Poll: Do you like the no-visit policy?

February, 14, 2013
2/14/13
7:00
PM ET
On Wednesday, Ted linked to a story from ESPN.com's Mitch Sherman about recruiting and the "no-visit" policy for players who have already given a verbal commitment to a school. Of course, this was the policy at Oregon when Chip Kelly was around.

But Kelly is now the head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles and when he left, new coach Mark Helfrich loosened the strings on the policy. In the end, the Ducks kept three of the four A-listers who opened up their recruitment, holding on to San Diego products Tyree and Tyrell Robinson and Darren Carrington.

SportsNation

Do you like the idea of a 'no-visit' policy once a player has given the school a verbal commitment?

  •  
    56%
  •  
    44%

Discuss (Total votes: 2,955)

The issue of "no visit" commitments can be a sticky one. It's the only time a high school player truly has some leverage and having the ability to explore other options while considering one of the biggest decisions of a lifetime seems reasonable.

The schools that hold these policies, however, like to know they have a player wrapped up when counting scholarships. If a player is completely sold on going to a team -- that's fine. Everyone is happy.

But these are high school kids -- and many rush to make a decision before considering all options. That was the case with Arizona signee Derek Babiash -- a four-star defensive back who committed to Washington after his first visit. He told me last week that he got caught up in the excitement of his first visit and made a rush decision. It happens. And a potential mistake was rectified.

Naturally, this isn't for every school. Brady Hoke might be asking, as Sherman points out in the article, "This is Michigan, why wouldn't you (commit)?" But that's because Michigan is a brand name. I can promise you when I was covering him with the Aztecs, he wasn't proclaiming "This is San Diego State!" Just ask Tyler Bray -- once an SDSU commit.

Of course, with coaches coming and going frequently (as Ted noted in yesterday's video, there were 30 coaching changes in FBS football this year) it seems hypocritical to hold a commit to a verbal when the coach might be gone.

What's your take? Do you like the idea of a "no-visit" policy once a player has given the school a verbal commitment?

SPONSORED HEADLINES

Comments

You must be signed in to post a comment

Already have an account?