Schools absolutely have a finite number of funds. The notion that any school has a blank check to use whenever they see fit just doesnt jive with reality.

I genuinely appreciate the question and the way youre approaching it, and I would like to point out that any frustration in the post is not pointed at you, but rather those who continually shout "they cheated" when a kid picks another school.

If everyone can agree on that fact then there are certain parameters that take shape that show when a kid might be on the take (a tall task, I know, as the boogeyman is hard to disprove if someone believes hard enough).

Im not going to engage anyone who believes schools have unlimited funds, because you cant convince someone with logic who lives in a fantasy land, so I will instead move on to the parameters and best practices.

1) most important...never use funds to pay a kid or his handlers when you dont have to. If youre in a group of 4 schools and none of the others are offering the kid improper benefits, then youre wasting resources by giving them benefits.

i.e. I know for a fact Indiana wasnt offering Clowney benefits, so unless people are saying Virginia Tech is offering benefits then it would be very dumb for Alabama to do sothey didnt have to.

2) never give funds to a prospect unless they are outside of your normal recruiting footprint. If you typically compete for kids in the 60-100 range, then thats where a lot of your battles will be. If you spend funds within that footprint, then youll run out of resources faster. It is better to use the resources on players outside that footprint in the 1-50 range to try and change the recruiting narrative of your school.

i.e. it wouldnt make much sense for VT to offer Clowney, Nickel and Rice benefits when they could pool those benefits and go after someone like Eric Dailey. Maybe you miss out on Clowney and Nickel, but landing Dailey is a net positive, and you still have Rice.

3) never offer benefits to a kid who isnt a priority recruit. If that kid commits, then you run the risk of asking them not to commit and then run the risk of being exposed in the scheme due to hurt feelings. You never want to be in the business of taking back illegal offers.

i.e. Alabama wouldnt offer Clowney illegal benefits, because Walker was the priority recruit.

4) never offer benefits to an Adidas kid if youre an Adidas school going against Nike schools. (Or vice versa)

i.e. dont use your own funds to pay a kid when the shoe company can do it for you. (Alabama and Houston are both Nike schools, so that didnt happen in the case of Walker)

These rules come from someone who spent a lot of time recruiting for a school who cheated. Fans dont understand how it works, so when they hear pundits say "it happens all the time" they just assume any recruit who doesnt choose their school had to have taken funds. It just isnt the case.

If you see a school like Western Kentucky beating out powerhouses for a Top 50 kid, that kid is on the take.

If you know who the cheaters are in the game and you see a kid who has finalists with all cheaters, like say a kid whose finalists were:

Buzz Williams
Donnie Tyndall
Kevin Ollie
Creighton

That kid was on the take...

But that doesnt mean that all kids recruited by those schools are on the take. If Buzz Williams is recruiting a kid in his footprint who has finalists with schools who arent cheating, youd be dumb to cheat. Clearly the kid isnt pushing for it, and you only put yourself at risk by offering it...AND you use funds youll need for another recruitment.

Walker wasnt paid because he didnt need to be paid. Clowney wasnt paid because he was well within the footprint of all who recruited him and no one involved are known cheaters.

It is way overblown how much and how often kids are on the take. Especially now when athletes can still make legitimate money and not lose their eligibility by taking improper benefits. It just doesnt pass the cost-benefit analysis




[Post edited by GCHokie34 at 11/05/2021 12:07PM]