Cale Millen
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
Yes
https://northwestern.rivals.com/news/larkin-reverses-field-commits-to-nu
But the mental gymnastics move here is that because Larkin had an NU offer when he chose Cincinnati, it was acceptable for him to recant and choose NU, because he wasn’t lying to Cincinnati waiting on an NU offer.
It’s a 3.5 degree of difficulty on the move.
Last edited:
That would be the “off the rails for me” part.
Yes, there are programs that may have these practices. Show me a case from Miami OH (we're talking about the school Marty decommitted from). Or Duke (Nagel). Or Southern Illinois (McManus).
Thanks
Last edited:
I just saw your post and responded. I already pointed out there are programs that do this. I want to know specifically examples of Miami OH (where we poached Marty) and Duke (Nagel), or programs from which we poach. But, I guess you decided to ignore my question and answer something else.
Perhaps, an offer from NU is different from some others. Its a stretch to say we are unique, and it doesn't follow that just because some other programs pull offers from kids that we should expect kids not to honor their words and commitments to other programs that haven't demonstrated that type of behaviour. And if the whole commitment and word thing is so important to us, then why would we work against those principles to encourage a kid to break theirs by decommitting in order to secure an NU offer and to accept it instead?
Who's a cynic? I just get a chuckle from reading the mental machinations that you're twisting to justify your argument. Millen withdrew his commitment to NU, as Nagel did to Duke. By your position that makes Millen a kid of poor character, but not Nagel. Pointing out that flaw in reasoning doesn't make anyone a cynic or thick, as you insinuated.
And I don't care about NU's commitment policy and whatever Fitzgerald's poaching policy might be toward other schools. This about decisions that two kids made, one of which benefited the Wildcat program while the other didn't. I don't know either these young men and I'm guessing that you don't either. But I'd hazard a guess that if they warranted offers from NU, that they both passed the smell test in terms of character.
Do as I say, not as I do. The kid (regardless of which kid) is 1 or 18 and trying to find what is best for them. It is disappointing for the suitor but the kid has to make the best choice for him and if playing closer to home is important, it is for them to decide
Well, that's the whole argument here isn't it? No one is saying that our offer doesn't mean something more than for Michigan or any number of other schools. But, it is entirely hypocritical to scorn Millen but forgive Nagel and Marty - there are no ways around it.
That’s fair. Misread on my part. Couldn’t find an explicit example for Duke, but that was also a cursory iPhone search early this morning after my newborn woke me up.
Good, because it's pretty indefensible, as Corbi has already realized given his refusal to even try. (Aging Booster meanwhile appears willing to continue charging the windmills though).
But, that is the core argument at hand. I don't think anyone has argued that our offer doesn't mean more than the likes of one from Michigan or apparently the schools you listed. We want to know why Marty and Nagel (and any number of other kids who were committed and gave their words to other schools) aren't equally unethical oath breakers worthy of the same scorn of which Millen (and his father) are so deserving according to some - or alternatively a simple acknowledgement that none of have done wrong here, that they are kids that made the best decision for themselves that should be respected (my position on this).
Last edited:
Corbi - I think we all can live with one of two notions:
1. It is crappy when a kid decommits and a school poaches. Cale sucks, but NU is no princess here and, as such, stands on no holy ground; or
2. Kids are just that, kids and schools also act in less than 'moral' ways in poaching or revoking offers - and as such, it sucks that Cale is gone, but it is the nature of the business.
Your approach that Cale is such an immoral shit and NU is holier than thou drives this banter. Way too much purple koolaid. It is a double standard. Period. So, you can continue your banter or pick a consistency - plain and simple.
I'm still trying to comprehend what legal terms Aging Booster is referring to. The chop logic that's repeated itself in this tread is beyond anything I've ever witnessed on these boards, and that's a mighty high bar to be cleared. Truly impressive.
Soooooo, Corbi & AB, are you going to address this or willow, misdirect, change the topic, focus on fake news...:
"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."
"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."
But, OTOH, Nagel didn't have an NU offer before and was waiting on one as was Marty, but somehow it was still acceptable for them to recant and choose NU, because....
If Larkin is a 3.5 degree of difficulty (and I think you're being soft here), then Nagel and Marty are Perfect 4.0s.
