Larkin?

[EvanstonCat]

The coaching staff will continue to contact recruits on a regular basis (say, once every two weeks) after they've verballed elsewhere to let them know that they are still interested in the player if he should change his mind. That's not the same as how the coaches would behave if they were actively recruiting that player. It's the difference between a full court press and token pressure on the ball in basketball. If a recruit who has verballed to another school changes his mind, then NU insists the recruit decommit first before NU will put on the full-court press for that player.

When Randy Walker passed away, a player who had verballed to Notre Dame and went to ND wrote a sympathy note praising Walker for all the wonderful conversations he'd had with Walker about life, faith, school, etc., on a regular basis even though he was firmly committed to ND.

Now, this is something I believe. Those who say we don't contact the recruit (or that Nagel contacted us first) are talking out of their ass. I have no problem with not doing the hard sell on verballed recruits, but to completely cut off contact and wait for them to come back? That would be foolish. There was an article where Fitz himself said in the case of Nagel they were staying in touch and letting it be clear to him and his coach that they were interested if they wanted to change their minds, and defending it.

This is exactly the right approach. It would be completely foolish as well to put on a full court press on recruits that have already committed to other schools. Why waste your time doing a full court press better spent on closing uncommitted recruits?

Make no mistake though - we do not break off recruiting, and we make it clear we are still interested - it's still recruiting. We still have no problem taking recruits from other schools - despite our own view that a commitment to NU is a promise.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Actually, I think this is how it works. If NU has offered a kid, and he notifies the coaching staff that he has committed elsewhere, NU will not recruit him unless he decommits or re-initiates contact with NU. However, if a kid has committed elsewhere before receiving an NU offer, the coaching staff has no qualms about offering him. For instance, Riley Lees was committed to Miami before receiving his offer from NU.

If Larkin commits to NU, it's likely that he re-initiated contact with the staff, though we can speculate that Jordan Thompson influenced his decision.

Just wrong. Contact doesn't need to be reinitiated because contact is never broken. See Glades's post which is the true reality finally after all the myth that we somehow won't touch other school's recruits.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Just wrong. Contact doesn't need to be reinitiated because contact is never broken. See Glades's post which is the true reality finally after all the myth that we somehow won't touch other school's recruits.

Who cares about all of this? Just go out and lock up the Larkin kid.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Who cares about all of this? Just go out and lock up the Larkin kid.

Cheers to that. It's not a poach until we actually bring him into the fold.

 

[corbi296]

Just wrong. Contact doesn't need to be reinitiated because contact is never broken. See Glades's post which is the true reality finally after all the myth that we somehow won't touch other school's recruits.

I'll let Larkin's own words in the link below prove once again that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to NU football.

http://www.downthedrive.com/2015/8/...ng-q-a-with-16-rb-and-uc-commit-jeremy-larkin

 

[HawkCat]

Now, this is something I believe. Those who say we don't contact the recruit (or that Nagel contacted us first) are talking out of their ass. I have no problem with not doing the hard sell on verballed recruits, but to completely cut off contact and wait for them to come back? That would be foolish. There was an article where Fitz himself said in the case of Nagel they were staying in touch and letting it be clear to him and his coach that they were interested if they wanted to change their minds, and defending it.

This is exactly the right approach. It would be completely foolish as well to put on a full court press on recruits that have already committed to other schools. Why waste your time doing a full court press better spent on closing uncommitted recruits?

Make no mistake though - we do not break off recruiting, and we make it clear we are still interested - it's still recruiting. We still have no problem taking recruits from other schools - despite our own view that a commitment to NU is a promise.

Well, I believe the actual quote from Fitz to which you refer said NU will get in touch with a committed recruit's high school coach to express continuing interest. I don't believe NU will contact the committed recruit himself unless the high school coach gives the green light that the committed recruit is receptive.

