Cale Millen
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
So what? All you are doing is validating the behavior. I am going to reserve my spot by committing but I am still going to look around to see if I find something better. NU does not do that to its commitments and expects its commitments to reciprocate. This arrangement is something that is clearly explained to all NU recruits. If that is not appealing to you as a recruit, then don’t commit. By committing to NU you are deriving the certainty that comes with a commitment to NU but you are not giving NU what it asked for in return and that is reciprocal loyalty. The fact that the rest of the industry operates differently is exactly my point. NU’s deal with recruits is unique and requires a unique level of commitment from the recruit.
Right.
Flynn Nagel’s verbal commitment to Duke was not in fact “giving his word”. And David Cutcliffe offering a scholarship and accepting that verbal commitment was not, in fact, giving *his* word.
Also, it’s okay to cruise the strip and try to pick up some dude’s girlfriend. They’re not engaged, after all, just “steadies.”
You’ve convinced me.
(Duke’s last commitment in 2015 happened in January. Nagel totally screwed them over, but at least he never went back on his word.)
(@GlideCat - we need a Rant Board style lecture!)
No one is threatening to sue Millen. These agreements don’t hold up in a court of law. There are legal principles that underpin the rational behind NU’s arrangement with recruits. Millen received something of value when he accepted NU’s scholarship offer and did not give NU agreed to consideration in return. At a minimum, that is unethical.
But a Duke scholarship offer is valueless and therefore turning your back on it at the last possible moment is, in fact, ethical.
You’re making more sense by the minute!
You’re not understanding the arguement. The consideration Millen received when he committed to NU was certainty. Certainty that NU would honor their scholarship offer regardless of injury, level of play or availability of a better recruit. That’s valuable and unique in college football.
Contracts in consideration of marriage need to be in writing though
Here’s what you wrote:
“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 understand how what Flynn Nagel did was anything other than giving his word and then going back on his word.
He proved in 2015 that, in fact, his word didn’t matter.
For what it’s worth, he has no regrets about having gone back on his word, or at least he didn’t as of signing day 2016.
It’s actually as you describe:
“ 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.”
Oh well, I hope #2 catches about 60 balls this fall.
I guess you're trying to apply the same logic that Wildcat had on the difference of describing behavior and outright saying one is a bad person. Though in this case, you didn't really do that - you did state that the behaviour tells you what type of person (people) Cale (and his father) is (are).
Otherwise, this is a total dodge of a set of questions on the Flynn Nagel poach that simply cannot be answered in any sensible or logical way other than acknowledging:
1. No
2. There is no way to justify it
3. No
Nagel chose NU because it was a better fit. And because he committed to Duke earlier thinking NU wasn't an option. All the power to him.
The only difference with Nagel backing out of his commitment and why some people don't think he's a bad guy but think Cale is, is because he's Purple. Even though the only real difference is that he left Duke with one day before signing day to fill the gap versus Cale leaving NU with eight months. Cale didn't screw NU nearly as badly as Nagel screwed Duke. But, dem's the breaks.
And before you say it's different because it's a QB - well, I give you Andrew Marty and him breaking his word to Miami. For all we know, the guy who we bring into NU this time around to replace Cale may be a poach, and if it happens no one should throw a hissy fit because this is simply how the system works, which is set up to keep the best interests of the recruits in mind so that they don't prematurely commit themselves on a decision that means a lot more to them individually than the schools or some overly obsessive fanbase who could give a rat's ass about the kid's future relative to what predicament it puts the football program in if a kid decommits.
Last edited:
No, they shouldn't. Because this is the furthest thing from a legal contract as anything. Any objection is purely emotional. But, I guess my sarcasm meter must be broken.
And the assertion that our offer means more or is more certain than Miami's or Duke's is laughable. Perhaps, it is versus Michigan or the SEC schools. But, I challenge anyone here to provide one example where Miami or Duke for that matter dropped a kid who had already committed. Or any of the non Power 5s whom we have regularly poached from. Including Southern Illinois whom we poached Sherrick McManus from.
Last edited:
So, at a minimum what Andrew Marty and Flynn Nagel did is unethical as well? Along with all the other kids we've poached over the years (and there have been more than a few)?
And what does that make NU? An accessory? We are enticing these kids to be unethical and helping them to break their words, aren't we? Wow, what assholes we are - talking about character and how the program is all about that, but enticing kids to break their words before even setting foot on campus.
Last edited:
You mean Apples and Grapes. The only reason you think it's different s because Nagel is Purple.
