ADVERTISEMENT

Recruiting other team's commits

So these people are proving Cael follows the rules to a T because he stops contact immediately when a kid signs?

congratulations-you-played-yourself-dj-khaled.gif
 
I used to have a major problem with coaches recruiting after comitments and kids flipping. But, if a school can pull the rug out from under a kid (Campbell the latest), and coaches can break contracts without penalty, then why are kids held to a higher standard? The institutions and adults are be setting the example/standard - the kids are just catching up.

I'd prefer it to be different, but wish in one hand...
 
Proof of Cael recruiting a verbally committed kid who hasn’t yet signed/enrolled so hard that he gets blocked is not the big win some think it is. Annoying to the kid - yes. Way more annoying to a fan - having a lazy coach and/or one that has to rely on his boosters to do the heavy lifting
 
Sounds like the Wrestling Community needs a semantic reset:
1. "Commitment" means zero. There's no such thing, literally.

In the past there existed a distinction between a Verbal Commitment (or, my favorite, the hilarious Oral Commitment) that was intended to pair with a Written Commitment, via the National Letter of Intent, but the National Letter of Intent was just disbanded the other week.

2. "Signed" means zero. Signed what? A financial loan package issued from the school?

3. "Recruiting" means ALL THE ****ING TIME.

4. "Free Agent" means all D1 athletes, see #3

5. "Consequences" means whining, by online denizens like us, or by former wrestlers or current coaches. The only possible change to this is if the Yianni's & Lee Pritts of the wrestling community decide to change the game and name names. But even then, what are any possible consequential fallouts?

6. "Shame" does not exist. Why try to use it here?
 
I used to have a major problem with coaches recruiting after comitments and kids flipping. But, if a school can pull the rug out from under a kid (Campbell the latest), and coaches can break contracts without penalty, then why are kids held to a higher standard? The institutions and adults are be setting the example/standard - the kids are just catching up.

I'd prefer it to be different, but wish in one hand...

This kind of reminds me of the meretricious mercenaries that ascend the corporate ladder all the way to the C-Suite by going from one gig to another while complaining about a lack of employee commitment, engagement and loyalty. ( While we whistle past the graveyard by checking out this website.)

 
  • Like
Reactions: vhsalum
It would be so easy to produce some phone records to prove these things. Somehow I doubt it will happen.
 
Sounds like the Wrestling Community needs a semantic reset:
1. "Commitment" means zero. There's no such thing, literally.

In the past there existed a distinction between a Verbal Commitment (or, my favorite, the hilarious Oral Commitment) that was intended to pair with a Written Commitment, via the National Letter of Intent, but the National Letter of Intent was just disbanded the other week.

2. "Signed" means zero. Signed what? A financial loan package issued from the school?

3. "Recruiting" means ALL THE ****ING TIME.

4. "Free Agent" means all D1 athletes, see #3

5. "Consequences" means whining, by online denizens like us, or by former wrestlers or current coaches. The only possible change to this is if the Yianni's & Lee Pritts of the wrestling community decide to change the game and name names. But even then, what are any possible consequential fallouts?

6. "Shame" does not exist. Why try to use it here?
Better yet - let's consider an analogy. You start dating a really desirable woman and she finally makes a "commitment" to have you as her exclusive significant other. Then some guy comes along and decides he's going to go all out to get her for himself. He's good looking and has big bucks that he's willing to spend to woo her over. She finally gives in and dumps you. You're really PO'd. (especially when you find out his initials are AJF) There's nothing illegal about this situation, and I suspect it happens more times than we want to admit. Plus, if the woman was not married to you, some people would question whether it was even immoral. I personally don't like it when someone makes a non legally binding commitment for something significant and later backs out because a better option becomes available, but in a free country, people do have that option. I'll bet a car salesman gets stiffed like that a lot. It's just part of life, and whining and complaining about it isn't going to change that basic fact.
 
