Man, you are thick. Did I not state in the previous post and many times before that we do offer underclassmen subject to the caveat that they achieve certain test scores and maintain a certain GPA? Given this, before those kids are allowed to officially visit in their senior year, admissions has to validate that they have met these criteria. Does that make sense to you or do I need to spell it out another time?
Lastly, to set the record straight and to contradict your previous claims about our recruiting practices, NU competes on the recruiting front in an ethical manner with a philosophy that puts an emphasis on trust and fairness. NU does not harass and "poach" recruits from other teams like other programs do. We leave the door open for certain recruits to change their mind but require that they do it in a transparent manner severing ties with their former program first. We do not screw kids over who have committed to us because they get injured or because we find a recruit that we like better. Once we make a scholarship offer and it is accepted, we honor our commitment with the only exception being a failure on the part of the recruit to honor his academic commitments. This is a rare and commendable approach that is followed by very few programs out there. Certainly not by your idol, Jim Harbaugh. Instead of constantly criticizing it or cynically doubting our superiority in this regard, you and all NU fans should embrace it and view it as a source of pride. I like our approach and unlike you, I am a fan of the program because we don't value winning at all costs.
So, please explain because I truly want to understand.
We evaluate a kid and decide him worthy of an offer.
He "clears admissions" before we make an offer (otherwise we tell him he has to get his scores up)
If he has an offer, he can decide to commit. Some do.
If he commits, is that offer subject to another admissions hurdle down the road, prior to his official visit? So, we make an offer to a kid, that is contingent on him meeting this 2nd admissions hurdle? I am not saying there is anything wrong with that at all, but a certain school out West would say they do the same thing.
To truly set the record straight (which you fail to do)- I get and am PROUD that NU recruits in an ethical manner. I get that we do not harass recruits committed to other schools from other teams like some other programs do. I also am proud that we honor commitments and stick with committed kids after they are injured (though I don't think we owe anything to a kid we offer, that hasn't committed - we should be open to pulling an uncommitted offer at any time for any reason). But, we do "poach" (meaning we do recruit committed recruits) and we most certainly stay in contact (we do not wait for them to initiate contact as you and others have claimed in this thread) and we most certainly make it clear to them that we have a spot for them if we hadn't offered them earlier and then later change our mind (Nagel and numerous IU and NIU poaches) and continue to keep warm (albeit in a nice and ethical way) those who had offers but chose to commit elsewhere (Larkin). A poach (getting a committed to kid to flip from another school) is still a poach, even if we do it differently from other schools. I will allow that you seem to have a different definition - that what we do is somehow not poaching, and maybe that's why you seem insistent on misrepresenting me on this.
I also get that we honor commitments unless there is a failure on the part of the recruit to honor his academic commitments, but that is hardly the only exception (e.g. the Ohio kid who ended up at Wisconsin and then quit being another exception had nothing to do with academics). And FWIW, I do support this approach and have never suggested that we change this, so it is really a complete joke that you complain that I put words in your mouth when you DO IT ALL THE EFFING TIME TO ME. I only questioned whether Harbaugh was doing something unethical as you and others described, especially as you appear to make an argument that a kid with an NU offer, has a caveat in that admissions still has to validate him (even though you say he was already cleared by admissions prior to getting an offer) - a validation begins to sound somewhat similar to Stanford does (though I get the nuance/difference that you think is here, and based on GCG's insistence of first hand info to that effect, have come to acknowledge that there is probably something to the claims of Stanford abusing this). And yet another thing - I AM A FAN OF THE PROGRAM, AND I DO NOT AT ALL VALUE WINNING AT ALL COSTS (yet another bullshit misrepresentation of my position) - nothing could be further from the truth, or haven't you been following my crusade against dOSU?
This debate has nothing to do with suggesting that we do things differently. It has to do with questioning a series of assertions that I perceived to have been made that appear wrong, but which either you have backtracked on, or perhaps, I totally misunderstood what you were saying (I doubt that, but let me allow for that possibility) - or in the exceptional case of Stanford's recruiting practices, I've been persuaded that there might be something to it. To wit:
1. I love the fact that we poach recruits (and I'm glad we do it ethically) - I took exception to the claims that we didn't do anything (including initiating contact or making it clear that there was interest) to try to flip other school's commitments. Now, it appears everyone agrees that we do, but only ethically.
2. I heard in the past that we would not allow a kid to commit unless he made an official visit, and then it was visited campus, and now it's a visit isn't a prerequisite for a commitment to be accepted by our staff - so maybe I dreamed it all.
3. I heard (perhaps misunderstood) and refuted claims that kids had to 'clear admissions' before they could accept an offer, as I took that to mean they had to have been admitted. Now, with the clarity that what is meant by that is that their profile has to be screened and considered admissions worthy (that is fricking obvious though - that's never been disputed and we'd be utterly stupid not to consider a kid's academic profile before deciding to recruit him, much less give him an offer), I don't think there is a disagreement.
4. I am hearing (even now) that a kid who has an offer, still has to "clear admissions" before he is allowed to visit, but am wondering about the conundrum of that statement, if he already "cleared admissions." Perhaps, in this case, you mean actually being admitted.
None of the above is questioning what we do or suggesting we should do things differently. It is questioning assertions made by individuals who claim they are an authority on how we do things that don't appear to be consistent or logical. That doesn't make me any less of a fan than you.
The only things I think Fitz should change in his recruiting now that the claims that we never poach are clearly wrong is: a) going more aggressively after more highly recruited players like Stanford does (instead of doing less with the highly recruited kids and focusing on kids who have less attention, as GCG himself has said is our approach and has argued is good practice - I just happen to disagree) and b) when a kid committed to NU decides to open up his recruiting including visiting another school, that we automatically give up on him and retract the offer altogether (although, it has now been clarified that our policy is NOT that, and that while we can choose to retract an offer, it is not automatic and we can and do still try to keep the ones we want (I am not aware of any examples of that, though someone I think said Godwn was an example) - if that's the case, then I have absolutely no problem with that). I don't see those positions as valuing winning at all costs, so not sure why you want to throw that label around unless you think that misrepresenting me somehow makes it easier to discredit me.
