Letter Of Intent "Going By The Wayside?" One Should Hope Not
by Adam Jacobi on Apr 27, 2010 8:58 PM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes Football
Email
Print
Interesting article by FOTP* Brian Cook over at TSB, titled The Letter of Intent Is Going By The Wayside, And None Too Soon. We're not going to fisk it, because it's not blather, but it does merit some discussion and disagreement. Money quote:
The letter of intent is great for coaches. It locks the player into your school and prevents anyone else from offering him financial aid. It does almost nothing for players. In exchange for locking themselves in, players are guaranteed one—one!—year of scholarship money and room and board. In most cases this is an acceptable tradeoff for players, but what if the coach you signed up for gets axed? What if you've committed to a team that may or may not get hammered by the NCAA infractions committee? What if you're a high level recruit who's going to get a spot somewhere, anywhere? In that case, signing a letter of intent makes no sense.
Cook also notes that football has no one-and-done threats, so LOI holdouts are even rarer on the gridiron than in basketball. He also claims that "all [Seantrel] Henderson did is lock himself into a situation that might turn unpleasant." And to be fair, the notion that Seantrel locked himself into a situation that might turn unpleasant is absolutely, 100% true.
What Brian doesn't acknowledge at any point along the way is that the LOI provides one crucial benefit: it ends the recruiting process. That's no small matter. Ask any family that's been inundated with mail and phone calls from prospective colleges. Does anybody really want to have their dinner interrupted by some creepily-caring reporter looking for an update on a kid's top five... for eight months straight? Why prolong that process any longer than it's allowed to be already?
Further, Cook says guys like DeMarcus Cousins and Henderson are the players who benefit the least from an LOI. But if they're among the most intensely pursued targets in their entire class, that pursuit is an enormous disruption to their families. Well, unless they get to enjoying the attention, as some recruits and their families do. They, of course, may feel free to stay unsigned as long as they'd like, but these people are generally insane and not to be trusted.
If the argument is that an LOI should automatically become unbinding in the case of coach departure or NCAA sanctions, then we're all for it; certainly, we can all agree that there's no reason for a player to be locked into a suddenly worse or more volatile situation before he even enrolls as a student. The fact that that doesn't constitute a breach of contract means the LOI needs to be substantially overhauled.
It does not, however, mean that the LOI needs to go away entirely; that would only encourage more borderline-harassment from both coaches and the press alike. The recruiting game is sketchy enough as it is.
*Friend Of The Pants, of course.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is why college football needs an early signing period.
An early signing period allows the kids that want to end their recruitment to do so quickly and focus on their senior year of high school, and allows the attention lovers and indecisive students continue to weigh their options.
I understand the idea that 17-18 year old kids shouldn’t be “trapped” in ugly situations if a coach leaves or is fired and the school refuses their release (Brands and the VaTech trio come to mind), so I’m entirely behind the idea that a student-athlete refusing a LOI.
That said, the points you make are entirely valid and I’ve basically nothing to add.
Recruiting services
would HATE this, because it would decrease interest in their services as they wouldn’t be able to drum up false “rumors” of a player’s wavering interest. So, it’s probably a good thing.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Do they ever just plain invent that stuff?
Has any recruit ever told a reporter that he was getting railroaded by the creepysites and that they were misrepresenting him?
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
No, they don't "invent" stuff
But so long as its non-binding, “commitments” don’t mean much. There was a good article (on Dr. Saturday I believe, can’t find it to save my life right now) a few months back that touched on the growth and increased focus on college football recruiting generally, and the recruiting/evaluation services specifically. In a nutshell, the article pointed out that Scout/Yahoo/ESPN were driven largely by people who were willing to pay (huge shock). And because there was much more interest on both absolute and per capita levels in the South/SEC country, the services tended to focus more of their attention on recruits who were considering schools within that footprint. Resources being finite, the recruiting services tended to focus on where the most interest was (a completely justified situation). Thus, top level players who were considering, say random SEC school + others were given more attention/evaluation than those that were focusing on schools from other regions, regardless of their committment to a school (even if said school was SEC). Basically, more attention was focused on players who were a subject of interest in certain areas even if they had already “verballed” to a particular school, and each passing blip on said player’s radar generates a number of articles, thus driving page views and interest.
