Johns Hopkins 2021

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
There's a transfer portal for players to register their openness to being recruited again.

Let's look at the ethics for a moment.

If a player has made a commitment to a school and the school to the player, that player at a minimum has an ethical duty to inform the school that their commitment to the school is no longer in effect, so that the school can shift their own commitment to another player if necessary. I'm fine with a player making such a decision to be open to move, but that should be immediately told to their school.

I feel even more strongly about a school rescinding a commitment; that needs to be done solely for serious breach by a player of the conditions under which such commitment has been made, eg. maintenance of academics, behavioral issues, etc.

As to 'poaching', there are specific rules forbidding coaches from doing so of players not in the portal. Likewise, they should not be approaching a player formally committed to another school, indeed the NLI process formally forbids such.

But the Ivies don't require an NLI, so one could argue that it's not against the rules to reconsider...however, the ethics remain the same. Coaches should not interfere with a commitment of admission already been made to another school, which is effectively the same thing as an NLI, albeit an academic one.

If the player wishes to re-consider, they should treat it the same as the portal process. They've already been admitted to the school, taking up an admission slot in exchange for consideration as an athlete. It's still possible to move, but the player should be the one informing the public and the current school in order to do so.

Now, are we really saying there's not ample opportunity within such ethical structure to recruit a terrific team?
Seems clear to me.

[FlyEaglesFly]

Weren’t the kids that switched from Cornell to Hopkins in the 21 class? So there was no NLI binding anything yet. Whether or not you agree, this is what’s happening in lacrosse now. And has for the last couple years.

[Farfromgeneva]

I think the world of Andy Shay but it’s one of the worlds worst secrets that he actively guides kids during early recruiting to verbal elsewhere and then come back down the road. That may have been in play w Ben Reeves. Corrigan would pull some stuff too, but that never felt right as it’s tying up resources at another institution in a fairly deceptive and premeditated manner.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

I’d like to state for the record I am against poaching.

My irreverence last night (aka “cat”) was a response to the on Cornell’s “dime” comment. Not to abuse faircornell, nor inflame anything especially given current events and Juneteenth, but my initial thought process ran like this:

Whoa. So if they are recruited by some other school and on their cost, they should somehow be obligated to stay? And then that led me to think - that sounds like indentured servitude.

Now, I don’t think faircornell meant any of that.

But I thought, it’s time for a cat.

I think we could all be in agreement that if players initiate and decide to go wherever and whenever at the beginning and during their collegiate career, for whatever circumstances, that’s really fine and unassailable. Message board talk, sure, but free will.

But I am against poaching. Players need to explore options and make first contact.

Sorry for the cat. Faircornell: thanks for laughing along with it. And again - I’m not accusing you of actually having the opinions I mentioned above - I’m just outlining my stream of consciousness response that led to “cat”.

W

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

I disagree.
There's a transfer portal for players to register their openness to being recruited again.

Let's look at the ethics for a moment.

If a player has made a commitment to a school and the school to the player, that player at a minimum has an ethical duty to inform the school that their commitment to the school is no longer in effect, so that the school can shift their own commitment to another player if necessary. I'm fine with a player making such a decision to be open to move, but that should be immediately told to their school.

I feel even more strongly about a school rescinding a commitment; that needs to be done solely for serious breach by a player of the conditions under which such commitment has been made, eg. maintenance of academics, behavioral issues, etc.

As to 'poaching', there are specific rules forbidding coaches from doing so of players not in the portal. Likewise, they should not be approaching a player formally committed to another school, indeed the NLI process formally forbids such.

But the Ivies don't require an NLI, so one could argue that it's not against the rules to reconsider...however, the ethics remain the same. Coaches should not interfere with a commitment of admission already been made to another school, which is effectively the same thing as an NLI, albeit an academic one.

If the player wishes to re-consider, they should treat it the same as the portal process. They've already been admitted to the school, taking up an admission slot in exchange for consideration as an athlete. It's still possible to move, but the player should be the one informing the public and the current school in order to do so.

Now, are we really saying there's not ample opportunity within such ethical structure to recruit a terrific team?
Seems clear to me.

Very good post, MD.

[MDlaxfan76]

Weren’t the kids that switched from Cornell to Hopkins in the 21 class? So there was no NLI binding anything yet. Whether or not you agree, this is what’s happening in lacrosse now. And has for the last couple years.

