However, after his visit to ND it would have been as easy as saying something like this: "I enjoyed my visit to ND. I appreciate their interest in me as well as all of the other schools who have expressed interest. However, I remain 100% committed to Iowa State and will not waver on that commitment." It's as simple as that. People would have backed off. Maybe it's ridiculous to have to go to those lengths, but that's the media world we live in today.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Lazard did say that before and AFTER his visit to Notre Dame. The local media still didn't back off. Example "Oh he said 97 to 100 percent, not 100 percent, so that means there is a chance he could de-commit."
As for the Pierschbacher comparison, I saw one article written by Pat Hardy of the I.C. Press-Citizen where Hardy ask Pierschbacher about his commitment to Iowa following Pierschbacher's visit to Alabama. ONE. In that article, Pierschbacher said he was still committed to Iowa. There were no other articles anywhere about him until he announced he was going to Alabama instead of Iowa.
Had Pierschbacher kept quiet and not announced he was going to Alabama instead of Iowa until signing day, I seriously doubt the media would have hounded him like they did Lazard. Example, "So you are going to still go to Iowa instead of to a National Championship program?" Are you sure you want to still go to Iowa even after Alabama won the National Title?" "Alabama is No. 1 in the country right now and undefeated and Iowa just got beat by Northern Ill., and yet you are saying you still want to go to Iowa?" The way the media framed the questions to Lazard is the issue -- the condescending way they asked those questions if you will.
Pierscbacher said he was staying with Iowa and the local media believed him and stopped asking questions. Lazard said he was sticking with Iowa State and the media kept asking.