Column: Recruits need to learn responsibility

It’s not often that societal values and sports become intertwined.

But in recent years, that mixture has become increasingly relevant in the realm of collegiate athletics, specifically football.

The matter at hand is recruiting, which has become a sideshow — circus is the truly appropriate term — all its own. The first Wednesday in February is known to recruiting junkies as National Signing Day, which, in my mind, has been elevated to holiday status.

It’s sickening, really.

Fans anxiously wait to see their beloved team’s commits sign national letters of intent, which, mind you, is a binding contract. It’s not simply a piece of paper, though to some prospects, that’s exactly what it is.

During the most recent recruiting cycle, America was shown the leniency with which these prospects treat the word “commitment.”

Perhaps the most visible example involved college football’s most recognized program — the University of Notre Dame.

Fresh off an appearance in the BCS National Championship Game, the school’s first trip to the title game in 24 years, the Irish were, for lack of a better phrase, seemingly secure in their ability to lock up a top-five recruiting haul.

Yet two rather damaging occurrences transpired between then and now.

First, five-star linebacker Alex Anzalone, who had been “committed” to Notre Dame since June 2012, spurned the Irish for Florida one day prior to his expected arrival in South Bend, Ind., for the spring semester as an early enrollee.

Where’s the sense of true commitment in that scenario?

No matter the reasons behind Anzalone’s decision to leave Notre Dame in the dust, the residual effect of the decision is a lessening of the meaning behind the concept of commitment.

It gets worse, though.

Eddie Vanderdoes, a five-star defensive tackle, “committed” and signed a national letter of intent to Notre Dame on National Signing Day in February, but had an apparent change of heart at some point following that day.

Because Vanderdoes had signed a binding contract, he couldn’t simply cut ties with Notre Dame.

The school could have simply released him from his national letter of intent, but it stepped up and did the right thing. It held Vanderdoes to his contract, not allowing the heralded prospect to play at UCLA this season.

Now, if Vanderdoes had provided a legitimate reason as to why he no longer desired to attend Notre Dame, such as a family issue, the school would have gladly released him.

But Vanderdoes’ statement that he gave to ESPN.com was vanilla, at best.

“Over the past four months, circumstances have changed for me and my family. For very personal reasons, I feel a strong need to remain close to home and near those who are most important in my life.”

It was the right choice to make, and not just on a micro level.

It was reported that a multitude of coaches across the country reached out to Notre Dame, asking the school not to release Vanderdoes, so as to not set a precedent.

It should also send a message to these kids that once a commitment is made, it should be binding. Backing out shouldn’t be an option.

Maybe the parents of these kids are failing them in this regard.

Maybe it’s simply a minute example of the fabric of society tearing at the seams.

Whatever the case may be, Notre Dame took the first step in fixing a problem that has gone too far.

Let’s hope it was the first of many.

­— ckillore@indiana.edu