just as i'm ok with a player pulling a commitment and looking elsewhere, i'm totally fine with a school pulling an offer if a commit decides to start looking around again.
This.
Do you guys not know the difference or just refusing to see the difference?
I'd be interested in hearing you parse the difference.
Yes. Hit me with some knowledge, MIR. I suppose I'm refusing to see it. 
Well first of all the school makes dozens of offers every single season. A kid gets to pick a school either once or twice, for a 17 year old it is the most important, impactful decision they have made time that point in their lives. To a coach its just another scholarship to fill.
If it turns out to be a bad fit the kid has to beg out of the commitment and hope he is granted a release so that he can go somewhere else and go on scholarship while he sits out a year or two just because he selected what turned out to be a bad fit. If the coach or the ad doesn't allow the kid to go where he wants then he can't get scholarshipped see Bryce Brown. The messed up part is that if the coach decides he doesn't want the kid anymore he can just dump him without any penalty at all. If the coach decides he wants to leave he can leave again without penalty. A letter of intent binds the player for 4 years, it binds the school for a semester.
The system is completely tilted to favor the school and screw the athlete. If coaches don't want teenagers to flake out they shouldn't pressure them to make like altering decisions and then have to sit on that decision for months all while other coaches are telling him why his decision was wrong. These early commitments are 100% self serving for the coaches and schools and serves no benefit to the kid. The schools have the power to make decommitments less common but they are all rushing to fill their classes. If they have to do that then fine but I don't think its right to expect teenagers to be held to the same standard of 40, 50, 60, 70 year old men when the kids are the ones who are being rushed into these decisions.
it's a good post, but to be fair i'd like to point out the difference between an offer, a committment and then actually signing with a school. most of what mir posted about is after signing and yeah i agree it is way favored towards the school. it would be like divorce laws where the man gets everything every time or something similar. the set up seems unfair and should be changed.
the situation that kstate and sharp are in right now is completely different. they are basically engaged or whatever and sharp is getting cold feet and facebook messaging an old co-worker. kstate has every right in the world to say if you go visit then we are done. i personally don't agree w/ it tactically and think bill is being incredibly dumb here, but there is no ink on the contract and still a free for all so whatever on the moralities of it. basically, if sharp sees a better option before they walk down the aisle and wants to call it off then so be it, but kstate isn't morally obligated to sit around at home offering to be his DD if he can't pick up at the bar or if his date goes bad. again i don't agree with it from a tactical standpoint but morally sure. geese/gander, etc.