Recruiting committed kids is wack.

This whole system is wack. I get that they wanted to give more power to the athletes, but I know multiple people who spend less time, energy, and money to follow college wrestling because of this ridiculous nonsense.

The very man that lead me to falling in love with the sport barely follows college anymore.
 
Just
It's a thing. Some coaches respect it - but the best ones don't. Until you sign an NLI, it's not illegal.

Cael did not stop recruiting Feldman after he committed. And was coming after him hard.
Just like Brands was continuing to go after Lilledahl long after he had committed to PSU. 🥱🥱🥱🥱
 
  • Like
Reactions: vhsalum
Just like Brands was continuing to go after Lilledahl long after he had committed to PSU. 🥱🥱🥱🥱
In fairness, that was Slumlord Bob. Ultimately Brands is responsible, but we have no idea if Nicolls coordinated or went loose cannon. Either is plausible.

Especially since Brands never called Aaron Brooks.
 
Better yet - let's consider an analogy. You start dating a really desirable woman and she finally makes a "commitment" to have you as her exclusive significant other. Then some guy comes along and decides he's going to go all out to get her for himself. He's good looking and has big bucks that he's willing to spend to woo her over. She finally gives in and dumps you. You're really PO'd. (especially when you find out his initials are AJF) There's nothing illegal about this situation, and I suspect it happens more times than we want to admit. Plus, if the woman was not married to you, some people would question whether it was even immoral. I personally don't like it when someone makes a non legally binding commitment for something significant and later backs out because a better option becomes available, but in a free country, people do have that option. I'll bet a car salesman gets stiffed like that a lot. It's just part of life, and whining and complaining about it isn't going to change that basic fact.
This is a good analogy. To make it as accurate as possible, should also assume that you, the dumped, were also always looking for a better option. As was the woman. As was (and still is) the man she left you for.

There are no innocent lambs in the recruiting game being victimized, because everyone’s a wolf.
 
FYI - Koll is a good guy. Yeah - he may have made a few comments that rubbed some people the wrong way, but so have I and a lot of other people posting here. Now if he was part of the Iowa program .....
I have known Koll since he was a junior high kid and I have always liked him. I haven't always agreed with him, but I don’t have to agree with anybody all the time to be able to like them.

I don't believe that was Koll implying Cael did anything wrong. It was Koll simply poking at Cael and not all that surprising considering the mutual dislike each has for the other.
 
This is a good analogy. To make it as accurate as possible, should also assume that you, the dumped, were also always looking for a better option. As was the woman. As was (and still is) the man she left you for.

There are no innocent lambs in the recruiting game being victimized, because everyone’s a wolf.
4 years of school and a life commitment to one person, that in no way is a good comparison.

For this example, I would say good see yeah! Better now than 10 years down the road.

The more I think about it the worse the analogy really is....
 
Last edited:
I have known Koll since he was a junior high kid and I have always liked him. I haven't always agreed with him, but I don’t have to agree with anybody all the time to be able to like them.

I don't believe that was Koll implying Cael did anything wrong. It was Koll simply poking at Cael and not all that surprising considering the mutual dislike each has for the other.
Did you know Chris as well?
 
This kind of reminds me of the meretricious mercenaries that ascend the corporate ladder all the way to the C-Suite by going from one gig to another while complaining about a lack of employee commitment, engagement and loyalty. ( While we whistle past the graveyard by checking out this website.)

One more thing to compulsively check every morning. Last week it was the D1.Ticker daily email of updates on NIL, conference realignment, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitchfork Rebel
4 years of school and a life commitment to one person, that in no way is a good comparison.

For this example, I would say good see yeah! Better now than 10 years down the road.

The more I think about it the worse the analogy really is....
The biggest difference between the 2 is that both parties assume fidelity in the marriage, no party does in recruiting.
 
