LOL!
I'm not feigning anything. I'm merely trying to point out the potential issue of abuse, of high school recruits for which you don't seem to be addressing. You'd rather look of for inconsistencies in what I'm saying with past examples that aren't exactly the same in nature.
With the issue of Patterson, Scobey did commit to KSU and I'm OK with a JUCO coach having a policy with placed players, assuming of course, there are exceptions which is not covered in the article.
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
Let me address your little question first.
There should definitely be oversight, and that's the role of Brown's parents. I've seen nothing that suggests Brown's participation with Butler is against their will, or that they have disapproved of anything Butler has done. Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue, and are fully aware and accepting of the going ons.
Do you think Brown's parents are providing any oversight here, or do you think they're just throwing their kid(s) out the door?
While you're pointing out the "potential" for abuse, I pointed out a clear cut case of your abuse. A coach that interceded to screen recruiters when the direct beneficiary of that action was the coach and not the player. You're OK with it if it is a JC player but not a HS player. Scobey had expressed very significant interest in OU and OSU prior to committing to KSU in HS, and at least OU had a coaching change while he was in JC (a world class upgrade at that). But Patterson wasn't letting anyone else talk to Scobey - by his own admission.
That's not me looking for inconsistencies in your position, it's a glaring contradiction in your position. You're "committed" excuse is pure bunk, and you know it. There was nothing binding at all in that commitment when Patterson was screening on his and KSU's behalf.
You've created your abuse strawman and railed against it, but only apply it to HS players. There's no consistency in your stance on "abuse" and it's just another case of you being ridiculous.
Butler's autonomy conveniently spares him any of that tiresome accountability nonsense. Danger lies ahead.
kono - Butler's autonomy is also his weakness. He doesn't have a position of power over the player that a HS coach could have unless the player chooses to join his little program. That is a major difference. And if Butler does abuse his position, word is going to spread rather quickly, and his little enterprise will go away like a fart in a tornado. What do you think happens if the Browns bad mouth Butler after this deal is done? Butler is out of business. A HS coach would still get a whole new class of kids. Butler has quite a bit more incentive to make sure the Brown's are successful in college than a HS coach does.
What I think is driving all this is the knowledge that, deep down, if the Brown's want to play for a team that will surround them with elite talent, putting them in the best position to excel, get NFL attention, win a NC, etc. the answer likely isn't KSU. We don't offer those things to the same extent as the other schools on his list.
KSU offers the chance to be the start of something, rather than just a cog in the wheel. Maybe that's what Brown will choose to do.