 

[Gladeskat]

I'll let Larkin's own words in the link below prove once again that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to NU football.

http://www.downthedrive.com/2015/8/...ng-q-a-with-16-rb-and-uc-commit-jeremy-larkin

Sorry, but that article from August doesn't mean much. When he says "no other schools have contacted him" he's not necessarily excluding NU, and NU checking in every now and then may not qualify as recruiting him. Cincy has had a poor season and he may have figured out that Tuberville is an a-hole by now.

Duece Wallace would have said the same thing right up until he got an offer from Vandy.

 

[corbi296]

Sorry Glades but I don't read it that way. He states that NU and Louisville were schools he was interested in and then says that no schools other than Cinci had spoken to him since he committed two months earlier. In other words once he committed, NU had not contacted him for two whole months during the prime recruiting season for the class of 2016. if they hadn't continued contact during that two month period what makes you think they contacted him directly subsequently? What happens in this type of situation is exactly what's been stated in the past. When the kid calls to tell NU he is committing elsewhere, if we feel strongly about him the staff tells him to give them a call if he has second thoughts. In this case the staff obviously felt strongly about Larkin and wanted a second RB in the class. Once it became obvious that Nwangwu wasn't coming to NU the staff checked in with Larkn's coach and reminded him they were still interested and had space. Larkin reconsidered his decision and here we are. If the rumors are true, he will decommitt from Cinci and then immediately commit to NU or take an official and then commit to NU. I think the way NU handles it is above aboard and as ethical an approach as you will see in all of college football recruiting.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Sorry Glades but I don't read it that way. He states that NU and Louisville were schools he was interested in and then says that no schools other than Cinci had spoken to him since he committed two months earlier. In other words once he committed, NU had not contacted him for two whole months during the prime recruiting season for the class of 2016. if they hadn't continued contact during that two month period what makes you think they contacted him directly subsequently? What happens in this type of situation is exactly what's been stated in the past. When the kid calls to tell NU he is committing elsewhere, if we feel strongly about him the staff tells him to give them a call if he has second thoughts. In this case the staff obviously felt strongly about Larkin and wanted a second RB in the class. Once it became obvious that Nwangwu wasn't coming to NU the staff checked in with Larkn's coach and reminded him they were still interested and had space. Larkin reconsidered his decision and here we are. If the rumors are true, he will decommitt from Cinci and then immediately commit to NU or take an official and then commit to NU. I think the way NU handles it is above aboard and as ethical an approach as you will see in all of college football recruiting.

Sure it's above board. But, make no mistake - we still are in contact and we still make it clear we are interested. That's still poaching. And I'm glad we do it. You'd think what happened with Nagel last year at the 11th hour, and what Fitz himself said in defending the poach, that you'd give up your stubborn insistence that we somehow don't poach.

 

[Fiadhaich]

Sure it's above board. But, make no mistake - we still are in contact and we still make it clear we are interested. That's still poaching. And I'm glad we do it. You'd think what happened with Nagel last year at the 11th hour, and what Fitz himself said in defending the poach, that you'd give up your stubborn insistence that we somehow don't poach.

Just like a grandstanding politician. Say it loudly enough and often enough, and it will be taken as truth, even when it isn't.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Just like a grandstanding politician. Say it loudly enough and often enough, and it will be taken as truth, even when it isn't.

Whatever. What do you want? How about an article that spits it in your face? READ FITZ'S WORDS COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Maybe that's loud enough for you.

https://northwestern.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1733784&PT=4&PR=2

We go after other school's commits - that is poaching. We may do it in a nice way, and in an above board way, but we do it. People here claimed we didn't which is a pure myth and complete bull. Just like the one where we supposedly won't offer a kid unless he's admitted or he's visited the school. Just plain BS.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Talking out your ass....spitting in your face...at least ECat knows his anatomy!

 

[EvanstonCat]

Talking out your ass....spitting in your face...at least ECat knows his anatomy!

It's expressive language. I forget what the fallacies are actually called, but I think you combined two or even three of them to redirect the conversation here when you have nothing to refute the argument at hand.