There's no NLI at Cornell regardless, but you are correct that if the players are pre-NLI there isn't a formal breach. But the ethics remain the same.

That said, a player who has not committed formally with an NLI can change their mind. I'm all for further consideration if they wish. I just think they owe a duty to tell their 'committed' school that they are still looking around. And I don't think an opposing coach should be soliciting a kid to do otherwise.

That said, letting a kid know during the recruiting process that if they ever wish to reconsider their choices that your door will remain open to talk is all fine. So, if they do want to reconsider, they have your #. But the first question a coach should ask is, have you talked to your current committed coach yet?

Frankly, I want to play for a coach who sees the world through such an ethical lens...

my hunch would be that the above was how this particular situation was handled

[HopFan16]

There is no scenario in which Milliman did not act "ethically." He was never going to just actively steal recruits from his two former assistants. Those two kids switched commitments because they wanted to. These are teenagers who change their minds, especially when coaching changes happen. They clearly liked whatever Milliman was selling and valued that relationship more than the particular connection to Cornell. Given that Hopkins is comparable academically it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that a couple of guys he recruited wanted to follow him to his new position at Homewood. The prospect of having John Grant Jr. as an offensive coordinator probably didn't hurt. Not trying to stifle constructive discussion of recruiting but I'm not really sure why this warrants an entire treatise on ethics.

There is a very real possibility that coaches do not get to watch the 2021 class in person again. THAT is the more interesting topic to me. How do coaches recruit right now? Milliman smartly took advantage of the fact that he had already formed relationships with the kids he recruited to Cornell and the opportunities that that presented.

[DocBarrister]

I’d like to state for the record I am against poaching.

My irreverence last night (aka “cat”) was a response to the on Cornell’s “dime” comment. Not to abuse faircornell, nor inflame anything especially given current events and Juneteenth, but my initial thought process ran like this:

Whoa. So if they are recruited by some other school and on their cost, they should somehow be obligated to stay? And then that led me to think - that sounds like indentured servitude.

Now, I don’t think faircornell meant any of that.

But I thought, it’s time for a cat.

I think we could all be in agreement that if players initiate and decide to go wherever and whenever at the beginning and during their collegiate career, for whatever circumstances, that’s really fine and unassailable. Message board talk, sure, but free will.

But I am against poaching. Players need to explore options and make first contact.

Sorry for the cat. Faircornell: thanks for laughing along with it. And again - I’m not accusing you of actually having the opinions I mentioned above - I’m just outlining my stream of consciousness response that led to “cat”.

W

Cats are the vanguard of evil and the spawn of His Cruel and Sadistic Majesty, Our Satanic Lord, who seeks the destruction of all humankind and everything that is good in this world.

But cats are also cute, so I think you should be given a pass on this.

DB

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

I can’t remember the last time I had posted a cat. Maybe 6 months or more.

I’m making a mental note of yesterday’s: around Father’s Day, 2020.

[Farfromgeneva]

I still love the parrot lost, parrot bbq flyers pic wayyy back when on LP. Still pull that occasionally.

[faircornell]

I’d like to state for the record I am against poaching.

My irreverence last night (aka “cat”) was a response to the on Cornell’s “dime” comment. Not to abuse faircornell, nor inflame anything especially given current events and Juneteenth, but my initial thought process ran like this:

Whoa. So if they are recruited by some other school and on their cost, they should somehow be obligated to stay? And then that led me to think - that sounds like indentured servitude.

Now, I don’t think faircornell meant any of that.

But I thought, it’s time for a cat.

I think we could all be in agreement that if players initiate and decide to go wherever and whenever at the beginning and during their collegiate career, for whatever circumstances, that’s really fine and unassailable. Message board talk, sure, but free will.

But I am against poaching. Players need to explore options and make first contact.

Sorry for the cat. Faircornell: thanks for laughing along with it. And again - I’m not accusing you of actually having the opinions I mentioned above - I’m just outlining my stream of consciousness response that led to “cat”.

W

Thank you, Wombat, for your reply. You are correct in that I believe strongly that athletes should have choice. As CU77 once said of coaches, "these are not indentured servants". I believe that to be the case for players as well.

My chief concern, although archaic, is ongoing mutual respect among coaches and institutions. Your comments as well as others' comments have helped bring me more into the 21st Century.

