Mike Riley says, "no visits to other places in January if you're committed to Huskers"

[HuskerO]

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.

Great points and it's hard to disagree with them. I guess I tend to believe Riley and Co are a great communicators to these kids and they understand what they're saying because we have yet to hear anything from any recruits that they didn't know where our coaches were coming from or that we surprised them out of left field. Kind of like our foes to the east.

Obviously not everything gets spoken, reported or shared with every kid in every situation our coaches are a part of, but it's great that Mike and Co haven't had any negative press on the recruiting front like Kirk or Harbaugh have had.

Even if Kirk and Harbaugh were in the right, it's all about perception.

 

[timnsun]

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.

Good points... Even I have doubts about what was said to me 30 minutes ago...

I would be willing to make a small wager that this information is not just communicated with the recruit, but also with the parents on the in home visit. It would shock me if this information was only shared with the recruit. Too many ways to misinterpret or misunderstand what was said.

 

[WHCSC]

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.

I don't think that this is what they are trying to avoid here. I think it's more like a kid they were counting on flips on signing day and we are left with nothing.

 

[GBRhuskers]

So far, we've had one commit mention it and he's not confused by the rule. Will someone in the future be confused? We can expect that to happen, it's human nature.

We also don't know if this is a class of 2017 rule or if this will carry over to the future.

Fun times ahead.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Good points... Even I have doubts about what was said to me 30 minutes ago...

I would be willing to make a small wager that this information is not just communicated with the recruit, but also with the parents on the in home visit. It would shock me if this information was only shared with the recruit. Too many ways to misinterpret or misunderstand what was said.

Good points... Even I have doubts about what was said to me 30 minutes ago...

I would be willing to make a small wager that this information is not just communicated with the recruit, but also with the parents on the in home visit. It would shock me if this information was only shared with the recruit. Too many ways to misinterpret or misunderstand what was said.

I forgot to add that, then consider that you are having conversations with another 15-20 coaches (on the low end) that are trying to get you to flip, kids committed to those other schools trying to get you to flip, parents confused because you have so many options, high school coaches with their own agendas and career aspirations. Confusion happens.

I want to reiterate, I am not against the practice nor do I necessarily think it is wrong. I just know that recruiting is such a game, I just don't want to see unnecessary self inflicted wounds from a practice that may not be needed.

 

[mpbrown27]

The rule could very well be if your name is Robert Porcher and you take a visit in January then you won't have a scholarship at Nebraska. Not all recruits are created equal.

As a rule of thumb, I think the best policy is to not have a publically stated rule.

 

[dinglefritz]

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.

And IF the kid is looking around in January then obviously he isn't "committed" to any school regardless of what he may have said previously. That really makes sense with MR saying what he supposedly said. So IF a guy that had committed to NU earlier suddenly starts taking visits in January then NU is going to treat him as if he is uncommitted and keep our options open. It's very logical.

 

[jflores]

I found it a little bit curious that Parrella was visting Florida, but not Texas. Certainly checking up on Porcher and Thomas, but there was mention that Colorado snuck into the picture with Daniels even though he hasn't officially visited.

I would have though Daniels deserved an immediate in-home considering he's supposed to be committing soon. But maybe Parrella knows something we don't.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I am sure this is getting over blown.

Oh well.

But a coach has to be prepared For the consequences of that "rule". If committed player takes the trip in January and coach says we are treating you as uncommitted, then commits plan B. what do you do with plan B, when after taking the visit, plan A says I want to recommit? The rule has no teeth and It really doesn't have a true effect unless coach decides to stick with plan b.

 

[GBRhuskers]

I found it a little bit curious that Parrella was visting Florida, but not Texas. Certainly checking up on Porcher and Thomas, but there was mention that Colorado snuck into the picture with Daniels even though he hasn't officially visited.

I would have though Daniels deserved an immediate in-home considering he's supposed to be committing soon. But maybe Parrella knows something we don't.

He'll be at Daniels' game this Saturday, I'm sure a visit will happen. Remember, you can only see a prospect once per week.

 

[jflores]

He'll be at Daniels' game this Saturday, I'm sure a visit will happen. Remember, you can only see a prospect once per week.

Ok good to know. The official snazzy graphic only showed him in Florida.

 

[donahues17]

As long as it is explained to the family and coaches in a professional manner, all should be good. Some will use it as an excuse to decommit I suppose.