RECRUITING LSU commit gives the latest...

[Wildtigers10]

Must be a lawyer......

Just quoting Webster's. Same definition, but depending upon what the pledge is to do, that makes all the difference in the world.

Here the commitment means, "I pledge to sign a letter of intent at the latest on national signing day."

It does not mean, "I pledge to play football for LSU, only LSU, and will not talk to anyone else about playing football for them."

It does not mean, "I accept your scholarship offer."

 

[scroberts]

No, he doesn't. The first of webster's definition that fits here is "a pledge to do something in the future." All the recruiting commitment amounts to is a "pledge to sign a letter of intent in the future." Everyone knows that neither side is bound until the something in the future happens.

What scroberts wants commitment to mean that since he has "pledged" to sign that letter of intent in the future that he won't entertain other offers before he signs it. He wants the verbal commitment to mean that he is committed to play football at LSU, instead what it means is he has pledged to sign a letter of intent at a later date.

If he honors his commitment and signs in the future, then it really doesn't matter if he entertained other offers, now does it? What matters is if he changes his mind and wants to give his pledge to sign someone else's letter of intent, he lets LSU know with sufficient notice that they use that letter of intent somewhere else.

You just came full circle with this response. Your initial issue with my first post was the engagement analogy and how that was an asinine comparison. Now what you just defined commitment to mean given what you took from the Merriam-Webster definition, you basically come back to what an engagement is. It is a pledge to do something in the future that neither side is bound to until something in the future happens.

You are just talking in circles. Classic lawyer.

 

[yat66]

I have to laugh at this thread. If the present head coach could actually recruit like all of us thought he could we would not be discussing this. Too funny. Never was a topic under closers Miles and Saban, was it? Lol. Need a closer as head coach. Also, need a head coach as head coach. Hahahaha

 

[Wildtigers10]

You just came full circle with this response. Your initial issue with my first post was the engagement analogy and how that was an asinine comparison. Now what you just defined commitment to mean given what you took from the Merriam-Webster definition, you basically come back to what an engagement is. It is a pledge to do something in the future that neither side is bound to until something in the future happens.

You are just talking in circles. Classic lawyer.

let me help here one more time. Initially, you said the recruitment commitment was like getting engaged but telling your bride to be you're still in the market. Something to that effect. So what annoyed me is that a recruiting commitment is not like getting engaged, because getting engaged expresses the intent that you are exclusive and are no longer looking around, while recruiting doesn't. It is true that they are similar in that neither is binding until you actually follow through on the pledge. They are similar in that they both are a pledge to do something in the future, i.e. sign a letter of intent or marry someone. But, those similarities do not overcome the difference that engagement is an exclusive pledge to one another and recruiting commitment isn't.

You said that commitment could mean one and only one thing, even though the definition you provided has several meanings, 4 different scenarios to be exact. I accepted your proposed definition and showed where recruiting commitment applied, i.e. a pledge to sign a letter of intent in the future. Using your own definition, I show you where commitment does not mean what you say it means... It is a pledge to sign a letter of intent at the latest on national signing day. It is not an agreement or pledge to not consider other offers, like you imply if not outright suggest it is. You know when you say folks need to learn "the" meaning of commitment. It is not a promise to play football. It is not an acceptance of the scholarship offer. It is not a promise to consider no other offers. It is not a promise to refrain from visiting other places.

In other words the offer is not conditioned upon the person offered refraining from looking around or fielding other offers. Acceptance of the commitment is not conditioned on the shutting down recruitment. Thus, I stand by my original premise, a recruiting commitment is not like getting engaged because the most important part of the pledge to do something in the future, i.e. exclusivity is missing from one while inherently present in the other.

 

[rabiddoctor]

WT, you know you're my boy. But the judge just laid down the verdict and scroberts wins the case.

 

[scroberts]

let me help here one more time. Initially, you said the recruitment commitment was like getting engaged but telling your bride to be you're still in the market. Something to that effect. So what annoyed me is that a recruiting commitment is not like getting engaged, because getting engaged expresses the intent that you are exclusive and are no longer looking around, while recruiting doesn't. It is true that they are similar in that neither is binding until you actually follow through on the pledge. They are similar in that they both are a pledge to do something in the future, i.e. sign a letter of intent or marry someone. But, those similarities do not overcome the difference that engagement is an exclusive pledge to one another and recruiting commitment isn't.

You said that commitment could mean one and only one thing, even though the definition you provided has several meanings, 4 different scenarios to be exact. I accepted your proposed definition and showed where recruiting commitment applied, i.e. a pledge to sign a letter of intent in the future. Using your own definition, I show you where commitment does not mean what you say it means... It is a pledge to sign a letter of intent at the latest on national signing day. It is not an agreement or pledge to not consider other offers, like you imply if not outright suggest it is. You know when you say folks need to learn "the" meaning of commitment. It is not a promise to play football. It is not an acceptance of the scholarship offer. It is not a promise to consider no other offers. It is not a promise to refrain from visiting other places.

In other words the offer is not conditioned upon the person offered refraining from looking around or fielding other offers. Acceptance of the commitment is not conditioned on the shutting down recruitment. Thus, I stand by my original premise, a recruiting commitment is not like getting engaged because the most important part of the pledge to do something in the future, i.e. exclusivity is missing from one while inherently present in the other.

We will agree to disagree here. You have a penchant for taking something and reshaping it to fit your argument, and your attempt to reshape is totally out of context. I get it, that is what you make a living doing. I have no desire to continue to debate you regarding this topic, as I think the point I was attempting to make is clear.

 

[gm2000]

Must be a lawyer......

And a very good one if I may add.

 

[NolaTiger]

Two most misunderstood words : COMMITTED and yield.....

Yep, and three most telling words are "I love you", and the least telling ( and most useless) are, "we shall see".

 

[NolaTiger]

We will agree to disagree here. You have a penchant for taking something and reshaping it to fit your argument, and your attempt to reshape is totally out of context. I get it, that is what you make a living doing. .

he he he. Pretty clever, huh Kenny?

 

[twill28]

Does anyone think Noah Cain and John Emery may have influenced this interview?

Please I hope we get Cain!

 

[TIGERFAN1392000]

And a very good one if I may add.

Oh, I bet he is!

 

[Tiger Stripe]

WT, you know you're my boy. But the judge just laid down the verdict and scroberts wins the case.

Better one:

 

[rabiddoctor]

Better one:

Good find.

 

[Wildtigers10]

Better one:

I'm partial to Tiger Stripe's gif on this one. Doc, you and Bogey are the gif kings, but Tiger Stripe one=upped you guys here.

 

[rabiddoctor]

I'm partial to Tiger Stripe's gif on this one. Doc, you and Bogey are the gif kings, but Tiger Stripe one=upped you guys here.

Oh, I agree that is a better gif. But, I needed one with the judge in it.

 

[Oledirty Dog]

The real problem is the lack of confidence many of you have for the head coach. Face the facts. Why is this only being discussed today in such detail? When you read the article and saw Georgia and Alabama that's when everyone got nervous. I wouldn't get nervous in the past. Four out of five guys that were committed would remain committed. I would say almost the opposite is true today. I will be insanely and pleasantly shocked if LSU can land 75% of those high end Louisiana recruits. I think there's a better chance they land less than 50%. Maybe only a third. Honestly, what do you think is a better chance, this head coach and his staff landing more than 50% of the Louisiana studs or less? We all know the answer.

Come on Yat