[wgdsr]

love poaching. all for it.
players should have all opportunities available to them until contractually obligated.
part of what helped bring about the end of early recruiting, imo too.

they must have some uber confidence to jump over to a 60+ man roster. maybe they're ballers.

[51percentcorn]

If they did have discussions with Milliman, maybe he assured them by the Spring of 2022 - there won't be 60+. One can hope.
Every class - no matter how big or small needs some balance between offensive and defensive players for upperclass leadership when the time comes. Hopkins only had 1 offensive sided recruit in the 2021 class so it made some sense. Theoretically the class is up to 8 now - probably shouldn't get much bigger at all.

Which brings me to the next point - I understand that the circumstances are different in that Milliman obviously recruited these two kids before but where was the consternation about poaching when the prior two lads left for the same school - Penn State? Or when Westlin and Kuttin and others left Hopkins to schools with admitted poachers as head coaches? If there's a deck of cards at the college lacrosse game warden's office for poachers - Corrigan is the Ace of Spades and Shay is certainly a face card.

As the father of the other recent Hopkins decommit illustrated when his son switched to Towson - there can be any number of really good, legitimate reasons to switch schools
My hunch is that as long as JGJR is there - attackmen - especially Canadian attackmen - will have a sharper interest in Hopkins.

[jhu06]

there's a half dozen kids right now who if you read their bios and look at what they've done so far have no business on the roster anymore, probably another 12-15 who the staff doesn't think fit and that's just a start. The problem is each one of these kids comes from a program, a community, a network of younger players and how they're treated especially in the corona times of uncertainty for a new staff when the JHUML has been down for awhile is going to be remembered and either rewarded or punished by these current players hs coaches, communities etc.

For the mens lax doesn't get help from admin crowd, the university made a big show of getting rid of alumni influence in admissions and you look at the roster and there are 3-5 kids who have fathers that played which I'm sure had no effect on their recruiting and you take that across the athletics programs and that's probably 30-40 kids with athletics connections. Also a strong question of whether from the universities perspective it's better to have an extra 10-12 spots for lacrosse econ majors or kids who are going to come and contribute academically.

I hope you all are safe. watching the outbreaks at these nhl camps, college football practices, I'm highly skeptical we're going to see fallball this year. Maybe WOMBAT will discover some new gifs for us or someone will upload some old championship games we can watch on youtube together.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

BBQ

D9BD0062-7F0C-4562-8AC0-817FF9847D8A.jpeg (138.41 KiB) Viewed 1918 times

[Farfromgeneva]

Just brilliant.

[CU77]

As CU77 once said of coaches, "these are not indentured servants".

Whoa, I think I wrote that something like ten years ago on LP when Tambroni left Cornell … if memories are this long, I'm going to have to be a lot more careful!

And to comment on the crisis du jour, I do support player choice. I'm confident the players in question contacted PM and let him know they would like to play for him at JHU. Players following a coach to a new school (whether recruits or even current players) does not qualify as "poaching", IMO.

[MDlaxfan76]

There is no scenario in which Milliman did not act "ethically." He was never going to just actively steal recruits from his two former assistants. Those two kids switched commitments because they wanted to. These are teenagers who change their minds, especially when coaching changes happen. They clearly liked whatever Milliman was selling and valued that relationship more than the particular connection to Cornell. Given that Hopkins is comparable academically it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that a couple of guys he recruited wanted to follow him to his new position at Homewood. The prospect of having John Grant Jr. as an offensive coordinator probably didn't hurt. Not trying to stifle constructive discussion of recruiting but I'm not really sure why this warrants an entire treatise on ethics.

That was my take as well.
It just didn't make sense that Milliman would have done something unethical.

My only argument was with any notion that he should do so.

[MDlaxfan76]

As CU77 once said of coaches, "these are not indentured servants".

Whoa, I think I wrote that something like ten years ago on LP when Tambroni left Cornell … if memories are this long, I'm going to have to be a lot more careful!

And to comment on the crisis du jour, I do support player choice. I'm confident the players in question contacted PM and let him know they would like to play for him at JHU. Players following a coach to a new school (whether recruits or even current players) does not qualify as "poaching", IMO.

+1

[wgdsr]

or milliman contacted them first, they're not signed/obligated, and there is nothing inherently unethical about that.
anyone can have their opinion about it, but that doesn't make any opinion truth.
players get to land at the spot they prefer, i call that a win.