Does Iowa accept visits from other verbal commits?

[Seth53]

Wisconsin sure as hell poached Melvin Gordon. Didn't bother them in the least he had already verbaled.

I'm all for an early signing period to do away with this nonsense.

 

[Joshbrown]

Wisconsin sure as hell poached Melvin Gordon. Didn't bother them in the least he had already verbaled.

I'm all for an early signing period to do away with this nonsense.

The question on Gordon is . . . when he flipped did Kirk try and win him back (like most coaches would) or did he pout and curse Melvin under his breath?

 

[Jonrn]

This has been asked a few places, still haven't seen an answer.
Does Iowa accept visits from kids who have verbally committed elsewhere?

Half of iowas players were commited to MAC teams and of course Josey jewell to upper Iowa university or something

 

[judzeehawk]

Juan commits Juan de commits Juan commits Juan de commits Juan commits Juan de commits. Seems to me a lie is a lie is a lie.

 

[kicker22]

I do not in any way want to disrespect the views of those who don't like KF's policy. That being said, I simply fail to understand why this policy is being viewed as a negative.

If a recruit begins to have doubts about his commitment to Iowa, then he should de-commit and begin to take visits and determine where he wants to be. I certainly have no problem with this action, and obviously we cannot stop a verbal commitment from being withdrawn by the athlete.

If he decides to come back to Iowa and we have a place for him, great. If his spot is gone, then that is fine, too, since Iowa will be fully justified in moving on with their recruiting to fill his spot. The kid needs to make a decision: He can take the bird in hand, or he can go out and look around the bushes. But he better know that he will have to let go of the bird in hand in order to begin the hunt. That is the process that makes complete sense to me.

Both the athlete and the school are treated as equals. They are NOT equal if the school is committed and the kid is still in the hunt.

This is the biggest issue I have in the situation because Eno never de-committed and we have no idea whether or not there were ever doubts about him wanting to be a Hawkeye. That is the problem I have with the policy in general. There are too many factors that may have absolutely nothing to do with a player wanting to flip their commitment leading them to take an official/unofficial visit. To a 16-18 year old kid pondering his senior year it could be a matter of what seems more appealing to me; staying at home over Thanksgiving break or going to Columbus to see "The Game" from an entirely different perspective.

The problem as I see it lies in a policy that may be beneficial from a program standpoint keeping a player who may be 100% sold on playing for that university from living his life. And then there's the fact that if the player doesn't commit once the offer is made, that offer may not be there for him when he is done taking his visits and looking around.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I do not in any way want to disrespect the views of those who don't like KF's policy. That being said, I simply fail to understand why this policy is being viewed as a negative.

If a recruit begins to have doubts about his commitment to Iowa, then he should de-commit and begin to take visits and determine where he wants to be. I certainly have no problem with this action, and obviously we cannot stop a verbal commitment from being withdrawn by the athlete.

If he decides to come back to Iowa and we have a place for him, great. If his spot is gone, then that is fine, too, since Iowa will be fully justified in moving on with their recruiting to fill his spot. The kid needs to make a decision: He can take the bird in hand, or he can go out and look around the bushes. But he better know that he will have to let go of the bird in hand in order to begin the hunt. That is the process that makes complete sense to me.

Both the athlete and the school are treated as equals. They are NOT equal if the school is committed and the kid is still in the hunt.

I get what your saying. But I'm not a recruit. This period in their life is the first time in which they are making a huge life changing decision. And it's also one of the few times they'll have any leverage over what they can do. Basically up until signing day it's game on. Words mean next to nothing till the ink is dry.. Both sides will use their positions/leverage to get what's best for themselves. That's just how it is. The 'policies' the coaches try to employ and enforce are only as good as the leverage/position in which they are in. Such as in this case if it's believed to be the case that the coaches told Eno his scholly wasn't there for him now after what he did. Well does Iowa have another 4 star top 10 RB waiting to take his spot? Nooope they sure don't. Or DB to replace Calloway? So by doing so KF is rolling the dice in that whomever they do end up with will be as good down the road.... All for the sake of him saving face and holding true to some policy that he thinks is the 'right' way. Now a few years back when Iowa had 3 qbs committed (which was weird in and of itself) Iowa let the kids senior seasons play out and then picked out the top two they wanted and let the Benevennti go. Now he had a bad senior season by all accounts and I sure haven't heard anything about him since so I'm sure it was the right move by Iowa to have done for them... But what about the kid. He spent however many months that would have been 'committed' to Iowa and not trying to find another school right? And then all of a sudden late in the process he's dropped and it wasn't because he'd gotten in trouble or grades. Just because Iowa had over recruited his position and one of them was going to lose that competition. Was the school up front with those 3 qbs that all of them wouldn't have been coming? Or was it just that he played so so bad that that was all it was? It's an imperfect system where at any time both sides can get left holding the bag. And I think if all sides realize that then it just is what it is if you choose to play the game

 

[CJHawkeye]

This is the biggest issue I have in the situation because Eno never de-committed and we have no idea whether or not there were ever doubts about him wanting to be a Hawkeye. That is the problem I have with the policy in general. There are too many factors that may have absolutely nothing to do with a player wanting to flip their commitment leading them to take an official/unofficial visit. To a 16-18 year old kid pondering his senior year it could be a matter of what seems more appealing to me; staying at home over Thanksgiving break or going to Columbus to see "The Game" from an entirely different perspective.

The problem as I see it lies in a policy that may be beneficial from a program standpoint keeping a player who may be 100% sold on playing for that university from living his life. And then there's the fact that if the player doesn't commit once the offer is made, that offer may not be there for him when he is done taking his visits and looking around.

This is it exactly. So you put a kid in a position where they can't commit and then take a visit even if they have no desire to go to that second school. You may say that's wrong to go on a visit to a school you have no intention of attending but kid's are going to do that and I don't blame them. I'm a die hard Hawkeye living in Omaha so I hate the Huskers but if you offered me a back stage pass and facilities tour in Lincoln, I'd go. It would be an awesome experience. Would I become a Husker fan? Nope. Do I think its wrong for me to take that visit if I'm not willing to become a Husker fan? Nope.