 

[corbi296]

Whatever. What do you want? How about an article that spits it in your face? READ FITZ'S WORDS COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Maybe that's loud enough for you.

https://northwestern.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1733784&PT=4&PR=2

We go after other school's commits - that is poaching. We may do it in a nice way, and in an above board way, but we do it. People here claimed we didn't which is a pure myth and complete bull. Just like the one where we supposedly won't offer a kid unless he's admitted or he's visited the school. Just plain BS.

Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to NU football or football in general for that matter.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to NU football or football in general for that matter.

I see. So you are refuting what Fitz himself is saying and simply saying I know nothing. Great argument!

Corbi says we never recruit kids who are committed to other schools. Corbi says we never offer kids who haven't been admitted. Corbi says we never offer a kid that hasn't visited campus. And I'm the one who has no clue. Well, I may not know a whole lot (which I readily admit), but unlike you, I don't pretend to.

Whatever, Jon Snow.

 

[Hungry Jack]

It's expressive language. I forget what the fallacies are actually called, but I think you combined two or even three of them to redirect the conversation here when you have nothing to refute the argument at hand.

I plead guilty as charged. Copping out. In all honesty, I don't care enough about the technicalities of "poaching" to stay involved in debate. I cede my position to you.

 

[corbi296]

Nothing I read in the article you posted is inconsistent with anything that was posted in this thread by folks that disagree with you. It does contradict your multiple claims in this thread " those who say we don't contact the recruit directly are talking out of their ass". Since you keep bringing up the Nagel situation as your latest example of why you are right, I can tell you I have direct insight into how his recruitment went about and can say that your theory on how we landed him is completely incorrect. Face it, NU's approach is nuanced and ethical but you are inapable of grasping the nuance or admitting that you are wrong.

As far as the rest of the BS claims that you attribute to me, I can only deduct that you have mangled previous statements of mine to try and make yourself look less foolish in this long running argument you long ago lost but insist on trying to justify. Let me be clear once and for all, NU will not let a recruit take his "official visit" to NU and will not accept a commitment from a recruit unless that recruit has been already cleared by admissions. Show me an instance post Sean Cotton where this has not been the case.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Nothing I read in the article you posted is inconsistent with anything that was posted in this thread by folks that disagree with you. It does contradict your multiple claims in this thread " those who say we don't contact the recruit directly are talking out of their ass". Since you keep bringing up the Nagel situation as your latest example of why you are right, I can tell you I have direct insight into how his recruitment went about and can say that your theory on how we landed him is completely incorrect. Face it, NU's approach is nuanced and ethical but you are inapable of grasping the nuance or admitting that you are wrong.

As far as the rest of the BS claims that you attribute to me, I can only deduct that you have mangled previous statements of mine to try and make yourself less foolish in this long running argument you long ago lost but insist on trying to justify. Let me be clear once and for all, NU will not let a recruit take his "official visit" to NU and will not accept a commitment from a recruit unless that recruit has been already cleared by admissions. Show me an instance post Sean Cotton where this has not been the case.

Pshaw, your deductions are incorrect. No one is trying to look less foolish and no one has lost an argument to you on these issues.

Shontrelle Johnson committed to NU before he ever saw the campus
We have juniors who commit to NU, well before they can even apply much less be admitted to NU

If you agree that:

