In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 381
Online now 388 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Can we establish a clear definition of this term? It seems that it gets used two different ways on here, and those two usages imply two very different things.
Definition 1: a silent commit is a player who has decided on a particular school, but has not told anyone - including, most saliently, that school's coaches - that he has made his choice. An example of this might be Derrick Green, who was quite sure he was going to Michigan earlier in January, and perhaps as early as November, but did not commit to Michigan's coaches until just before his announcement ceremony.
Definition 2: a silent commit is a player who has committed to his school's coaches, and has his spot reserved in the class the same as any other commit, but for whatever reason has asked to keep his commitment secret from the public. I dont have a specific example of this, but this frequently happens when players have an announcement date set up that they don't want to ruin, but they also want to ensure that their spot cant be taken by anyone else in the interim.
IMO, "silent commit" should only refer to definition #2. A commitment isn't a commitment until you can be held accountable for it in some way. The "silent commit" in definition #1 is still able to change his mind freely, if his favorite is a school like Michigan with a "no visits" policy he can still take visits without any penalty, etc. Additionally, there is no reciprocal obligation on the part of the school in that form of "silent commit"...he is in danger of having some other prospect swoop in on his spot and getting shut out. To me, there is no functional difference between a definition #1 "silent commit" and an uncommitted recruit with a leader or favorite.
I'm with you - a silent commit is only a commit in any way if the kid has informed the school's coaches. Otherwise it's just someone strongly leaning towards a certain school. To me, the word "commit" implies some sort of obligation, both on the parts of the coaches and the recruit.
I guess I've been around long enough to feel silent commit means the player kinda likes a place. Nothing more. Even if they told the coaches something.
Isn't Peppers an example of #2?
I know he told Ferns and the gang prior to his official commitment, but I'm not sure if he told the coaches.
This post was edited by TAMUWolverine 10 months ago
Yeah I wasn't sure when Peppers told the coaches so I left him out of the OP. He was definitely at least a #1 silent commit, but idk if he was a #2.
You're not held accountable until you sign... so it doesn't really matter.
Definition 2 is probably the best definition.
Examples include Ronald Johnson, Dionte Allen, Derrick Green, Michael Ferns...
By definition it would be #2, but since you can back out of a verbal at any moment, being a silent doesn't mean much.
That's why I don't care about Hand possibly being a silent. As long as we are leading, I'm fine.
Sure you are. You might not face stiff penalties (i.e. losing a year of eligibility) until you sign, but decommits often lose their scholarship offers if their school feels jilted. Also, the school has the obligation to hold your spot if you're a commit, they obviously don't have that with an uncommitted player. That's the whole reason the concept of "commitment" exists.
Eh, the school doesn't really have that obligation.
Honorable schools will hold themselves to it, but there's no consequences if a school decides to bail at the last minute.
ESPN 150 defensive end Kylie Fitts (Redlands, Calif./Redlands East Valley) decommitted from USC on Tuesday, sending a shock wave through the recruiting world that not even he saw coming.
After star Atlanta running back Justin Taylor was safely signed by another SEC school on Wednesday, he was ready to speak more candidly about his
Don't forget Massington as well..
Michigan not so subtlely did it to Jordan Barnes and Dewayne Peace a few years back, too.
How soon you guys forget, Wayne Morgan was a silent commit to UM
He planned to announce for us, but got cold feet and we pulled the scholarship
Thank god, too.
Fair enough, obviously there are no real consequences (besides a blow to your reputation, which can be bad if a school/coach becomes known for jilting their commits...for instance, I'll be shocked if Lane Kiffin ever gets another commit from Massington's school) if a school decides to boot a commit.
I think Sean Parker was too, right up until Signing Day
I also remember hearing about some other silent commits that also took place during RR's era but I have forgotten who they were.
James Ross I think was for 3-4 days; people found out during his announcement on WTKA. Same with Matt Godin IIRC
To me def 1 is a strong lean which we have seen can change more than once. Def 2 is a silent commit.
Definition No. 2 has always been my understanding of a silent.
Alright guys...discussion over....what Clint says goes. The Messiah himself has come out to steer us down the right path towards the ultimate definition of a "silent commit" Thank you for being you Mr. Brewster
"Those Who Stay...Will be Champions"
LOL...You got it Moon!
I'd gladly follow you into battle my friend
This post was edited by Moon 10 months ago
Actually at Michigan it does matter. If you have been paying attention they inform their players once they've committed, be it silent or not, they want them to prove their commitment by not taking any other officials visits, which was the case with Peppers. But No. 2 is closer to the answer. A "silent" is an actual commit, but like all others, noting is official until NLOI day in Feb. Your first definition would be a "rumor," and not necessarily silent. Silent commits normally for reasons of recruiting and filling out your allotment for that particular season. They should be used above board, i.e., not sure of particular attrition positions, don't wish to scare off other potential candidates for same position, although this, for M, is a rarity because you want people who like to compete and gain their "Big Dog" status in that manner. Some schools, especially in the SEC use them because they don't know how many of their recruits will actually qualify and if that silent were to be verbal, it could count against NCAA regulated allotment, but this is something the SEC normally disregards as a "real" rule anyway. Then there is the case where other coaches simply enjoy watching their counterparts wasting their time and money going after kids they already have in their pocket. This is the nefarious side of it, and is unacceptable as a genuine sportsman.
A few years ago a certain LSU player had a good time declaring, "Yeah I told the Michigan coaches I was theirs just for the hell of it, i.e., so they would no longer recruit for that position." This did not go over well. It has been rumored in the past that all three Florida schools in their given "hey day" had their ideal class intact long before LOI signing day, but due to the aforementioned reasoning - can they pass the damn admissions?- kept many of the kids on the DL. SEC big boys are notorious for total disregard of the NCAA mandated 3 over rule because they extend offers to so many "at risk" players. Hell, it has proven to be a legit way to build a NC and if the NCAA refuses to actually implement the rule why the hell would you do anything to sabotage your own program?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports