Who Does a Recruiting Ban Hurt?
January 15th, 2009 - byThis week two high school football coaches reacted to what they deemed unfair treatment of their former star players by bashing the college coach they felt was responsible. They both have stated they would try their best to steer any future recruit away from their schools.
Miami QB Robert Marve’s high school coach has come out publicly against the Miami coaching staff for its handling of his
future transfer. Marve was suspended twice this season and told that he would enter next season as the number two quarterback. To no one’s surprise he decided to transfer. However, the Miami staff stated they would not release Marve if he attended an ACC, SEC or any school in Florida. Later, they amened their stance to allow some SEC schools. But the damage had already been done and coach Weiner stated, “‘A player of mine won’t play for Randy Shannon.”
Steve Spurrier earned himself the scorn of Tucker High Coach Franklin Stephens by pulling the offer of his star linebacker. He stated, “Coach Spurrier accepted blame for the situation … (but he) is not going to do anything to fix the situation, therefore South Carolina will not be recruiting any more Tucker players.”
There is basically no practical way to enforce a ban other than refusing to cooperate with the college coach, but the real question is if this type of behavior will benefit future players. Obviously good high school coaches do their best to steer players to situations they feel are ideal. However, by shutting off an option will they ultimately hurt future recruits? Do they have an ethical obligation to let the player decide? What do you think?
coach, there are a couple things you must do.
percentage rather than cut back, coaches are getting creative. Today’s
up to the athlete to make sure they call directly. Even if they don’t get an immediate call back athletes will not to continue to stay on the offensive to make sure coaches get a chance to evaluate their Scouting Report.