1) we do recruit players that are committed to other schools. PERIOD. I get the nuance of how we do it and agree it is ethical (that's never been the issue - I wouldn't even have a problem if we were even more aggressive), what I take exception to is somehow this idea that we are above poaching other school's recruits, because as has been asserted before, we believe a commitment is like an engagement to be married and sacrosanct.
2) we do offer kids and accept their commitments well before they set foot on campus much less take their official visits (Shontrelle Johnson, who himself said that he never saw our campus). A shit ton of recruits on our commitment list every year (basically everyone before the fall) commit before their official visits. I'm not arguing that we don't allow them to officially visit until they are admitted, but what is your point? Are you saying none of the verbal commitments have been accepted by us, until they arrive for their official? Why would we hold a kid to honor a verbal made before his official visit then? Even though nothing is final, final, official on either side until Feb 3rd? I'm just trying to understand exactly what you are trying to say here.
3) we do offer kids and accept their commitments before they have been admitted to NU (numerous Junior class commitments); I do allow that we may take a profile and get an indication of whether he is likely to be admitted, perhaps even from an actual person in admissions (and perhaps you call that being cleared by admissions), but that would be the obvious and sensible thing to do (and I'm sure Stanford does that as well) but is very different from being actually admitted (which I took your being cleared by admissions to mean) - which as you and others like to point out, Stanford abuses to it's benefit.

Then we really have no beef.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I talk out my ass frequently after my visits to the local Chipotle. Please pardon my diction.

In all seriousness, the argument has fizzled into irrelevance. We recruit players if nuanced ways, but I will venture that if we do poach players, it is in the best interest of the player, though not necessarily the program he had committed to. How can I assert this? We are simply giving the kid another choice, and the chance to reconsider a decision that might have been made in haste. And if PF & Co mislead recruits to lure them here, I have never heard of it.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I talk out my ass frequently after my visits to the local Chipotle. Please pardon my diction.

In all seriousness, the argument has fizzled into irrelevance. We recruit players if nuanced ways, but I will venture that if we do poach players, it is in the best interest of the player, though not necessarily the program he had committed to. How can I assert this? We are simply giving the kid another choice, and the chance to reconsider a decision that might have been made in haste. And if PF & Co mislead recruits to lure them here, I have never heard of it.

No pardon necessary. I hope you don't get sick. Chipotle is not a safe place apparently.

Most arguments on this board fizzle into irrelevance very quickly. That doesn't stop people from continuing them unabated. For years. I completely believe in poaching, that there is nothing unethical about it, and that doing so is entirely in the best interests of the player - giving them another choice, and helping them prevent a tragic mistake in their lives. In fact, because we are NU, failing to do our best to poach kids and allowing them to destroy their lives by going somewhere else like say Iowa could be arguably immoral (I kid). No one ever has said PF & Co misleads recruits to lure them here (btw, bringing this up is another fallacy - strawman!) - it's simply not relevant to this irrelevant discussion at hand.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I think one exception to the "thou shalt not mislead recruits" argument might be SEC schools.

 

[corbi296]

i think you have a reading comprehension issue. Where in my post did I say that we don't accept commitments from recruits that have not visited campus? regarding the whole admissions process, i said cleared by admissions, not formally admitted. Besides, as GCG has repeatedly said to you in the past, scholarship athletes don't go through the normal admissions process like other students do and your repeated arguments that hinge on this contention are comical. Admissions for NU football players is driven by a sliding scale based on GPA and test scores. These two factors have an inverse relationship (I.e the higher your GPA the lower your test score can be). I have heard of players who played for NU that got in with a combination of 3.0 GPA and 19 ACT. Given this, if a junior in HS has a GPA in the high 3s or 4.0+, the staff is able to work with admissions and reasonable deduce that this has the academic profile to be accepted at NU as a scholarship football player. That is why the staff is able to feel comfortable offering underclassmen subject to the caveat that they have to achieve a minimum test score and maintain a minimum GPA.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I think one exception to the "thou shalt not mislead recruits" argument might be SEC schools.

There are a shit ton of schools who mislead recruits. dOSU for one. Wisconsin (our school of journalism is better than NU's). Illinois (whatever it is they say, I'm sure it's misleading for anyone wanting to be in Rantoul). Even Stanford according to many.

I do believe and agree that we don't mislead recruits.

Except Sean Cotton. For what I am told which a coach was basically fired for, much to the detriment of our receiving unit. Dammit if that hadn't happened, maybe we'd be playing in the playoff this year.

