on another board talking about honoring commitments, etc. In the context of Harbaugh and his tenure at Stanford and what will happen going forward.
I personally think the following is a reasonable approach.
If a kid is offered and commits (loyal/Malzone) then by no means should the school push the kid away regardless.
If a kid is offered and commits but is taking visits or looking around then all bets are off. It's not a commitment at least from my perspective.
These are the easy ones. Now what happens if the kid gets injured then I think the school needs to be upfront with the kid that this will jeopardize the scholarship offer since they clearly are in the business of winning. Tough tough one. (See Hatch as an example of trying to accomodate both parties).
I don't have the answer and would enjoy different perspectives. The kid hasn't signed anything (Battle) and can leave. Why does the kid in theory have more leverage. Isn't the kid part of a family where adults are advising him so it can't be adults vs. minors.
Thoughts?
Reality Man
I personally think the following is a reasonable approach.
If a kid is offered and commits (loyal/Malzone) then by no means should the school push the kid away regardless.
If a kid is offered and commits but is taking visits or looking around then all bets are off. It's not a commitment at least from my perspective.
These are the easy ones. Now what happens if the kid gets injured then I think the school needs to be upfront with the kid that this will jeopardize the scholarship offer since they clearly are in the business of winning. Tough tough one. (See Hatch as an example of trying to accomodate both parties).
I don't have the answer and would enjoy different perspectives. The kid hasn't signed anything (Battle) and can leave. Why does the kid in theory have more leverage. Isn't the kid part of a family where adults are advising him so it can't be adults vs. minors.
Thoughts?
Reality Man