Jarred Dubois

by **Mexmustang** » Fri May 23, 2008 9:38 am

I could simply be a case where Doh hasn't spent enough time with him since his signing and he needs to have some positive attention.

by **PonyTales** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:27 pm

Agreed. A little "we still believe in you, there's no reason you can't compete for playing time or a starting spot, we need a lot of great guards and you're a great guard" speech from Coach Doherty and he might we realize he made the right decision and honor it.

by **couch 'em** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:16 am

The scout site is reporting that DuBois was denied a release.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=357#s=35 ... &t=2516516

by **PonyPride** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:53 am

Sounds like "Peruna" had some inside info.
True?

by **RGV Pony** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:59 am

the info posted as the 'reasons' for denying a release sounds like a stock response used by D1 schools in denying a release.

This being the case, I guess Dubois could still just not show up and transfer, then sit out a year correct?

Anyway,

WELCOME TO THE HILLTOP JARED!

by **bradwells01** » Tue May 27, 2008 7:59 am

In an audio interview with Scout, Doh says that he would like to see him stay on the team.

by **CA Mustang** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:26 pm

There's an unfortunate situation brewing between All-City guard Jarred Dubois of Westchester and Southern Methodist. He signed with the Mustangs last November but he has since asked for his release. SMU has refused, and Dubois is now appealing to the National Letter of Intent office.

SMU is foolish trying to force attendance by a student who doesn't want to be there. Just wait until Coach Matt Doherty comes back to Southern California looking for another recruit.

Dubois, however, isn't without fault. He should have done a better job evaluating his situation before signing.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-son ... ull.column

Also for those discussing how the academies recruit athletes, see the first story on the page.

by **Mexmustang** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:35 pm

But, it is OK for USC to continue to arrange to pay large cash bonuses?

by **Nacho** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:49 pm

Anyone know why Doh didn't release him from the LOI?

by **abezontar** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:16 pm

Nacho wrote:Anyone know why Doh didn't release him from the LOI?

I'm definitely curious. I'm not sure how denying the release improves the situation...unless he was considering going to one of the schools we regularlay compete against. Even then though it seems like a horrible PR move.

by **George S. Patton** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:35 pm

I don't see where this a horrible PR move. We should just give in on every recruit that wants out after they signed? That sets an even more dangerous precedent.

If I'm the NLI, there better be some serious questions asked before they issue any ruling on this and not accept the personal reasons baloney Dubois father gave. There better be something of valor because if tells the NLI something differen than what he told Doherty, there will be a problem.

Jared, better make sure your story is consistent.

by **mathman** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:56 pm

I agree with Patton. What is the point in having them sign one if it means nothing.

by **abezontar** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:09 pm

mathman wrote:I agree with Patton. What is the point in having them sign one if it means nothing.

I'm not saying it means nothing, but I guarantee that regardless of what the real story is, Jared and those associated him will portray SMU as an uncaring behemoth who is just out to screw him. It's a very short step for other potential recruits to say: man if SMU was so uncaring to Jared, it is probably an equally uncaring place to be?

This is why I'm curious about SMU's position. We signed two other guards, so it looks, to outsiders, as though SMU doesn't need Jared and is just keeping him because it can. I'm not saying that is the reason. I think that without a legitimate reason for holding him to the letter, say someone recruited him after he signed the LOI or something, we will likely be the bad guy to most who look at the situation.

by **George S. Patton** » Wed May 28, 2008 7:14 pm

abezontar wrote:
mathman wrote:I agree with Patton. What is the point in having them sign one if it means nothing.

I'm not saying it means nothing, but I guarantee that regardless of what the real story is, Jared and those associated him will portray SMU as an uncaring behemoth who is just out to screw him. It's a very short step for other potential recruits to say: man if SMU was so uncaring to Jared, it is probably an equally uncaring place to be?

This is why I'm curious about SMU's position. We signed two other guards, so it looks, to outsiders, as though SMU doesn't need Jared and is just keeping him because it can. I'm not saying that is the reason. I think that without a legitimate reason for holding him to the letter, say someone recruited him after he signed the LOI or something, we will likely be the bad guy to most who look at the situation.

I hear you but that kind of talk is out there about just about everyone anyway. There are people who think Rick Pitino is an a-hole and so on and so forth..

Consider this theory: methinks Dubois doth protest too much. If he's taking this to the NLI, something's going on with somebody somewhere, who really wants him, and he may be wanting them just as bad. If this is the case, is this illegal recruiting? Doherty may have found out and said no and if it turns out another school got in on this, get ready because the storm could be coming to that school.

Some of these kids don't appear to want to live up to the obligations to the letters that they signed. I guess they feel like these letters are just suggestions. This is where the entitlement crap enters the picture because of the AAU garbage that surrounds them.

Jared Dubois signed the letter. He better be a man and come to this school and welcome this great opportunity and compete to be a great player. And if doesn't, we'll know about his character -- or lack thereof -- pretty quickly. We may be seeing some of that on display right now.

by **abezontar** » Wed May 28, 2008 7:15 pm

George S. Patton wrote:
abezontar wrote:
mathman wrote:I agree with Patton. What is the point in having them sign one if it means nothing.

I'm not saying it means nothing, but I guarantee that regardless of what the real story is, Jared and those associated him will portray SMU as an uncaring behemoth who is just out to screw him. It's a very short step for other potential recruits to say: man if SMU was so uncaring to Jared, it is probably an equally uncaring place to be?

This is why I'm curious about SMU's position. We signed two other guards, so it looks, to outsiders, as though SMU doesn't need Jared and is just keeping him because it can. I'm not saying that is the reason. I think that without a legitimate reason for holding him to the letter, say someone recruited him after he signed the LOI or something, we will likely be the bad guy to most who look at the situation.

I hear you but that kind of talk is out there about just about everyone anyway. There are people who think Rick Pitino is an a-hole and so on and so forth..

Consider this theory: methinks Dubois doth protest too much. If he's taking this to the NLI, something's going on with somebody somewhere, who really wants him, and he may be wanting them just as bad. If this is the case, is this illegal recruiting? Doherty may have found out and said no and if it turns out another school got in on this, get ready because the storm could be coming to that school.

Which is why I'm so curious. I want to know what is really going on.

Jarred Dubois

From today's Los Angeles Times

Who is online