 

[Hungry Jack]

There are a shit ton of schools who mislead recruits. dOSU for one. Wisconsin (our school of journalism is better than NU's). Illinois (whatever it is they say, I'm sure it's misleading for anyone wanting to be in Rantoul). Even Stanford according to many.

I do believe and agree that we don't mislead recruits.

Except Sean Cotton. For what I am told which a coach was basically fired for, much to the detriment of our receiving unit. Dammit if that hadn't happened, maybe we'd be playing in the playoff this year.

I think there is enough wiggle room for a school like Wisconsin to claim that its journalism school is better "suited" for the student without being construed as misleading. Sure, Medill has a great reputation, but it is entirely plausible that the Wisconsin school has a fine program that might excel in certain specialties. As with star rankings, US News / Princeton Review / Forbes rankings aren't the ultimate authority. They are mere guides that should provoke more analysis (the equivalent of watching tape). In reality, there is no blanket "best" college, but so much depends on the individual, not the institution.

I am glad that the coach who misled Cotton was held accountable.

 

[Gladeskat]

Sorry Glades but I don't read it that way. He states that NU and Louisville were schools he was interested in and then says that no schools other than Cinci had spoken to him since he committed two months earlier. In other words once he committed, NU had not contacted him for two whole months during the prime recruiting season for the class of 2016. if they hadn't continued contact during that two month period what makes you think they contacted him directly subsequently? What happens in this type of situation is exactly what's been stated in the past. When the kid calls to tell NU he is committing elsewhere, if we feel strongly about him the staff tells him to give them a call if he has second thoughts. In this case the staff obviously felt strongly about Larkin and wanted a second RB in the class. Once it became obvious that Nwangwu wasn't coming to NU the staff checked in with Larkn's coach and reminded him they were still interested and had space. Larkin reconsidered his decision and here we are. If the rumors are true, he will decommitt from Cinci and then immediately commit to NU or take an official and then commit to NU. I think the way NU handles it is above aboard and as ethical an approach as you will see in all of college football recruiting.

Do you know this for certain? I'm simply recounting what I know about Walker's recruiting. I don't know for certain how Fitz recruits. I personally don't see much difference between going through a player's HS coach or contacting them on occasion directly (via email, phone, text) except there are fewer direct calls to the player. The point is that interest is communicated to the player.

It also seems to me that we contact kids who have verballed to MAC schools either directly or through their HS coach if we want to offer them a scholarship. I believe we then contact the MAC head coach to tell them that we will be recruiting them. It looks like we did that with Johnson and Corbin Bryant, though again, I don't know for certain. I recall reading stories on how they were recruited, but I don't recall the details and don't have enough interest in this to go search for the articles.

 

[EvanstonCat]

i think you have a reading comprehension issue. Where in my post did I say that we don't accept commitments from recruits that have not visited campus? regarding the whole admissions process, i said cleared by admissions, not formally admitted. Besides, as GCG has repeatedly said to you in the past, scholarship athletes don't go through the normal admissions process like other students do and your repeated arguments that hinge on this contention are comical. Admissions for NU football players is driven by a sliding scale based on GPA and test scores. These two factors have an inverse relationship (I.e the higher your GPA the lower your test score can be). I have heard of players who played for NU that got in with a combination of 3.0 GPA and 19 ACT. Given this, if a junior in HS has a GPA in the high 3s or 4.0+, the staff is able to work with admissions and reasonable deduce that this has the academic profile to be accepted at NU as a scholarship football player. That is why the staff is able to feel comfortable offering underclassmen subject to the caveat that they have to achieve a minimum test score and maintain a minimum GPA.

I don't believe I have a reading comprehension problem, any more than you don't believe you have a problem writing more clearly and precisely. I referred to these points not because they were necessarily made in this thread (the only one that was made in this thread orginally was the one where we don't contact or recruit other school's recruits). The others I raised as myths equally incorrect that have been assertively made by the same people.