The biggest difference between the 2 is that both parties assume fidelity in the marriage, no party does in recruiting.
If you are to compare the two, dating is kind of a commitment but it is the commitment that you CAN back out of with no consequence.

So:
dating=verbal
Engagement=NLI
marriage=attending
Adultry=poaching
Divorce=transfer

That's how I see it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SlipperyPete12
4 years of school and a life commitment to one person, that in no way is a good comparison.

For this example, I would say good see yeah! Better now than 10 years down the road.

The more I think about it the worse the analogy really is....
Read your own post above. I was referring to the point when a woman is dating someone, not when they are married.

When a wrestler makes a verbal commitment to a school, there is nothing in it that is legally binding, just as when two people are dating. Either party can choose to walk away without consequences if something changes. (Don't forget what happened when Marsteller made a verbal commitment to Penn State.)
 
Last edited:
Read your own post above. I was referring to the point when a woman is dating someone, not when they are married.

When a wrestler makes a verbal commitment to a school, there is nothing in it that is legally binding, just as when two people are dating. Either party can choose to walk away without consequences if something changes. (Don't forget what happened when Marsteller made a verbal commitment to Penn State.)
Yes, but your analogy was emotional and that's hiw I took it. I was simply stating that feelings might get hurt but that does not make it wrong. So it appears we are on the same page.


Emotional Damage GIF by Jennifer Accomando
 
Read your own post above. I was referring to the point when a woman is dating someone, not when they are married.

When a wrestler makes a verbal commitment to a school, there is nothing in it that is legally binding, just as when two people are dating. Either party can choose to walk away without consequences if something changes. (Don't forget what happened when Marsteller made a verbal commitment to Penn State.)
"Don't forget what happened when Marsteller made a verbal commitment to Penn State.)"

Refresh us please? Links are helpful to your point-making...
 
Did you know Chris as well?
Chris is older. I am a little older than Rob but interacted with him through different wrestling events through his HS wrestling. Then a friend of mine had a kid wrestle for him at Cornell.
 
"Don't forget what happened when Marsteller made a verbal commitment to Penn State.)"

Refresh us please? Links are helpful to your point-making...
I don't have a link, but it is my understanding that after Marsteller made a verbal commitment to PSU, he made a visit to the campus and something went sour between him and Cael. (or possibly one of the other coaches) It appeared from the posts that were made here that it was PSU that encouraged him to look somewhere else. I don't know the details, so if someone has better info, please feel free to chime in.
 
It was Koll simply poking at Cael
Like I believe at least one other may've implied, I took Koll to ambiguously be referring to himself (as he is from Happy Valley and Cael is not). Else, it could equally apply to DT, as he took to identifying himself as being from State College during his post-collegiate wrestling. Assumption is being .ade that they are referring to Cael.

Anyways, it seems most humorous if Koll is self-depricatedly referring to himself, while Yianni is being reminded of blocking Koll's number after committing to Cornell. And with this take, Koll wouldn't be seen as duplicitous.
 
I don't have a link, but it is my understanding that after Marsteller made a verbal commitment to PSU, he made a visit to the campus and something went sour between him and Cael. (or possibly one of the other coaches) It appeared from the posts that were made here that it was PSU that encouraged him to look somewhere else. I don't know the details, so if someone has better info, please feel free to chime in.
IIRC this is pretty close.

My recollection: PSU coaches had concerns about things they were hearing about Marsteller's lifestyle. They told him he needed to change things in college. (That discussion likely was in York County.) He resisted and was encouraged to look elsewhere. IDK that Cael pulled the offer, but the exit door was open if Chance wanted to take it.

I doubt we'll get a linked story that fully confirms all of this.

In any case, there were other guys who committed without an offer, and then things didn't work out. Thomas Haines, though he at least was training regularly at NLWC. Travis Wittlake was another -- supposedly PSU wasn't recruiting him. Offhand, probably others.

And then there was Carter Neves giving a "soft verbal" lol.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT