[Goose]

Do we know for sure that U$C pulled his scholarship offer and/or had promised they wouldn't recruit any more WR's when they got his commitment? Or are we just assuming that since he decommitted?

Yes, we know for sure they pulled his offer.

While I understand the outrage here, I think we should all keep in mind that when an athlete "commits" to a program, it means nothing until he signs the LOI. He is still a "free agent", and can flip. Are we equally outraged when that happens? We should also remember this example when we urge our program to offer lots of guys and worry about what to do if too many accept at a later date. Granted, we have mostly suffered from the opposite problem, but having acceptances matching available slots is not (or at least should not be) a trivial consideration. College recruiting is much easier to do if one has no conscience.

Of course, but who is suppose to be setting the example? Grown adult men, or teenagers?

Both. It is a two way street. If you "rely" on the adults to set the example, do you expect schools to not accept guys who "flipped"? That makes a public commitment equivalent to signing an LOI. Both an offer and a commitment are non-binding actions. What can be expected from both sides is no intentional deceit. If you tell a guy he is your choice, you have to tell everybody else they are not at the head of the list. If some guy arrives "out of the blue" and moves to the top of the list you haven't lied to anybody. If you are recruiting that guy and would chose him over the current commit, you have to let the commit know that when he commits, not later. Similarly, if a recruit commits as a "stop loss", the recruit should let the coaching staff know he will go to OMG State if they offer. Only fair. It isn't ever going to work that way, but that is the only way it can be fair.

[Goose]

Do we know for sure that U$C pulled his scholarship offer and/or had promised they wouldn't recruit any more WR's when they got his commitment? Or are we just assuming that since he decommitted?

Yes, we know for sure they pulled his offer.

While I understand the outrage here, I think we should all keep in mind that when an athlete "commits" to a program, it means nothing until he signs the LOI. He is still a "free agent", and can flip. Are we equally outraged when that happens? We should also remember this example when we urge our program to offer lots of guys and worry about what to do if too many accept at a later date. Granted, we have mostly suffered from the opposite problem, but having acceptances matching available slots is not (or at least should not be) a trivial consideration. College recruiting is much easier to do if one has no conscience.

Of course, but who is suppose to be setting the example? Grown adult men, or teenagers?

Both. It is a two way street. If you "rely" on the adults to set the example, do you expect schools to not accept guys who "flipped"? That makes a public commitment equivalent to signing an LOI. Both an offer and a commitment are non-binding actions. What can be expected from both sides is no intentional deceit. If you tell a guy he is your choice, you have to tell everybody else they are not at the head of the list. If some guy arrives "out of the blue" and moves to the top of the list you haven't lied to anybody. If you are recruiting that guy and would chose him over the current commit, you have to let the commit know that when he commits, not later. Similarly, if a recruit commits as a "stop loss", the recruit should let the coaching staff know he will go to OMG State if they offer. Only fair. It isn't ever going to work that way, but that is the only way it can be fair.