Are we losing Butch Pauu?

He was one of the bigger name recruits for next year. This article indicates that he is going to take some official visits to other schools. Per Bronco's rules are we going to pull our offer to him if he does that?



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsbyusports/52735917-65/byu-state-washington-committed.html.csp

I'm sure Bronco and staff will contact him and say, we don't do that at BYU. He'll be told what the potential consequences will be if he does take those visits after giving his word he was committed to BYU.

This one is strange to me. He commit early, brought a non-LDS kid to camp with him, who also commit, and they did it together. So why is he now looking around? If Butch bails, we could lose 2 players with this one. But guessing we lose neither. I think he honors his commit.

It is possible but his friend is also a commit. It would be hard to leave him behind.

Lawboy wrote:
This one is strange to me. He commit early, brought a non-LDS kid to camp with him, who also commit, and they did it together. So why is he now looking around? If Butch bails, we could lose 2 players with this one. But guessing we lose neither. I think he honors his commit.

it is because he was recently upgraded to a four star which probably opens up doors he didn't think would ever open up. that and we suck.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm sure Bronco and staff will contact him and say, we don't do that at BYU. He'll be told what the potential consequences will be if he does take those visits after giving his word he was committed to BYU.

I find that very interesting. It's not ok for anyone who has committed to shop around, but we have no problem taking those who were previously committed to other schools and changed their mind while on missions. What's wrong with that equation? Ah...we can't accept you at the Y because you were committed to USC...we have a policy here that once you give your word to us, we discourage you from making visits elsewhere. However, if you gave your word to UT and then changed your mind and want to be at the Y, we will welcome you with open arms. Am I missing something here?

This all came up a couple years ago when Kona Schwenke decided to go on a recruiting trip to ND that ended right at the time when coaches couldn't talk to potential recruits until signing day. I honestly think it was the timing of it more than people taking visits. I think the policy is when you commit in person when you come in with all the other commits in January, then you can get your offer pulled if you visit someone else.



Anyway, we'll see what happens.

birdie702 wrote:

I'm sure Bronco and staff will contact him and say, we don't do that at BYU. He'll be told what the potential consequences will be if he does take those visits after giving his word he was committed to BYU.

I find that very interesting. It's not ok for anyone who has committed to shop around, but we have no problem taking those who were previously committed to other schools and changed their mind while on missions. What's wrong with that equation? Ah...we can't accept you at the Y because you were committed to USC...we have a policy here that once you give your word to us, we discourage you from making visits elsewhere. However, if you gave your word to UT and then changed your mind and want to be at the Y, we will welcome you with open arms. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the Jake Heaps impact in the situation you are mentioning. Heaps met Apo at other camps and convinced him to decommit to Texas and come to BYU. It wasn't BYU coaches that changed the kid's mind. And at USC Kaveinga went to BYU and basically said I made a mistake in going to USC and should have come here first.



And the other part of the equation is that when BYU is on the right side of the equals sign, that's a good thing for BYU.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm sure Bronco and staff will contact him and say, we don't do that at BYU. He'll be told what the potential consequences will be if he does take those visits after giving his word he was committed to BYU.

I find that very interesting. It's not ok for anyone who has committed to shop around, but we have no problem taking those who were previously committed to other schools and changed their mind while on missions. What's wrong with that equation? Ah...we can't accept you at the Y because you were committed to USC...we have a policy here that once you give your word to us, we discourage you from making visits elsewhere. However, if you gave your word to UT and then changed your mind and want to be at the Y, we will welcome you with open arms. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the Jake Heaps impact in the situation you are mentioning. Heaps met Apo at other camps and convinced him to decommit to Texas and come to BYU. It wasn't BYU coaches that changed the kid's mind. And at USC Kaveinga went to BYU and basically said I made a mistake in going to USC and should have come here first.



And the other part of the equation is that when BYU is on the right side of the equals sign, that's a good thing for BYU.

So by this logic, are Apo, Kaveinga, Riley etc. not honorable because they broke their word? Shouldn't matter where the schools fall with the equals sign, or if you were recruited by a 5 star buddy instead of the coaches, or if you had a change of heart during some hyper-spiritual moment of your life, or if you just think the girls are hotter somewhere else. If we are going to say that you are breaking your word when you renege on an early commit to BYU, I think we have to apply the same standard to those who jump ship to come to BYU. But then again, I personally don't apply that kind of a standard to begin with. Just trying to understand I suppose.

Thanks Darth, that's exactly what I was getting at. It seems to be hypocrisy at its finest, IMO. Take for example Taysom Hill. Before his mission he was committed to Stanford. While on mission, he committed to BYU. Is it fair that we accepted him, yet deny other commits the opportunity to visit other schools?

Yes it absolutely is fair. Recruits know before hand that they cannot trip after committing to Bronco. It's a voluntary restriction the recruit puts on himself. It's no more hypocritical than the church saying you can't break the word of wisdom but prostelyting to those that do.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I did not bring up honor. Do you know if these other schools ask recruits to not take visits after committing? Texas put pressure on Apo to commit. They basically gave him a 24-48-hour window to say yes or no.



Kavienga and Riley are completely different situations than a high school recruit. Kaveinga did not like the environment at USC and wanted out. He sought out BYU. Riley wanted out of USU (fall from his dad and the staff? that's one story). He sought out BYU. Taysom Hill was recruited by Jim Harbaugh who is now in the NFL. He sought out BYU.



