2013,
When I denied the relevance of your analogy, I didn't concede anything about how I would handle that situation.
But let's play your game out anyway and see where it leads. You're trying to construct a hypothetical scenario in which I would back out of a job I've accepted so you can paint me into an absolutist corner. Then you can say, "Aha! It's the same thing. Therefore, it's okay to back out of a verbal commitment to the D2,"
Let me save you some trouble. Yes, I admit it. I confess that if I had previously accepted a job shoveling s****r player manure for minimum wage, I'd chuck it in a minute for the chance to be an MLB Assistant GM for a million a year.
So what does that prove? That I'm not 100% consistent? Should be self evident that I'm not. That integrity isn't important? Should be self evident that it is.
Actually it proves nothing, just as it would prove nothing if I played your game from the other end and tried to prove it is never okay to de-commit by concocting some scenario in which you admitted it might not be okay to go back on your word.
We're not talking about absolutes and extremes. We all admit there are some extreme situations when of course it's okay to de-commit (e.g., dad dies with no insurance and the ball player has to work to feed younger sisters) and there are some situations when it is clearly not okay to de-commit (e.g., player negotiates a slightly better deal with conference rival). We're not talking about those extremes. We're talking about ethical expectations for common situations in the normal recruiting process. Do you have anything constructive to say about that?