Well to be fair, I think Corbi even doesn't want to have this conversation anymore. Can you blame him?
So in a way, we're just talking to ourselves now.
May be the first time a thread has ever had a consensus on an issue!
Wait... I still feel Aging Booster may have it left in him to make one more charge.
Hold on a second, we seem to be doing it wrong! Shouldn't we be poaching from the guys whose offers don't mean as much as ours, and not the ones who honor the offers of their commitments?
Plus if we were poaching from these set of schools, I think we'd have better players.
In defense of the NU approach, I'll say I think Fitz and his staff will only pursue and offer committed guys who express interest. That was certainly the case with Nagel, who's from the area and whose brothers played at NU.
Fitz used to say that a player must first decommit from the other program before receiving a NU offer, but that appears to have changed. Now, he may first approach the situation through back channels, like reaching out to the high school coach, to gauge interest. The difference may be that if a player says he's happy with his commitment and not interested in looking at NU, Fitz drops it. The same can't be said for many other programs, who will continue to pursue NU commits and badmouth NU even when the player says his commitment is firm. At least that's how I understand the process.
Just going back to read up on some of the earlier posts in the thread that I skipped.
You're missing the entire argument. No one is arguing here that we are doing anything wrong by poaching. In fact, I love poaching. We should do it more often (just preferably more from USC, Michigan, and the U, not so much because they are more unethical in their approach to offers, but more because I think we'd get better players than by poaching from the more honest programs).
We're trying to understand why Millen breaking his word is so different from Nagel or Marty breaking their words. They also created/assumed duty to their original schools, regardless of whether their schools honor their duties in accepting their commitments. But, let's humor you and Corbi for a moment and pretend that if a school doesn't honor its duty, then there is no duty in committing to such a school (which in itself is faulty logic, or at least in my book, because unlike Corbi perhaps, I was taught and teach my kids that my word is bond, and that I keep my word, even to the liars out there because a promise made by me is one that I keep, regardless of who I make it to or whether they reciprocate or not - i.e. breaking your word is never ok, not even if you're just doing it to liars who break their promises with others). No one can demonstrate that Duke or Miami OH or other every other school we have poached from is engaged in dishonourable recruiting practices where they break their word to their commitments. Even if one or more of them is dishonorable, what about the rest who aren't? So, if a kid like Nagel or Marty break their commitments to a school like Miami or Duke that has no record of breaking their duties to the kids whose commitments they accept, are they unethical? Do such schools not make it clear that such commitments aren't equally promises? Have these kids not similarly broken a promise when they decommit? Does it not raise an integrity/character issue for you? Are they on the slippery slope to poor characters? How are they different from Cale Millen?
I hear what you’re saying, but NU even does it differently when recruiting committed players. NU will not stay in constant contact with players committed elsewhere, instead simply making a single call (typically to the player’s coach first) to gauge interest if anything has changed; other schools will actively recruit committed players right up to signing day. Quite frankly I think Fitz could probably get some utility out of “playing the game” a little more, but doubt we will see him fundamentally change his philosophy all that much.
And that’s to say nothing of how some programs treat their own commitments. I’ve got stories about coaches refusing commitments from players literally holding their offer letter, slow playing sending along NLI forms in hopes that a kid gets the message, etc. Schools won’t typically just straight up tell a kid “hey, you no longer have a scholarship here” because that’s some terrible PR; it’s more often a long series of events (such as cutting off all contact, slow playing admissions, etc.) until it gets to the point where the kid TECHNICALLY decommitted, but it’s also pretty clear that it was of the school’s volition.
It mostly sucks that Millen, like Deuce Wallace before him, seems to have used NU as a “place holder” at the most important position on the field for which recruiting is becoming more and more accelerated. Whereas it’s relatively easy to recover from, for instance, a WR or DE decommit, it is much MUCH harder to recover from a QB decommit. We seem to have some legitimate candidates, but I won’t feel great until one of those guys is committed (and even then until they actually sign).
I'm not sure that makes us that much more angelic than other programs. But, fine, we're classier than others in that regard, for sure (maybe we shouldn't be). But, that's not the point. There is no need to defend the NU approach because no one is criticizing it (well, except maybe we should focus more on poaching kids from USC, the U, and Michigan instead of Miami OH and Duke, because maybe we'd be getting better players). No one is blaming Oregon or saying NU is doing anything wrong by poaching. The question at hand is why is Nagel and Marty breaking their commitments different from Millen?