When is the ring put on? Isn't that signing day? You seem to believe so in that you're ok with Nagel flipping one day before it. After being committed for many months. Was he engaged or not when he made the commitment? If that doesn't count as being engaged, then what's your definition?
‘In Legal terms’??? So, if I understand correctly, NU makes this ‘guarantee’ legally binging? News to me? Can’t wait for that first breach of contract case...
Ultimately, the argument is that a verbal is a verbal thought elsewhere and a commitment at NU. Therefore, it is a sin to break an NU verbal, but ok to poach those ‘loose’ verbals’ at other schools. Wow. This is rich. A new NU low for double standard.
https://247sports.com/Bolt/Miami-parts-ways-with-Jalen-Patterson-52105976
https://247sports.com/Bolt/Miami-Northwestern-cornerback-Thomas-Burns-talks-about-whats-next-after-decommitting-from-Miami-526753
https://saturdaytradition.com/maryland-football/edsall-drops-recruits-scholarship/
https://247sports.com/Article/Decommitments-at-Michigan-typical-of-recruiting-process-47332649
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/18/wolf-usc-drops-recruits-as-signing-day-approaches/
Plus Kain Colter, Jordan Perkins, Will Hampton, and many others from Stanford under Harbaugh.
Last edited:
Honoring your word and living up to commitments you make is a core value I was raised with, long before I heard Fitz utter his philosophy. You call it "kool-ade", I call it a moral code. To each his own.
What really puzzles me is why some of you people are NU football fans. This principle is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the program that make it different than everyone else. If you don't believe that is true, you might as well root for one of the traditional powerhouse teams. Maybe that is why some of the same yahoos who doubt NU's moral superiority on this issue are the first ones that start panicking and criticizing Fitz and the players on game threads when things aren't going well. Fickle fans.
Last edited:
Don't make me laugh. The argument I make is logical. If some yahoos don't understand the logic and/or don't agree with the principle, that's their problem. I could care less. Nothing that was posted in this thread is a convincing rebuttal.
You still haven’t described how Millen went back on his word , while Nagel did not. Both made verbal commitments - the most they could possibly do - and both went back on them.
You’re dropping words like honor or morality or ethics here, but those things come from within. One’s moral code is not contingent on the actions of another.
Your stated belief is that honoring one’s word is a moral imperative. In practice, however, you believe that the word only matters if the other side has made the same commitment. What you describe is not morality guiding the decision to keep or not keep one's word, but simply crass self-interest.
If you truly believed keeping one’s word to be a moral imperative, then you would believe that Nagel and Millen failed equally, and they would be subjected equally to your scorn.
It’s a lot easier to not cast judgment on people, especially when they both followed the rules.
(I like Nagel more because he wears purple. But I hope Millen has a great career and eventually loses to NU in a national championship game.)
Sorry for the hackneyed philosophy. I did take one class 20 years ago.
Last edited:
I mean, probably because these yahoos like football and attended NU? Didn’t know it was necessary to feel an air of moral superiority about it...and I wondered where other fanbases get the idea we are a bunch of elitist ass clowns.
I think you’re making the program into some angelic house of morality and honor. Certainly, NU runs a clean program and is not like the great majority of FBS schools. But to act like it’s somehow not a business is a bit “purple-colored glasses” and naive. I bet a lot of people have the same opinions about their school’s programs as you do about NU. And I don’t think that we have to believe the NU program is operating on some pristine moral level to be fans. That’s just silly.
How generous we are not to pursue legal recourse for breach!
Or, rather, I think maybe AB doesn't understand the meaning of legal contract.
You need to be a lawyer to make a logical arguement? Wow just wow. What a putz!
I’ve got no problem with a fan having the belief that our program is morally superior to all others and that that makes us ‘different’. Notre Dame has built their entire program around that propaganda and has won almost unparalleled fan support by doing so. Do I agree with it? No. Do I understand it and support our fans’ position in believing it? Sure.
Where I draw the line is the mental twisting and turning to justify our signees doing exactly what we chastise our decommitments for doing.
The concept that because we are ‘morally superior’ to others means that trespasses by individuals against the principles of that morality, i.e., retracting a commitment, are fine as long as they benefit us (because the perpetrator chose the path of our interpretation of higher morality), is frankly, kind of scary, especially when that same logic is applied to much more important aspects of life than college football.
