UMGriz75 said:The facts seem pretty clear even without getting Stitt's side of it.
HS Coach advises Kid to "play the field" and decommit from the University of Montana in order to get a "bigger, better deal." Kid decommits and blames the "coaching change." Montana says "fine, it's your choice" and moves on.
Kid doesn't get anything else. HS Coach can't find any offers for kid. HS Coach starts calling UM trying to save his face. UM's moved its promises to other players who were "committed." HS Coach knows that how it works. No program has the time resources for dilettantes who can't make up their mind, recruiting season is ending, schollies are committed.
Kid's parents erupt on HS Coach. Good kid has nowhere to go thanks to genius strategy of HS Coach who assured them he knew how "this game is played." HS Coach goes into major CYA mode. It's UM's fault! Yeah. That's it! It's so bad, he's banning UM from the High School.
This was a story concocted entirely for internal consumption at the High Skool, where "Coach" got embarrassed by his own failed strategy, had angry parents calling for his head, and needed to blame someone somewhere else. It is C......S....
The facts seem pretty clear? None of this is mentioned in either article. You can't just say things and then define them as facts. Reading through this after reading the article it's like most of you guys are just making up your own story and then a terrible game of telephone ensues. Keep in mind none of you have talked to the kid, the coach or UM about what happened. You're just creating a reality in your head. It's like this thread is schizophrenic