Co-worker just sent me a text, Porcher was quoted as saying that in a Rivals article.
Mike Riley says, "no visits to other places in January if you're committed to Huskers"
- Thread starter GBRhuskers
- Start date
I can see that in January, but could turn some kids away. I know Iowa has a NO OTHER VISIT policy when committed at all. Lost a couple big names due to it not being made clear to them.
Makes sense, that close to signing day, you've had time to take your visits. You should be locked in just like the school is committed to you as a recruit. No flakes this late in the process.
Lol, get this clown outta town. We need a coach who coaches "nebraska" football. Not pattycake.....
So if one of our top recruits visits hes gonna pull the offer? Does he realize he just got spanked 40-10 by freaking iowa?
So if one of our top recruits visits hes gonna pull the offer? Does he realize he just got spanked 40-10 by freaking iowa?
Guys, don't give the attention whore any attention. Let his blabbering go, it's worthless to respond to drywall.
He cant make demands like a ohio state or bama. They can do that because recruits are lining up at their doors. You think after a 40-10 ass whooping some kid just may want yo visit another school just in case? Uh, yea!
It's a good idea by MR. If a kid wants to take in a game during the season, why not let the kid? I'd love to be able to visit 5 stadiums on someone else's dime. But there's really no reason to visit in January. It's like going to a whore house the night before your wedding.
Another thing I love about this is it's a bold statement by Mike. It makes me believe he believes that this staff will finish strong in February. As in if anyone wants to jump ship, so be it.
Another thing I love about this is it's a bold statement by Mike. It makes me believe he believes that this staff will finish strong in February. As in if anyone wants to jump ship, so be it.
So, that wasn't a good idea?
I have done that before all 4 of my marriages.
Considering when the beatdown took place, is it unreasonable to assume that said recruit who might be looking elsewhere would do so in the 5 weeks left before January? To wait until January can really put the staff behind a little bit. It's not unreasonable at all. Even tho we didn't have the kid who committed to Louisville last year, it sounded like the coaches believed he was all in. When he bailed it threw a lot of things in motion. To try to avoid situations like this is being proactive...
Don't be so dramatic here. If they aren't sure because of a loss in November, better be looking in December and not wait til January.
Back in the day no one would even know, now it is probably pretty hard to do a sneaky visit. It seems like the information always comes out.
I think he means in general. Guys still have another month to take visits if they want.
If you are visiting elsewhere in January, it means you are a soft commit and are kicking the tires on some other programs. The staff probably has a list of other possibles and they can't really just dangle a spot in front of those kids at that point. Riley wants to offer if a spot is going to be open. People on the board have bitched and moaned about unfilled slots and such. Everyone wants the best class we can get. If a kid is a risk to bail late, then we also risk losing out on some other kid we might have gotten on a (not too) late offer.
And as for the Iowa game, if I were a recruit who thought highly of my skills and chances to play, I'd see that as an opportunity to get the Lincoln, work my ass off and crack the two deep early. The bench is pretty thin at this point.
And as for the Iowa game, if I were a recruit who thought highly of my skills and chances to play, I'd see that as an opportunity to get the Lincoln, work my ass off and crack the two deep early. The bench is pretty thin at this point.
I get the idea behind it but if it loses you even one elite kid then it's a bad idea. It's all about leverage and while recruiting is improved we don't have a line out the door of elite kids at every position waiting to step in if we lose someone. I don't mind it but it could backfire, 18 year old kids don't always love being told what (or what not) to do. We should be confident enough in our program that comparing it to another, even this late in the game, doesn't scare us.
Or we take a kid that would like to commit and is waiting to find out if we have room. You don't want to find out on signing day that a kid you had counted on is bailing out on you. You will always wait for a kid you view as a difference make to make up his mind if he hasn't committed to anybody. Your average prospect that commits to "hold a place" in October then decides to look elsewhere in January is going to get cut loose.
Dez Fitzpatrick was one "elite" kid [Rivals 250 4*] who was committed last year, went on a January visit to Louisville and ended up at Louisville. While Dez was playing games with our staff; we passed on Zach Farrar [3*] who ended up signing with Oklahoma and redshirting this season. We also passed on Kalija Lipscomb [2*] who ended up at Vanderbilt. Lipscomb had a pretty nice true freshmen season at VU; 25 catches, 306 yards and 2 TD's.
We ended up with 0 WR's in January, all because one "elite" commit screwed us.
It's not about being "scared", we allow visits 11 of 12 months. Matter of fact, our staff encourages it, there's articles with quotes from prospects saying as much.
It's not the Ferentz policy where once you have committed you can't go visit at all. We are talking about January. Guys have taken visits in the past after committing and the staff knew.
I dont follow the recruiting as close as I used to but I doubt any of the commits had visits scheduled in January before this. If they did, and then Riley says this, that'd be playing with fire.