While not necessarily ‘scary’, one analogy that pops in my head is losing $1,000, and railing against the lack of morality of others for not turning it in somewhere. But if you were to find $1,000 yourself, not turning it in because of your belief you were going to put the money to better use than whoever lost it, and therefore you’re ‘right’ in keeping it. Here, believing that your use of the money is ‘better’ is not much different in believing that the NU offer is ‘better’ and therefore doesn’t call into question hypocrisy on positions of ethics or morality.
If your belief is that verbal commitments should be honored, that it is giving your word, that’s fine. But you should hold true to that in all situations, even when you are the beneficiary when someone breaks that ‘commandment’. If you’re saying that it’s okay when someone breaks their word elsewhere to come to NU, because NU offers something special others cannot, well then, this whole thing is really NOT about morality then, is it?
In that case, it’s about the kid choosing the best option for him, an assessment of the program and school which with you agree. When we lose a kid, because he believes another school is the best option, you DON’T agree with that assessment, so you wrap your criticism with a morality play that doesn’t hold water when explored from all angles.
Where I draw the line is the mental twisting and turning to justify our signees doing exactly what we chastise our decommitments for doing.
The concept that because we are ‘morally superior’ to others means that trespasses by individuals against the principles of that morality, i.e., retracting a commitment, are fine as long as they benefit us (because the perpetrator chose the path of our interpretation of higher morality), is frankly, kind of scary, especially when that same logic is applied to much more important aspects of life than college football.
While not necessarily ‘scary’, one analogy that pops in my head is losing $1,000, and railing against the lack of morality of others for not turning it in somewhere. But if you were to find $1,000 yourself, not turning it in because of your belief you were going to put the money to better use than whoever lost it, and therefore you’re ‘right’ in keeping it. Here, believing that your use of the money is ‘better’ is not much different in believing that the NU offer is ‘better’ and therefore doesn’t call into question hypocrisy on positions of ethics or morality.
If your belief is that verbal commitments should be honored, that it is giving your word, that’s fine. But you should hold true to that in all situations, even when you are the beneficiary when someone breaks that ‘commandment’. If you’re saying that it’s okay when someone breaks their word elsewhere to come to NU, because NU offers something special others cannot, well then, this whole thing is really NOT about morality then, is it?
In that case, it’s about the kid choosing the best option for him, an assessment of the program and school which with you agree. When we lose a kid, because he believes another school is the best option, you DON’T agree with that assessment, so you wrap your criticism with a morality play that doesn’t hold water when explored from all angles.
Last edited:
Who said its not a business? Your post implies that something that is run like a business can’t be moral and honorable. If that’s your point, then we fundamentally disagree.
Sure, many have but there are a lot of posters on here who haven’t that share your view.
I'm sorry, I thought somewhere on the rant board you claimed to be a lawyer. I must be forgetting. Good thing, because you're not very good at making logical arguments.
And you're the very last person who should be calling anyone a putz.
This response, true or not, has absolutely zero contextual relevance to the discussion.
We're all still waiting to understand your logic about why Flynn Nagel or Andrew Marty's decommitments are so different from Cale Millen's, and why in their cases they aren't being unethical or breaking their word like Cale. Provide a coherent and reasoned argument, and I promise I will shut up and not make another post in this thread.
While you're at it, please also explain what honor there is in NU encouraging and tempting kids who have committed to other schools into breaking their word (such as we are doing with Charlie Dean who has committed to UCF) and how accepting such oath breakers into the program remains consistent with the idea that we only want kids who are true to their word and where their word means something. Thanks.
You know, can we please cut the ‘this shouldn’t be a thread’, ‘take this somewhere else’ talk? If you don’t want to see a conversation anymore, don’t click on the thread and read it. It’s that simple. But if there is an ongoing conversation of which you don’t have a point or don’t want to be a part, what is the point of coming into it to tell others to stop talking about it?
Are we also allowed to ask why you demanded examples of Miami, Duke, or “programs from which we poach” dropping recruits, were presented with such examples, and ignored it?
I do sincerely believe that an offer from NU aid “different” from others. Corbi has gone a bit off the rails for me, but the underpinning reason is accurate.
But you agree that Millen and Nagel both did something that, depending on your perspective, is equally defensible or indefensible, yes?
And you would also agree that it’s hypocritical to state that Nagel’s actions were morally acceptable while Millen’s were not, yes?
Corbi thinks Millen - baaaaaaad, Nagel - gooooooood , and it doesn’t make sense at all.
I'm pretty sure he meant Miami of Ohio....
Also, am I taking crazy pills or are none of those links about Duke either? I see University of Miami, Maryland, Michigan and Southern Cal. Have we "poached" anyone from any of those programs?
