t demand the same exclusivity from recruits before they commit.
That’s irrelevant. Using the FItz analogy, a commitment to NU is like a wedding engagement that both parties willingly enter into. Other schools and the players that commit to those schools view a commitment as the equivalent of dating. We are together for now but either side reserves the right to change their mind if something better comes along. It’s a fundamentally different agreement between the two parties.
Last edited:
I wasn't aware I ever had any.
Please explain to me how money spent chasing revenue for the department is a benefit to the players.
To use the analogy, you don't care that Duke was on one knee with the ring in front of Flynn and minutes from getting engaged and Fitz broke them up?
Last edited:
Hey, at least in that scenario we're Richard Burke to their Chandler Bing. Tom Selleck is always cool. But Chandler is funny and lovable and wins Monica in the end. So I don't know what to do.
We can't be Richard because Monica doesn't end up with Richard. We're like Kate Beckinsale's character in Serendipity, swooping in at the end to breakup what would likely be a perfectly fine marriage solely because of our own relationship dysfunction (aka Grant Perry dumped us like a meanie).
I don’t like any poaching but can deal with it when it happens before the “engagement”. Once you put on the ring and say yes, that’s where I draw the line.
Now there is an apples to oranges comparison. NU poached him right before signing day. Yes or no?
Before you got into caveats all over the place, this is what you wrote:
“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.”
Please explain to me how de-committing from Duke - a commitment that he had held to since June prior to his senior year - was not going back on his word.
Duke was unable to fill the slot, so Nagel’s decision resulted in actual harm to Duke’s program.
Yes. What’s your point? Duke could just as easily dropped Flynn if some higher rated WR recruit had called Duke and said I want to sign with you. That’s the nature of the arrangement most schools have with their commitments. Dating, not engagement. NU is different. To some it may not be appealing but it works for NU and their recruits.
Corbi, can I ask a question? Did someone steal your handle? Guess what Duke didn't drop him, did they? NU poached him and this dating analogy is just plain camouflage for stealing another programs recruit, very, very late in the game.
I read on the Rock recently that NU told a kid with an offer that there was no spot for him anymore because another commit had filled it. He waited too long. So these kids are told to commit when they're fully ready, but at the same time, they know that spaces are filling up quickly. NU takes only one QB per class, and Millen knew that. It's a complicated process in a multimillion dollar industry. Everyone is maneuvering, and they all have something big at stake.
Our
Our commits make a promise to Fitz and to NU to sign a letter of intent and to try NU for one year, at least. As you have said repeatedly, when a commit then decommits, he has broken his promise. That, in the eyes of you and me, raises a credibility/integrity issue. It is not comparable to NU poaching commitments from other schools as NU never made a promise to those other schools not to poach - there has been no breach of promise and hence no credibility/integrity issue. This is so elementary that it boggles the mind that not everyone sees it as obvious. In legal terms, there must be a duty before there can be liability for a breach of that duty. Our commits have created/assumed a duty to NU by committing; we never assumed a duty to Duke or other schools not to poach. Those who want to compare the situations truly are arguing apples to oranges. Obviously, Oregon owes no duty to NU not to poach, and you, Corbi rightfully offer no criticism Oregon for poaching. Only Millen broke his promise.
Last edited:
When was the last time Duke football dropped someone, and do they have a bad reputation for doing so frequently? I seriously do not know.
Uh...what about the promise the kid made to the other school?
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Unless that's the elementary part that is apparently mind boggling.
No. Try turning your brain on. Or stop with the trolling. Whichever applies.
GOUNUII
Corbi's argument is that NU is unique in promising to hold to its commitment to the student/athlete (many parents have confirmed this). The commitments to other schools therefore lack the reciprocity, in legal terms, of a commitment to NU. You cynics may not buy this, but I do.
First of all, Duke was able to fill the slot and it turned out to be a pretty good WR whose name I can’t remember right now. But really that is not relevant for purposes of our discussion. What you and Willycat are failing to grasp is that the nature of the agreement between commitments and most other schools is different than NU’s . The commitment comes with a caveat that both sides are aware of. The commitment is valid unless something better comes along. Sometimes the school strays, sometimes the recruit strays and sometimes nothing better comes along. It’s a commitment with a lower case c. Dating, not an engagement. NU and FItz have decided to approach it in a different way. They offer certainty to a recruit but expect the same in return. An engagement, not dating. That’s a fundamentally different agreement. When both parties agree that a commitment can be broken by either side if something better comes along, is it really a commitment? I would argue it is not and I also don’t believe that you are going back on your word when you break a commitment where both parties agreed that the commitment could be broken.