I see this as Riley saying, you've had all season and by January, we need to know you mean it. It could also be a signal to guys that they have a potential replacement for you waiting.
Is it a potential gamble? Sure, but it's not like we haven't seen recruits bail on Nebraska at the last minute before without this type of policy.
I dont follow the recruiting as close as I used to but I doubt any of the commits had visits scheduled in January before this. If they did, and then Riley says this, that'd be playing with fire.
I see this as Riley saying, you've had all season and by January, we need to know you mean it. It could also be a signal to guys that they have a potential replacement for you waiting.
Is it a potential gamble? Sure, but it's not like we haven't seen recruits bail on Nebraska at the last minute before without this type of policy.
I was thinking Fitzpatrick committed to L'ville, decommitted, then recommitted to L'ville.
Concerning the OP. Visits in January by committed players looks a lot like having second thoughts. Also, this is a player tweet not a publicly delivered edict. In a give and take world, if we're going to hold a spot for you late in the game, you need to show confirmation of your commitment by not taking last minute visits.
I don't see a problem with this, and I wouldn't be surprised if other coaching staffs communicate something similar to their commits.
Concerning the OP. Visits in January by committed players looks a lot like having second thoughts. Also, this is a player tweet not a publicly delivered edict. In a give and take world, if we're going to hold a spot for you late in the game, you need to show confirmation of your commitment by not taking last minute visits.
I don't see a problem with this, and I wouldn't be surprised if other coaching staffs communicate something similar to their commits.
He did decommit from Louisville, after his November visit to Nebraska.
Porcher didn't tweet it, his statement came in an article. I think it's safe to assume Riley will be asked about this at his next presser.
Poor reading comprehension on my part, I see the rivals article part now. Ya, I can see it being brought up in a presser.
If a kid is visiting elsewhere, it means one of two things. Either he wants to take a trip and meet some people or he is a risk to bail. If the coaches are looking to close the class, I would think they want to know which kids are N.
I'm with you but what I am saying is if a kid committed to USC wants to visit Nebraska in January and Nebraska says absolutely, but then drops a kid committed to Nebraska because he wants to make sure USC (or whoever) isn't a better fit, you risk not signing either. Social media allows for easy communication between recruits. Sometimes 17 and 18 year olds don't distinguish the difference between what Riley says and what Ferentz has said.
I am all about getting the best players you can in each class, and if Riley feels this is the best way to do it, that's great.
If their currently committed school doesn't have a policy, there's no "hypocrisy", none at all.
I didn't read it that way in terms of other recruits visiting NU.
We won't know how hard and fast the staff is approaching this no january visit policy (if it even is such a thing) until a NU commit visits somewhere else in January.
I took it like this. If you're interested in taking visits, do it now (or whenever they told Porcher), don't wait until January. If you take visits in January, we're gonna question your commitment to us.
This was gonna be my response as well. We don't set the rules for other schools. If they don't have a problem with committed recruits visiting other schools, then no hypocrisy at all.
I think our coaches do a good job communicating their stance to others. I doubt they just tell a recruit, "If you visit other schools in January we're pulling your scholarship."
I'm sure it goes more something like, "We're happy that you're committed to Nebraska. We're trying to build a championship level program and in order to accomplish that we need to fill our classes every year with the best recruits possible such as yourself. We need firm commitments this late in the process so our stance is that if you're looking at other schools in January we have to keep the door open for other kids to take your place so we're not jeopardizing our ultimate goal of winning championships."
Obviously it's said much better than that, but most people (even 17-18yr old kids) understand that if you're upfront with them, explain to them your side/situation and you're cordial about it they will honor your stance.
From what I've heard from my Iowa friends, Kirk and Co aren't as cordial about it and are pretty bullheaded in how they communicate with their commits. Kirk is upfront with them right off the bat (which is good), but you can't be so bullheaded about it early in the recruiting process.
All speculation.
For the past 10 years I have coached youth football. We have been fortunate enough to have had close to 60 kids go on to play college football at some level. Those kids leave us when they go to 7th grade, but many of them come back and share their stories and work with the current youngsters. I know how these kids hear and retain messages. I know how you can be clear as a bell when they walk away from a conversation, then 20 minutes later, after talking with someone else, be that parents, teammates, future teammates, they have a different understanding of what you discussed.
Again I hope this plan works for Riley, I really do. But as great a communicator as Riley is, there is always room for subsequent confusion and misunderstanding, especially when you are either doubting their commitment to you or tell them they can't do something.
Just my opinion and experience. Feel free to disagree.
The question is whether this is a better way to go about it compared to pulling Kid A's offer behind the scenes because he took a visit and you really suspect he's bailing vs. holding pat with Kid B because you're sure he just wants a fun weekend. I would make it pretty clear that late visits mean you are considering other options and you shouldn't be surprised if you get a call with the news your offer has been pulled.
Similar threads