I really believe that I heard people say we don't recruit other school's commits (not true), but maybe those people meant we don't hard sell them and that doesn't include staying in touch and making it clear we are still interested. I really believe I heard (not in this thread, but many times elsewhere) someone say no one is allowed to commit to NU until they visit (or is it officially visit?). But, then perhaps I was misreading things there too and no one ever said anything about visiting campus being a condition to accepting an offer.

But, then why would we ever be talking about the conditions for an official visit?

Here's what doesn't add up to me, so perhaps you can explain it:

Consider:

1. Every kid that we offer been "cleared by admissions" - now that we are accepting your definition of this (not officially admitted, but profiled and predicted to be admitted and fasttracked). This is a point I assume we all agree on now.
2. If so, then every kid that has an offer should be allowed to officially visit - and the condition that they are cleared by admissions is a non-condition, because by holding offers they have already been cleared by admissions. Why would you even make a point that such kids (with offers) need to been cleared by admissions before officially visiting? Aren't they all cleared by admissions before receiving an offer?
3. So why is that that there are kids that we have offered, that we somehow don't allow to visit? (which again, might be my reading comprehension problem arising yet again, but is what I understand to be the context of why the admissions condition has been brought up)
4. Aren't we really just slowplaying them when we delay their official visit? i.e. admissions has nothing to do with anything in this case
5. What if they decide to commit anyways? Are you saying (which I think I've heard you say, but perhaps I was misreading again) that we won't accept an offer from a kid that hasn't made his official visit? Then what is the logic of rejecting their commitment, when we accepted a ton of commits earlier without having made their official visits or even having visited at all?

I may have had a reading comprehension problem somewhere, but I could have sworn I saw someone write that we don't allow a kid with an offer to officially visit unless he clears admissions. I'm not understanding what the point is and how makes any sense. My head hurts.

 

[corbi296]

Once again, you either have a reading comprehension issue or you are purposely attributing statements to me in order to make your arguments hold water. Once again, I said that recruits are not allowed to officially visit and we will not accept a commitment from a recruit that has not been "cleared" by admissions. Where did I say that we will not extend an offer to a recruit who hasn't been "cleared by admissions"? In fact I acknowledge, in response to your comments, that like everyone else we do offer underclassmen well before a full picture of their academic profile can be ascertained but these offers are subject to caveats of achieving and maintaining a minimum combination of test scores/GPA. Unless these caveats are met, NU won't let those players take official visits and won't accept their commitments.

Hopefully that's clear enough writing for you. Like I said, it's nuanced rather than black and white and I know you struggle with those situations. Hopefully your head doesn't hurt too badly!

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Once again, you either have a reading comprehension issue or you are purposely attributing statements to me in order to make your arguments hold water. Once again, I said that recruits are not allowed to officially visit and we will not accept a commitment from a recruit that has not been "cleared" by admissions. Where did I say that we will not extend an offer to a recruit who hasn't been "cleared by admissions"? In fact I acknowledge, in response to your comments, that like everyone else we do offer underclassmen well before a full picture of their academic profile can be ascertained but these offers are subject to caveats of achieving and maintaining a minimum combination of test scores/GPA. Unless these caveats are met, NU won't let those players take official visits and won't accept their commitments.

Hopefully that's clear enough writing for you. Like I said, it's nuanced rather than black and white and I know you struggle with those situations. Hopefully your head doesn't hurt too badly!

I have read this entire argument and you two are arguing about a relatively narrow, nuanced topic instead of the possibility of landing Larkin, which would be great. It's pretty silly of both of you.

 

[Hungry Jack]

BTW, have we even offered Foster yet? Does he have the academic chops to get in?

 

[corbi296]

I have this entire argument and you two are arguing about a relatively narrow, nuanced topic instead of the possibility of landing Larkin, which would be great. It's pretty silly of both of you.

