Why Pull Someones Scholly

I find Johnson pulling someone scholorship if they visit another school kind of a double standard or a "do as I say do but not as I do "
Wasnt this guy under contract at Navy but just picked up and left for higher grounds when the first chance came along ?
Shouldnt he be held to higher standards than the kids playing the game ?

I don't think he's doing it based off of principle or pride, or because he's all powerful, I think he's doing it because he doesn't want to have a spot that akid says hes taking and that needs to be filled and then the kid swaps on the last day and we end up not getting a spot filled. Much different than leaving for a bigger coaching gig, just my opinion though.

Navy's contract with Paul Johnson is between the two of them. If Navy wanted to impose penalties on Paul Johnson for leaving, they could have chosen to do so when the contract was written up. This has become more common and is called the Coach's buyout. Nobody can force you to stay somewhere but they can impose penalties for breaking the contract.

Similarly, Paul Johnson's policy is between the commit and PJ. As long as the terms of the policy are well explained, the kid is expected to honor the policy or else his schollie is liable to be pulled. The kid can feel free to visit elsewhere. He is not being held at gunpoint. But if he chooses to go, he could potentially forfeit his schollie as a result of breaking the terms of the verbal contract that is the policy.

I don't see how this is a double standard. In both cases, there is a contract. In one case, written and in the other case, verbal. If it is violated, there could be potential consequences.

Originally Posted by Herbee

I find Johnson pulling someone scholorship if they visit another school kind of a double standard or a "do as I say do but not as I do "
Wasnt this guy under contract at Navy but just picked up and left for higher grounds when the first chance came along ?
Shouldnt he be held to higher standards than the kids playing the game ?

This is what is called an "evergreen": every recruiting season, it shows up with some generally outraged poster who apparently hasn't paid attention the last few years. The same poster would be similarly Fox "outraged" if Johnson had a top-flight back with a commitment, quit recruiting for that position, and was blindsided on signing day when the "commitment" bolted ... and it is too late to recruit a replacement. Besides, if he dumps his commitment now for non-commitment, the former commitment has plenty of time to find a new team to commit to. Or something like that. As another poster noted, Clemson has lost four commitments already, and effectively told the No. 1 prospect in the country to take a hike when he started gaming the system and potentially leaving Clemson in the wilderness. These guys know the rules but think they don't apply to them. Good for Dabo. Good for Johnson. Now may we dare hope this issue will not come up again, year after year after year after ...?

Originally Posted by Herbee

I find Johnson pulling someone scholorship if they visit another school kind of a double standard or a "do as I say do but not as I do "
Wasnt this guy under contract at Navy but just picked up and left for higher grounds when the first chance came along ?
Shouldnt he be held to higher standards than the kids playing the game ?

Coach has a job to do. He's taken measures to see that nothing hampers his recruiting efforts. I don't blame the guy.

Plus, we could do like some of the Factories, sign em and cut em when they get on campus. Very ethical.

Everyone thinks of this as a punishment. That's not what it's about.

Player X commits a year before NSD. We say "Oh, okay, guess we don't need to go out there and recruit to fill that spot anymore, sweet."

Player X visits somewhere else a week before NSD and lets us know he's not sure if he's coming. We say "Oh, I guess we might need to fill that spot again. A little late in the game but we can try. If you decide you're not going to that other school, let us know... if we haven't filled that spot, we might re-offer you."

Do we need to recruit better? Hell yeah, we do!
This policy is not part of that problem (nor is signing the occasional QB for depth purposes, but I digress).
Tons of teams don't want kids to sit on a scholarship, keep their options open, and tie up the school's offers and hamper the possibility of filling their spots with players they'll actually get.

Example:

You get engaged to Jane. She tells you one day "I've got a date with Bill. But I'm just checking to see if I'm more compatible with him or not. And then with Mike next week. But we're still engaged and I don't want you going on dates with other girls to see if you're more compatible with them."

Would you pull the engagement and go out with other chicks? Probably. Maybe you'd leave the possibility of the two of you getting together open, but you're not going to close off your options while she opens hers