And I'm sorry, but if some kid has some hyper-spiritual moment in his life and decides he should be elsewhere, then who is BYU to say that he was getting wrong impressions from this hyper-spiritual moment.



Anyone trying to find fault with BYU when it comes to the the recruiting process is going out of their way to find fault. BYU is more upfront and honest with kids than just about every other program out there.

IMO, this policy is not a moral stance about keeping one's word.. I'm guessing it's mainly about Bronco gauging the recruits' desire to be at BYU. We all know BYU is not really the kind of place a half-committed recruit should be.

hawkwing wrote:
It's a voluntary restriction the recruit puts on himself.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You're sure this is all the recruits and not Bronco? If it's voluntary, then why does Bronco make it a big deal when a recruit wants to visit elsewhere? It's voluntary, not a policy. Or is it a policy? Is it in writing? Manti Te'o comes to mind.... I'm just trying to understand.



Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I should just stick to rugby instead of football. :lol:

I don't believe it's an honor thing for Bronco. I think it's a practical thing--BYU is unique in its scholarship situation. They have to juggle a large number of players leaving for and returning from missions. Because of that, Bronco cannot afford much tolerance in waiting for waffling players to make up their mind. Certainty has a value over and above the difference in talent level between the waffling kid and the lower-rated firmly committed kid.



For that reason, I don't see it as an threshold issue of keeping one's word, I see it as a condition Bronco puts on holding a scholarship for you. We have less room for error with how we commit scholarships, we focus on early commits, and for those reasons, Bronco will revoke his offer if he gets the feeling that you are no longer 100% committed because he can't afford to squander that scholarship.



Contrast that with the policy of most other FBS programs in over-offering and then pulling the rug out from kids at the last moment before signing day when it is too late and then asking them to gray-shirt. There's your lack of honor, and it's exactly what happened with Apo. Apo was an early commit to Texas, but closer to signing day Texas landed some unexpected WR recruits they valued more than Apo, and Apo started getting hints that Texas might not have a scholarship for him anymore. It was only then that Apo started looking for a backup plan, and that's when Heaps got to him.



Again, this is not a double-standard, it's just the standard Bronco chooses to impose because of his unique situation--don't commit to me unless you are 100% because I can't afford to be left hanging.

Bronco does use it to gauge a recruit's interest; however, I do think it's a bit hypocritical and unrealistic of Bronco. The kid is young and it's a big decision for him. I don't blame him one bit for getting cold feet. How many of us here didn't get cold feet about serving a mission or getting married or buying a car/house.



If the kids stock went up while BYU's went down (reflection of coaching) it's only reasonable and smart of the kid to look at his options. I would. None of us would think twice about doing the same thing if some new job opportunities popped up all of a sudden. Bronco should step up his recruiting game and show the kid we want him at BYU. Not make the kid prove at this point whether he wants BYU.



Assume Butch goes on his trips. Bronco pulls the offer. But while out on those trips Butch comes o realize BYU really is the place for him. Butch is now more committed. Does Bronco re-offer? Or does he make the kid come back on his knees before extending his hand? Is exploring your options in football really akin to breaking the 7th?



Say Butch even goes to another school but after a year or a mission wants to transfer. Do we accept him then or did he miss his chance? We'd accept him like the others but only after he completes his repentance process.



Loosen up Bronco and give the kid a break.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Sno, in the coaches show last week, Bronco said they have nearly 40% roster turnover every year due to graduations and missions (comings and goings).

birdie702 wrote:
Thanks Darth, that's exactly what I was getting at. It seems to be hypocrisy at its finest, IMO. Take for example Taysom Hill. Before his mission he was committed to Stanford. While on mission, he committed to BYU. Is it fair that we accepted him, yet deny other commits the opportunity to visit other schools?

Nobody denied anybody anything. They let them make a choice. It is ok to change your mind. It is OK to change our mind when you change your mind. When you change your mind - u don't alway get CAKE = EAT IT 2 no matter which side of the equation you think your cake is on.

birdie702 wrote:
Thanks Darth, that's exactly what I was getting at. It seems to be hypocrisy at its finest, IMO. Take for example Taysom Hill. Before his mission he was committed to Stanford. While on mission, he committed to BYU. Is it fair that we accepted him, yet deny other commits the opportunity to visit other schools?

No, this actually wasn't what I was getting at at all. I'm not sure of how Bronco commits players or exactly how he presents things to recruits, so I'm not at all calling it hypocritical. I was more just trying to see how people differentiate between a high school kid being unsure of himself and a college kid who goes on a mission and has a change of perspective etc. If we are going to throw around terminology like, "go back on his word," well to me, that is pretty serious stuff. I don't think people get to be treated differently just because they happened to be on a mission when they changed their mind about things. I'm not sure if that terminology really applies here. You can look at the technical definition of it and argue otherwise, but most of the time, when I hear someone "went back on his word", it is implying things about that person's honesty, character etc. that I'm not sure are really appropriate for complete strangers to be inferring from situations they know nothing about.



If Bronco makes his case clear to recruits then recruits should obviously determine if committing is the best thing. I think Bronco probably does a good job of this and knows when to push it on recruits and when to let them shop around a bit more.



As for fans, I just think we need to be careful because it is very easy to vilify the recruits/ players who decide to go in a different direction and not applying that same principle to players that renege and come to BYU. I don't see a need to vilify players in the first place, so I don't apply a dichotomy that vilifies the one group while embracing the other.

What about when you accept a job and then leave for another job? Is that an issue? Did the company misrepresent itself? Got new information or learned it was not a good fit.