As an example that hits close to home, James Morris committed to Iowa ridiculously early. If caring is creepy, then my memory needs to be on watch because I seem to recall that he verballed to Iowa after his sophmore season. After this point, the evaluation services lost all interest in him, because there didn’t seem to be much likelihood of his changing his mind, and basically never did fall-up evaluations. He was given a generic 3-star rating by the services, in effect a “solid prospect, nothing remarkable”. This is despite his rather strong showing at regional Elite camps where he came out as a top LB prospect, at least in the region. Since there was no “story” in regards to Morris to follow, however, the recuiting services felt no need to update/follow-up on their initial evaluation, and tended to focus elsewhere on other recruits who were up for “grabs”, whether that was really true or not.
My point isn’t to launch a diatribe against the recruiting services, that is a whole other post. Only to point out that any kind of early commitment period would cut into the bottom line of Scouts/Rivals/ESPN since players would be somewhat locked-in. Given the increasing numbers of players who verbal early (Texas is amazing at this), this would have an impact, less stories to chase/pseudo-wavering to key on.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
It's always been hard for me to wrap my head around
the NCAA doesn’t care if a coach jumps schools, but for some reason an 18ish year old, who isn’t getting paid, is penalized for believing in the hype by that same coach.
Nice analysis, and spot on.
Although for the record, if USC gets hit, and it’s not going to happen since Bush is doing everything possible to avoid testifying, I think Henderson should be stuck there. But that’s my vindictiveness showing about a guy who believed Kiffin, knew about possible violations but walked in anyway, and a father who appears (IMO) to be more concerned about himself than his son.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Apr 27, 2010 10:17 PM CDT reply actions
I think Bush
has effectively avoided having to testify, given the whole settlement thing. Generally agree with the sentiment, though. On the other hand, don’t think Carroll would have flown the coop so abruptly if nothing was going to happen to USC. Probably won’t be a level that they deserve, but I really believe that USC will face some sanctioins for no other reason that (1) it is pretty blatantly obvious Bush (to say nothing of Mayo in hoopyball) was receiving money and (2) the NCAA has to do something to avoid appearing toothless, even if that is to go soft on a high profile program. Alabama was thisclose to getting the death penalty in ‘01 and only avoided it because the NCAA won’t go there again because of what it did to SMU and the SWC, and because of the high profile nature of Alabama. USC’s transgressions don’t approach that level, but I think the NCAA wants to avoid looking impotent, after all, since Alabama NO ONE has suffered any significant penalties and the NCAA spent most of the aughts looking the other way.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
And that's the point
no one has suffered significant penalties. Ohh…you lost wins. Bah. I understand the NCAA not wanting to touch their cash cow, but as some point they need to take a stand on somebody. And USC is a somebody that would get attention and probably deserves it.
I wish they would give the death penalty to someone (anyone other than us, obviously). That may be on the only way to clean up the behavior of recruiter/boosters.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Apr 28, 2010 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Death Penalty
Will never happen again. First of all, it bears keeping in mind just how egregious SMU’s violations were: the athletic department was flat out paying its players. Second, the penalty destroyed what had been a top, second-tier nationally program. Third, it killed the SWC. The results were so devastating that, absent incredibly blatant, overwhelming violations, the NCAA won’t bust out that particular banhammer again.
On the other hand, the recently preferred method, forfeiture of wins, seems so meek and is so open to contest, that the NCAA looks toothless (let’s be honest, if had been anyone other than Bowden, would FSU’s having to give up wins been contested at all? No). Instead, the NCAA needs to bring back the mixture of post-season ban and scholarship losses. This proved especially effective against Miami in the ‘90s, but didn’t kill the program and indeed, to an extent, laid the groundwork for their early 2000s resurgence.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here with this opinion
but isn’t the primary purpose of higher education the whole “academics” aspect? I know, it sounds preachy and that isn’t really where I what to go with this. When push comes to shove, though, I feel that what ever choice is made by a recruit, it should be based on how that kid fits in to the school, not necessarily how he/she fits into they coach’s system. I know that isn’t reality, so I will now show myself out.
Caring is creepy…very creepy.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Apr 27, 2010 10:47 PM CDT reply actions
But what does that have to do with the binding, no opt-out aspect of LOIs?
Not that I disagree with any of your sentiments, but…
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
This was not meant be posted.
Not that I disagree with what I wrote, but I realized that I wasn’t addressing the LOI issue. I hit post when I really didn’t intend to. After it went up, said “oh well, shit happens.”
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Apr 28, 2010 8:42 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Details
Letting players transfer without sitting out could be a problem, and would almost certainly lead to reduced graduation rates. One of the problems arises in the NCAA Infractions situation: what level of sanction will be sufficient to allow players to transfer? Alabama was just forced to pay a fine and vacate wins from years ago — that has, quite literally, in impact whatsoever on freshmen and sophomores. Should they be allowed to jump ship?
