I was reading a discussion on "commitments" a minute ago and I lost my place, so I figured I'd just start over.
The complaint was that "commitment" is a misnomer in reference to recruiting. I agree with that view completely. From a legal stand point these so called commitments don't mean doodlely squat. If a recruit lets everyone know that they have made up their mind, then I think I'd most likely honor that just out of basic human decency, but I'm not legally obligated to do so. The NLI signing is a legal binding contract, until that's signed the rest is just talk.
I think what's really going on with all the commitment talk, is adults preying on kids. It's adults trying to lock a kid down with the false premise that the loyalty is going to flow both ways equally. It ain't. The schools and the Coaches know this, most kids and even parents don't know this. I'd be interested to know how Bama recruits had "committed" vs how many signed NLI's.
I don't think Clemson does this, but I think it's an epidemic within NCAA sports. I know it happened to my roommate 36 years ago, and we were both shocked about it. We thought a promise meant something. Turned out at Auburn it meant nothing.
I get what one side is trying to say on here, regarding thinking maybe we shouldn't go after guys that are committed. Listen, we want guys that commit to us, & stick to it, but we're ok trying to get guys to not honor commitments to other schools? It does seem a bit wrong, but that's what recruiting has become. If those guys fit our culture, and want to be Tigers, I'm all for it. I know Dabo's stance on this, & I agree with his policy; it is what it is. What recruiting has become is so cutthroat, if you try to play nice, you get left behind.