USC Verbals 7th Grader

.

I'm going with...






.

Is Kiffin involved or is this all coming from the kid/his parents and his coach ???

With what is swirling around the USC program I cannot see Kiffin going this route

I stand corrected on what I posted above---it is now being noted by numerous sources that Kiffin did in fact offer him a scholarship over the phone

Absolutely unreal !!!

.

By phone?






.

NEXT YEAR .... Son we think you have what it takes to play at SC.

I've got a son in the fourth grade...oh hang on, the phone is ringing. Maybe it's the Yankees...

Somebody needs to give these coaches a drug test...

Does a verbal mean anything in football? This has to be a joke.

7th graders don't make the best decisions...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ext_from=PL&index=53


See what I mean?!

With his track record, does the kid really think Kiffen will be there by the time he gets to college?

I'm sure the kid is talented for a 7th grader...but this largely has to be a publicity stunt by Kiffin. Too bad he's using a young kid for the stunt.

A little on the "sick" side if you ask me (not that anyone did).

Justbaseball is right. This is mostly a publicity stunt. Even though the kid was offered a scholarship, there are many ways to get out of it. Nothing is official until signing day so this is all just media hype. Kiffin is a tool.

All I know is that Kiffin must be the worlds best interview. All he has done in the last few years is toatl garbage and he is loved by USC. Again. How many times is this guy going to be given a chance at a high level? All he does is talk the talk then run away or destroy the team.

What the heck does he have?

quote:

What the heck does he have?

His daddy...a defensive genious.

As someone else said, Lane himself...is a tool. USC oughta be embarrassed.

I vote for stunt. Kiffin is a maniac.

quote:

Originally posted by warningtrack:
Does a verbal mean anything in football? This has to be a joke.

A verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Publicity stunt, pure and simple.

quote:

A verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Giving a verbal offer to a seventh grader may indeed be a stunt (although I don't know what Kiffin would gain by it,) but it is simply untrue that a verbal scholarship offer is worthless.

Student athletes can and do count on verbal agreements made by their college coaches, and the vast majority of the time, when a verbal is explicitly offered and accepted, the coach lives up to the agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

A verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Giving a verbal offer to a seventh grader may indeed be a stunt (although I don't know what Kiffin would gain by it,) but it is simply untrue that a verbal scholarship offer is worthless.

Student athletes can and do count on verbal agreements made by their college coaches, and the vast majority of the time, when a verbal is explicitly offered and accepted, the coach lives up to the agreement.

Thanks for your input.

While verbals are most often made with the best of intentions, they rely more on the integrity of those involved than antyhing else. According to the NCAA, there are many ways for both parties to extricate themselves from a verbal. Add to that the number of years in which both parties in this particular case have to re-consider their intenttions and you have a verbal that isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
All I know is that Kiffin must be the worlds best interview. All he has done in the last few years is toatl garbage and he is loved by USC. Again. How many times is this guy going to be given a chance at a high level? All he does is talk the talk then run away or destroy the team.

What the heck does he have?

I saw an article that said Kiffen keeps falling out of trees and landing on higher branches.

quote:

a verbal that isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Your prior statement made a blanket statement about verbal commitments. If you are speaking of specifically THIS verbal commitment, I would tend to agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

a verbal that isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Your prior statement made a blanket statement about verbal commitments. If you are speaking of specifically THIS verbal commitment, I would tend to agree.

(Sigh)
Apparently you don't agree with the assessment by the NCAA and the National Collegiate Souting Association, to wit:

"The oral or verbal agreement is not binding in anyway. When a coach offers an athlete a scholarship or a spot on the roster, depending on the situation or sport, it means that if the athlete commits that spot is taken (in word only). If the athlete doesn’t commit, the offer is there until someone else commits to fill that spot. Remember, each sport has only a limited number of spots available in a year.

A verbal offer is made by the sport’s coaching staff and not by the school or athletic department. Usually, there is an agreement between the athletic director and the coaching staff that they are only offering student athletes that meet the department’s, school’s and NCAA’s requirements.

Because the offer is not binding, either the athlete or the university can back out of the commitment at any time."


I do.

The verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Jimmy03,
Yep, verbal agreements aren't binding, and everybody who has spent much time on this site knows that. However, the statement

quote:

The verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on

is fatuous.

Fact is, lots of eventual D1 players make verbal commitments, and both college and player honor the commitments. Some don't, but most do. If you don't believe this, take a look at the various websites that post college commitments (PG being one) and compare the list of verbals to actual enrollment a year or more later.

Of course, Rob Kremer knows this: his son committed to Duke in August before his senior year.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Jimmy03,
Yep, verbal agreements aren't binding, and everybody who has spent much time on this site knows that. However, the statement

quote:

The verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on

is fatuous.

Fact is, lots of eventual D1 players make verbal commitments, and both college and player honor the commitments. Some don't, but most do. If you don't believe this, take a look at the various websites that post college commitments (PG being one) and compare the list of verbals to actual enrollment a year or more later.

Of course, Rob Kremer knows this: his son committed to Duke in August before his senior year.

3FG:

I've many of your posts and I respect your opinion. The mantra I've repeated, of course, refers to "legally" not ethically.

I didn't create this saying. I heard directly from both an attorney representing a D-1 school and the attorney I interviewed to represent my son 9 years ago.

To quote the attorney I interviewed exactly, "A verbal isn't worth the paper it isn't written on, legally. It should be ethically.

"Fatuous?" No. Legally factual. And proven so more times that it should be.

Jimmy, again, you are changing your argument.

Just because the verbal agreement isn't legally binding (a point everyone certainly understands, and hardly needed to be pointed out in the first place as if it were some important revelation) doesn't mean that it is worthless.

Your statement basically says verbal agreements are worthless. That is wrong. People can and do count on them, and in the majority of cases, a player and a coach can rely on these agreements to make important decisions about the course of their programs and their academic/athletic lives.

So now you retreat into "I meant it was not legally binding." If that is what you meant, you should have said that.

Instead, you make a broad, sweeping statement saying verbal commitments are without value, and then when called on it you "explain" to us something everyone knows, that they are not legally binding.

That is pretty much the definition of fatuous.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Jimmy, again, you are changing your argument.

Just because the verbal agreement isn't legally binding (a point everyone certainly understands, and hardly needed to be pointed out in the first place as if it were some important revelation) doesn't mean that it is worthless.

Your statement basically says verbal agreements are worthless. That is wrong. People can and do count on them, and in the majority of cases, a player and a coach can rely on these agreements to make important decisions about the course of their programs and their academic/athletic lives.

So now you retreat into "I meant it was not legally binding." If that is what you meant, you should have said that.

Instead, you make a broad, sweeping statement saying verbal commitments are without value, and then when called on it you "explain" to us something everyone knows, that they are not legally binding.

That is pretty much the definition of fatuous.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

A verbal is not binding on either party.

A verbal is not worth the paper it is not written on.

One only needs to attempt to enforce one that has been "violated" to see the universal truth.

Is that general enough for you?

Good Lord, get over it.

Football is alot different than baseball. Many kids switch , switch back and then change again in college football. But the vast majority do not. In baseball it is very rare. The vast majority that verbal to a school end up at that school. Of course there are always exceptions.

In this case it is obvious to me just a ploy by Kiffin to garner more attention to him and his program. He is out there , way out there. I dont see him lasting very long at USC. The guy will be in constant trouble not only by what he does but by what comes out of his mouth.

Jeez, Jimmy, you sure get testy when you blow a call.

Coach, this one does not appear to be a Kiffin ploy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-...ews/story?id=4891901

The player is being instructed by Steve Clarkson, a well know QB coach...who charges well for his work.
Clarkson contacted Kiffin and recommended the player. Clarkson seems to be pretty up front about it in this article.
All the media is generated because the father tells the high school coach and the HS coach tells the local media.
Now they are on Good Morning America.
I really hate to see this turn into posters questioning each other on whether the verbal is enforceable.
Is that really the issue?
Baseball players who are sophomores and most likely, pretty soon, freshman are doing the same.
To me, there really is a major issue here for coaches, parents and now instructors/travel ball and showcasers.
We all attack the NCAA for many reasons, probably valid and invalid.
I would propose situations like this where the parent actions can be examined, Clarksons examined and to an extent Kiffins and USC, might actually open the door on the discussion of whether NCAA regulations need to be implemented.
Dream school in 7th grade? I wonder how many 7th graders dreams, or skills, were the same by 12th grade?

quote:

Dream school in 7th grade?

In 7th grade my son didn't know what high school he wanted to attend, much less college.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Jeez, Jimmy, you sure get testy when you blow a call.

We won't be able tell from this one. But I do see that, once again, you've neglected to read the rule book.

You do, however, have me at a disadvantage. I restrict myself to talking about the real world. And in such an environment agreements that cannot be enforced are pretty much worthless when one part or the other doesn't hold up their end.

You on the other hand seem to put a lot of value into such things.

Exactly what color is the sky in your world? And how is the global warming going?

And so it goes.

Once an umpire always an umpire--NEVER WRONG !!!!

quote:

Once and umpire always an umpire--NEVER WRONG !!!!

It is interesting, isn't it? All he had to do, when it was pointed out that his original statement was wrong, was graciously say: "I left off the last few words of the sentence I was quoting, which made it clear I was talking legally, not ethically."

Instead, he had to launch into a condescending lecture about something we all already know, complete with sighs and demeaning phrases like, "I'll make this simple for you...."

Jimmy you have proven time and again that you have no business condescending to anyone. But such obliviousness is just part of your charm, I guess.

How is global warming going? Huh? Really? Surely you realize that the case for AGW is falling apart almost daily, and the true advocate nature of the IPCC and the poodle-media is being revealed in the process, just as I wrote 12 years ago.

I'd say that global warming is going very well for me, thanks for asking.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

It is interesting, isn't it? All he had to do, when it was pointed out that his original statement was wrong,

You still don't get it. The original statement was not wrong. As another poster has pointed out, I do my research when I post. I don't post out of emotion of anecdote. I base my posts on , "Well even though that's the case, technically, this how Dad's have learned to look at it." Even though I had personal anecdotal experience, my post was based of facts.

If you think it was wrong, provide some evidence that contradicts the statement of the D-1 Attorney. Please. Provided some evidence of how a verbal can be enforced by one party when the other backs out.

Provide something other than blaming your failure to be right on someone else.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Once an umpire always an umpire--NEVER WRONG !!!!

Oh, I've been wrong. Back a little while ago, for example, when I believed you'd finally stopped generalizing about umpires.

I will have to apologize. I was wrong about that.

You'll note that I haven't tried to blame the behavior or others on their being coaches, parents or fans. I would have thought that someone who has been around as long as you have would have outgrown that game by now.

I guess not.

Jimmy000

I am not generalizing--I am speaking of you and you alone--your attirude is such that you cannot ever realize you are wrong even when you are

Appparently it isn't just me--others are seeing the same thing

You have no idea what you speak of when you speak about me--you have no idea whatsoever


Enjoy the super bowl

Jimmy, your original post said that verbal commitments were worthless. You didn't say "legally unenforceable," you said worthless.

So I guess you think that the verbal word of folks like Coach Fox at UNC, Coach Casey at OSU, is without any value at all.

It is so amusing that you care so much about not admitting that you could have overstated your case that you have to keep pretending that if something is "not legally enforceable" that it is therefore "worthless."

There are many, many things in life that have great value that are not contractually legally enforceable.

Do I think your D1 attorney (whatever that means, I didn't know lawyers had divisions) is wrong about the legal enforceability of verbal commitments? No, of course not. That is another one of your straw man arguments. That is not the question. We ALL know this is true, and acting as if that is what your original post asserted is just ridiculous.

Your post said essentially that verbal commitments have no value. That is BS and you still can't admit you overstated it. It is troubling to think that you spend your days teaching kids.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Jimmy000

I am not generalizing--I am speaking of you and you alone--your attirude is such that you cannot ever realize you are wrong even when you are...

Intentional mis-spelling or not, that's a good one, TR.

Enforceable - or not.

All I know is that from now on - when I hear the name Kiffin - I verbally commit to always immediately associating that name with the word "Moron".

LOL

its,
And we just got your verbal in writing! Is it worth the photons it is posted on?