I agree with you and believe me i long ago pledged to ignore most of Ecat's senseless rambles. This thread started to discuss the potential change of heart of a long sought recruit, Jeremy Larkin. Instead of joining in the excitement of a potential new commitment, ECat once again used this positive development as an opportunity to reintroduce his completely debunked premise that NU's recruiting practices are no different than any other program out there. That is clearly not accurate and I will not let that incorrect perception be promulgated, particularly by someone who claims to be an NU fan.

 

[corbi296]

BTW, have we even offered Foster yet? Does he have the academic chops to get in?

As far as I know we have not offered. Not sure if that is because of football reasons or other. See the Rock for a more detailed discussion.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

I agree with you and believe me i long ago pledged to ignore most of Ecat's senseless rambles. This thread started to discuss the potential change of heart of a long sought recruit, Jeremy Larkin. Instead of joining in the excitement of a potential new commitment, ECat once again used this positive development as an opportunity to reintroduce his completely debunked premise that NU's recruiting practices are no different than any other program out there. That is clearly not accurate and I will not let that incorrect perception be promulgated, particularly by someone who claims to be an NU fan.

If our practices were like everybody else's, then we'd have a lot of decommitments and soft verbals like other schools. But we don't and that's the clearest evidence that we don't offer unless we want the kid and know he can succeed at NU.

 

[Hungry Jack]

ECat, Why do you always seem to have a bug up your arse about certain things? Nothing personal, but you get pretty intense about some of the recruiting "styles", and then there is the whole OSU thing.

I think you have an internal "code" or sense of right/wrong about conduct in this game that is fairly easily triggered by certain situations. Do you think NU is hypocritical in its dealings with potential recruits?

Not trying to yank your chain at all. Just gain some clarity.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

ECat, Why do you always seem to have a bug up your arse about certain things? Nothing personal, but you get pretty intense about some of the recruiting "styles", and then there is the whole OSU thing.

I think you have an internal "code" or sense of right/wrong about conduct in this game that is fairly easily triggered by certain situations. Do you think NU is hypocritical in its dealings with potential recruits?

Not trying to yank your chain at all. Just gain some clarity.

I've read his rants for years. He has no inside info. He isn't even on North America. I have no idea why he feels it's necessary to bash our recruiting techniques. He's like Feli Syphilis's other personality or something.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

ECat, Why do you always seem to have a bug up your arse about certain things? Nothing personal, but you get pretty intense about some of the recruiting "styles", and then there is the whole OSU thing.

I think you have an internal "code" or sense of right/wrong about conduct in this game that is fairly easily triggered by certain situations. Do you think NU is hypocritical in its dealings with potential recruits?

Not trying to yank your chain at all. Just gain some clarity.

By the way, one of Larkin's attributes is that he can catch the ball out of the backfield. He would be a great in the short passing game.

 

[Hungry Jack]

By the way, one of Larkin's attributes is that he can catch the ball out of the backfield. He would be a great in the short passing game.

Saw that on the tape. Looks like he can catch a thrown ball pretty much anywhere.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I agree with you and believe me i long ago pledged to ignore most of Ecat's senseless rambles. This thread started to discuss the potential change of heart of a long sought recruit, Jeremy Larkin. Instead of joining in the excitement of a potential new commitment, ECat once again used this positive development as an opportunity to reintroduce his completely debunked premise that NU's recruiting practices are no different than any other program out there. That is clearly not accurate and I will not let that incorrect perception be promulgated, particularly by someone who claims to be an NU fan.

That's total bull and revisionist history. Not to mention, complete with yet another strawman. I never said that NU's recruiting practices are no different than any other program out there. Of course they are. That's never been under debate. If that's your premise, then you should have said so and I have absolutely no beef with that (in fact, I not only acknowledge this openly but have argued all along has been that we should be more similar to some of the other programs out there).

This has become a much narrower debate and it's probably not worth continuing. But, that's only because you have completely moved your goalposts (whereas you claim that I'm the one doing that), or perhaps, indeed you simply weren't being precise or I somehow have a reading comprehension problem. I guess it doesn't matter.

