karen lotz;843414 wrote:Committed to Indiana. Laley is probably already to drunk to post it
LOL---great for the Hoosiers, as well as the Big Ten
karen lotz;843414 wrote:Committed to Indiana. Laley is probably already to drunk to post it
vball10set;843431 wrote:LOL---great for the Hoosiers, as well as the Big Ten
gorocks99;843526 wrote:Let's hope your coaching staff doesn't screw him like Minnesota's did with their highly-rated QB recruit, MarQueis Gray. Although Gray still has time to show his ability.
Laley23;843559 wrote:He committed because of the development of Sam Bradford. Bradford called him this morning or last night or sometime and vouched strongly for coach Wilson. Saying he is the reason, 100%, he is in the NFL today.
Do you mean screw him off the field, or in development?
gorocks99;843570 wrote:In development. The old staff, to their credit, stood by Gray while his ACT was figured out. But they refused to let him throw and forced him to spend almost all his time at WR the last two seasons. He was the #3 ranked dual-threat QB coming out of high school in 2008 (behind only Mr. Pryor and EJ Manual).
gorocks99;843570 wrote:In development. The old staff, to their credit, stood by Gray while his ACT was figured out. But they refused to let him throw and forced him to spend almost all his time at WR the last two seasons. He was the #3 ranked dual-threat QB coming out of high school in 2008 (behind only Mr. Pryor and EJ Manual).
Laley23;843559 wrote:He committed because of the development of Sam Bradford. Bradford called him this morning or last night or sometime and vouched strongly for coach Wilson. Saying he is the reason, 100%, he is in the NFL today.
I'm not sure what the guidelines are regarding this, but with all of the NCAA's rules and regulations, I would assume that Indiana covered their ass on this....Laley??bases_loaded;848084 wrote:Surprised this is legal in the NCAA
Laley23;848184 wrote:Yep, they made sure first. Bradford called the IU AD and asked I think.
I believe the reason being is that Bradford is not an alumni of IU, thus not a Booster or Ambassador or anything like that. Had it been for Gunner to go to OKL...different story I think.
Laley23;848184 wrote:Yep, they made sure first. Bradford called the IU AD and asked I think.
I believe the reason being is that Bradford is not an alumni of IU, thus not a Booster or Ambassador or anything like that. Had it been for Gunner to go to OKL...different story I think.
FatHobbit;848185 wrote:That's retarded. Not that Bradford called him, just that it's ok because he isn't going to Oklahoma.
Laley23;848898 wrote:Just curious. But if he isnt steering him to a school, but rather a coach, why would it be a violation?? At that point he is just another person not affiliated with the school right? Like if some random guy said go to IU, I like their new coach.
FatHobbit;849552 wrote:I don't think it is that big of a deal. I just think it's dumb that the only reason this is ok is because Bradford isn't from IU. How is it SUCH a big deal that he says "Hey this coach is great" if the coach is at his university, but when the coach goes to another university it's suddenly ok?
FatHobbit;849552 wrote:I don't think it is that big of a deal. I just think it's dumb that the only reason this is ok is because Bradford isn't from IU. How is it SUCH a big deal that he says "Hey this coach is great" if the coach is at his university, but when the coach goes to another university it's suddenly ok?
FatHobbit;849552 wrote:I don't think it is that big of a deal. I just think it's dumb that the only reason this is ok is because Bradford isn't from IU. How is it SUCH a big deal that he says "Hey this coach is great" if the coach is at his university, but when the coach goes to another university it's suddenly ok?
WebFire;849559 wrote:True, because either way he is steering a recruit to a particular school.
vball10set;850130 wrote:If the NCAA wanted to find something wrong with this, I'm sure they could...however, they're busy with another Big Ten team at the moment.
Laley23;850977 wrote:Well, no they couldnt. They gave the go ahead.