Commitment issues

 And now, class, it's time for a Blob quiz ("But it's Saturday!" you're howling), which consists of one question and thus will be relatively painless, even for a Saturday.

Here's the question: 

What's wrong with this headline, which the Blob stumbled across on Notre Dame 247 Sports this morning: "Notre Dame Hosting Five-Star LSU Quarterback Commit"?

Answer: What's wrong with it is it's 2021, and therefore nothing is wrong with it.

Now, a reasonable person could reasonably say "If he's an LSU commit, why is he visiting Notre Dame?", but that would mean you are living in the past and probably don't hold with  newfangled stuff like TV and the auto-MO-bile. Well, guess what, friend?

This is modern times. College football is big business now. Therefore poaching talent that has publicly committed to other schools is just bidness, and perfectly acceptable.

How do we know this?

Because the schools who are getting poached don't even get mad about it. This is because they're doing the same thing to other schools' commits.

Again, reasonable people could conclude that's sort of a scummy thing to do. But, again, modern times, bidness, so on and so forth.

Fact is, recruits flip on commits all the time, and no one thinks any less of them for it. No one thinks any less of the schools who encourage recruits to flip on their commits. You can say maybe they should, but 1965 ended awhile ago, old-timer.

No, the problem here is one of terminology, and that's what needs to change. Since it's clear a "commit" is not a commitment to anything these days, it's not really accurate to call a kid an "LSU commit." What he actually is, is a provisional commit.

So maybe that's how media should start characterizing kids who commit to a school before signing day. Until they sign, they're all provisional commits.

I could be a Reasonable Person here and hope that terminology catches on. But you know what?

1965 ended awhile ago for me, too.