But, let's be clear. I have said all along that we do poach. I.e. we do things to recruit other school's commits. We do. We do it nicely, but we do it. It's not as if we break off all contact and just wait for a kid to realize by himself that he's made a mistake or to proactively inquire whether there is a spot for him if we happen to have a decommit or something else opens up. No, we do things to keep it warm, and we make it clear to him that a spot is there for the taking if he wants to consider. Kids don't just magically decide they want to decommit from Northern Illinois or something and magically an NU offer appears. Now, you're the one who wants to revise history to make yourself look less foolish by claiming there are nuances to how we do it so your original statement stands. You also still claim we do not initiate contact or stay in touch wth a recruit (as do others in this very thread) which is complete bull. And you're just outright lying when you deny you ever said we require a kid to visit (first it was officially, then it was at all after it was obvious that wasn't true) before we accept an offer.

You also still never answered my question about the consistency of the policy of not allowing an offered recruit to make an official visit, because, well you cannot. It is a paradox. But, whatever.

Agree that this is a thread that should be celebrating Larkin's flip, but you're the one that called me out into this argument. Go back and look, who initiated a personally directed argument on this (though I do admit, I did bait a little though I never called out anyone's name). If you never said the things that I talked about other posters saying, then why did you feel compelled to jump in and defend (though now you claim not to have ever said these things)?

I'm glad Larkin was poached. Absolutely the right thing for our staff to do, and hopefully we get a few others to flip on the heels of this impressive season.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I've read his rants for years. He has no inside info. He isn't even on North America. I have no idea why he feels it's necessary to bash our recruiting techniques. He's like Feli Syphilis's other personality or something.

I have NEVER claimed inside info. But, I don't pretend that I do either.

I do not bash our recruiting techniques as much I take a fan's view that you or anyone else is free to disagree with or ignore. I also have no problem calling out people when they are saying things that make no sense.

 

[EvanstonCat]

ECat, Why do you always seem to have a bug up your arse about certain things? Nothing personal, but you get pretty intense about some of the recruiting "styles", and then there is the whole OSU thing.

I think you have an internal "code" or sense of right/wrong about conduct in this game that is fairly easily triggered by certain situations. Do you think NU is hypocritical in its dealings with potential recruits?

Not trying to yank your chain at all. Just gain some clarity.

It's a good question. Mild personality disorder I suppose. I used to be like this off-line too - a burning desire to catch people's illogic or set the record straight when false statements are made. Over time and after a ton of scars, I've come to realize that this is not a good thing and it's usually better just to shut up and let the fools continue to be fools.

I have yet to make that change on-line, maybe because this is more of an outlet for me where I can be the a-hole inside that I can't let out in reality without much consequence. So, a bunch of equally ignorant schleps whom I have never met and never will think lesser of me. Who cares? I imagine I'm not the only one. I doubt all the a-holes on these boards are as a-holish in real life. I think that point has been made numerously by others as well.

Certain topics seem do bring it out in me - maybe because of how widespread the illogic may be. The immoral cost of dOSU's on the field success, the statistical correlations of recruiting stars, and all the topics debated in this stupid thread are just a few topics where I can't help myself. Don't forget putrid passing offenses.

 

[corbi296]

Mild personality disorder is an understatement. More like multiple personality disorder. Let's address your delusional claims one by one.

Who chose to use this thread about potentially securing Larkin's commitment and used it as another opportunity to not only claim that we proactively/directly recruit players that are committed elsewhere but also that those who have claimed otherwise are talking out of their ass? You,
not me.

Regarding your claim that I have in the past said we need to have recruits visit before accepting their commitmemt, I will reiterate that I have never said that. Someone who follows recruiting as closely as I do has so many anecdotal examples to the contrary that it is ludicrous to claim that I have said that. Show me the post!

Regarding your last point, I must profess I have no clue what you are talking about. What does "Consistency of the policy of not allowing an offered recruit to officially visit" mean?