Yeah, I get we do things differently, but again that's not the argument here. Nor is it disputed that some programs are reprehensible in the way they treat some kids. For a time, I didn't believe that so much about Stanford or at least that it was proven, but folks including you successfully persuaded me otherwise (though not sure it is still happening under Shaw).
It does suck that Millen and Wallace left us in a bind. But, dem's the breaks and we will just have to do what we can to recover. And, Nagel and Marty left Duke and Miami in similar binds. At least Marty is a QB too, and we may (hopefully) help leave UCF in a similar bind. Actually, Nagel's was worse because he did it in the last 24 hours and Duke couldn't fill the spot with anyone else at all. It may be harder to recover from a QB decommit in general, but it's not harder than recovering from a decommit 24 hours before signing day.
I would say it’s different because Nagel and Marty both had an affirmative choice after decommitting. They both decommitted explicitly to immediately commit to NU. Conversely, Millen simply decommitted in order to evaluate other options after being committed for four of the most important months in QB recruiting.
I suppose that's one way it's different - but not sure how that changes the whole argument that your word is bond, and if you break it you're an unethical asshole. In fact, one could argue that Millen's choice to decommit is more honourable in that he isn't just "waiting" on a specific offer and using NU, but in fact he's decided he pulled the trigger prematurely and rectified the decision. None of the schools out there are committed to see him through his process and as such any scarce and coveted QB spots could be taken by other offerees at those schools (doubting that he's the only outstanding offer at any of these schools). The alternative is to wait and be certain of his choice and then decommit with an affirmative choice and something that is more certain before dropping his backup with NU, wasting more of NU's time. But, no, instead, he's decommitting now, with the risk that Oregon accept a commitment from someone else.
Changes it a lot in my opinion and makes it more unethical, but I think we’ve reached the “agree to disagree” point on this specific issue.
Perhaps, but I am honestly trying to understand your thinking here. So, if Millen had immediately committed to Oregon after decommiting instead of opening it to the field, you think that'd be more ethical? Not sure I follow, but even allowing for that, isn't that splitting hairs when it comes to giving your word?
Yes I think it would be more ethical. Because it would mean that his decision had actually been changed by a specific option rather than a more general “well, I don’t know what I want to do but I just know I don’t want to be at NU anymore.”
Choosing another specific option/offer really doesn’t make it “ethical,” but at least makes it a little more... maybe “explicable?”
Last edited:
Well, those are Fitz'z rules. If you are exploring other opportunities then you are no longer committed to NU. So in order to explore those other opportunities at any level he had to withdraw his commitment. He may find that they are not that great and want to come back but it will be up to Fitz and company whether they would have a spot for him.
Fitz is an honorable guy, but appears to have reached the conclusion that he has to play the recruiting game a little harder. Get punched in the mouth enough and you want to hit back, no matter how good your intentions were at the beginning.
Ha. I’m sipping a beverage on a beach on Longboat Key as of noon today. Last thing I am going to do is waste precious R&R time arguing with you. I’ll pick this back up when I am back in the office. Later!
Can someone remember to bump this thread next week?
(Replay Official takes his head out from the little viewing booth)
"After further review of the evidence, it has been determined that a bunch of 17 year olds have major college football programs and their anxious fan bases by the balls. Applying Michael Porter's laws of competitive advantage, those individuals with leverage in the relationship between recruiters and recruits are free to act within all applicable rules and standards of the NCAA, and what fans think generally amounts to a hill of beans. Based on this data, Cale Millen is innocent of any charges."
"After further review of the evidence, it has been determined that a bunch of 17 year olds have major college football programs and their anxious fan bases by the balls. Applying Michael Porter's laws of competitive advantage, those individuals with leverage in the relationship between recruiters and recruits are free to act within all applicable rules and standards of the NCAA, and what fans think generally amounts to a hill of beans. Based on this data, Cale Millen is innocent of any charges."
I lean towards the latter. Not sure there is anything more ethical about decommitting because a specific option came about versus coming to the realization that one may have made a mistake. But, I am beginning to understand your point.