The other question goes to academics: there comes a point in degree progress where your classes won’t really transfer out and you lose semesters, if not years, of coursework. If your degree was ALREADY going to take you five years, a transfer could make that six, seven, or even eight depending on how far along it was and how many advanced-level classes transfer. Those extra years are very unlikely to be picked up by the school and so now the player is left with a half-degree (which is worth nothing) or a huge expense to finish it up. For some players, those with the ability to pay, that’s no big deal. For many of them, though, for whom college is/would be a huge expense, they’re probably just going to drop out.
I don’t think this was the intent, but I believe that the sit-out-a-year rule does a good job of keeping players from making transfer decisions that make their degree really difficult to get.
Plus, Cook is laughably under-selling the value of a guaranteed scholarship slot.
Yes, it is possible for a school to rescind a scholarship after a year. That, however, is not the default. The default is renewal, and the team has to jump through a bunch of hoops to get rid of the kid and keep his scholarship available for someone else. Appeals hearings, complicity of the financial aid department, etc. It’s not as though a coach can just call up the player the day before fall practice and tell him not to bother, because they gave his scholarship to someone else.
I could see the merit in allowing a player who is cut by the team for non-disciplinary reasons to transfer without sitting out, but i’m not sure I see the validity of allowing it for coaching changes or anything other than the highest NCAA sanctions.
I'm wrong all the time.
If you take away the sit-a-year rule...
…you’d effectively have free-agency for college sports (only without salary caps and the like). Calipari could restock his team with the best recruits in the land, regardless of where they played last year (Could you imagine Izzo pilfering the best position player on each team in the Big Ten, and then having to face them the next season?). Does a football/track guy (like Paul Cheney Jr.) play football at a football school and then transfer mid-year to a track school? It’s everything I hate about pro sports (that’s why I don’t watch the pros).
Also, no LOIs would be stupid. Does S. Henderson keep his elegibility open until the beginning of fall camps, or does he wait until college’s fall semester actually starts? Could he do August camp near home, and then join whatever team he decides to go with? What about early enrollment? How would a college know who is on it’s teams until those teams actually start their sport. Does the arbitrary “coach leaving” rule stop at head coaches? What if a football player’s position coach leaves, or a basketball star’s favorite assistant leaves?
Sorry, B. Cook is a fairly smart guy when it comes to this stuff, but to do more than some minor tweeks with LOIs is just unintelligent. A student-athlete commits to a school to get an education and to pay for it by making money for the school through their athletic gifts. Is it fair? Not really. But since when has an 18 year old had more power than a corporation (or conference in this case)? They could just apply for FAFSA like the rest of us if they have problems with the way the system is stacked against them (and it is).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Apr 28, 2010 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Here comes a long four-letter word:
FRESHMAN INELIGIBILITY.
This is something the NCAA needs to go back to. It’s a scary concept, but for borderline cases, it allows them to get that first tough year under their belt without any pressure to play. For other cases, it’s a redshirt year anyway, so this is already being done for plenty of players. For all, it makes them realize they are a student FIRST and a player second.
At a MINIMUM, it makes sure that a player is serious about SCHOOL, and not just playing ball. In especially, I think this would improve NCAA BB —any rule that would have prevented R. Davis from perpetrating his fraud on the great U of I would be a positive. It would take out those 1-2 year players who dominate and leave for the NBA.
As long as every damn school had to do it, it would be fine and fair. And it is damn well needed given the current climate.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on Apr 28, 2010 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm certainly not arguing for completely rescinding the sit-a-year rule
Only under conditions that constitute a significant change in what the recruit signed up for: i.e., coach leaves or sanctions are levied for actions taken before the recruit got on campus. That’s all.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Agreed
A kid should be allowed to have a release if a coach leaves is fired and/or the NCAA hammers the program under what you’ve described above. Its only fair. Even having that kind of rule in place should prove a partial deterrent (though not a strong one) for some schools to get into NCAA hanky panky violations.
My blog: http://www.gretainthebox.com
by Leftcoast Hawk on Apr 28, 2010 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions
That’s an administrative nightmare. Who keeps up with “what the kid signed up for”?
Is the average coaching change really that big of a deal to the average player? If so, isn’t it easy enough to predict when coaches are going to go? There are some surprises, but not that many.
NCAA sanctions make a little more sense to me, but I’m still not sure where the line goes. Bowl bans? Any scholarship losses? Any major infraction at all?
And that’s still not accounting for fewer kids getting their degrees because 50% of their coursework won’t transfer.
I'm wrong all the time.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
