My biggest issue with the verbal is that we know, they know, coaches know it is not binding. Now I get the fact that kids may use it as a methodology to gain notoriety and put pressure on desired places they want to play. Can the UofM get played in the process? Of course and it does happen.
However because I see it from the other end that people have way too much access to high school recruits. Logically kids should be allowed to verbal and rescind those verbals when they have a better option and I much prefer they do it in private. I think it is better for the kids to be honest, but they are pushed to get their commitments out there by a lot of people who might not have their best interests in mind. Seen that first hand.
Ena, Neale, Baker, Clark are great finds by the staff early on in the process and got them into the fold, yet for all of those kids they would be dumb not to consider a higher profile scholarship offer. Yes Montana has success at its level, and yes UNLV, New Mexico, Idaho are train wrecks of FBS programs, but they are FBS. So it shouldn't say anything less about their character that they aren't sticking to their verbal when a better offer comes a long. We are a nice car, it runs well, but the FBS at whatever level does have the appearance of being a nicer car regardless of our impression. Either way those kids are getting their school paid for, and if they can parlay one offer into another then more power to them. Those kids are forced because of the market to play their hands as they see them. Sometimes we get lucky with those kids (Sirmon is one, Simis another) where those kids are going to honor their early Verbals even in spite of a lot of attention from schools that are coming in late and hot that would put them in a program that is much higher on the totem than Montana.
