Prepsters and junior college transfers -- if talented enough, meaning they have multiple excellent options -- just might want to consider NOT signing a national letter of intent. Or at least insert a statement into it along the lines that "this document is null and void if such-and-such takes place..." -- if that doesn't completely invalidate the document by doing so. Kids sign because of coaches and coaching staffs and the freedom to transfer should be an automatic one if a coach moves on for whatever reason(s).
National letter of intent not always a two-way agreement
Ramona Shelburne
Los Angeles Daily News
2/02/2009
What's in a name?
In the case of national signing day, everything.
In recent years, the first Wednesday in February has become something of a national holiday, with football recruits across the country finally announcing where they will play in college and making those commitments official by signing a national letter of intent.
But did you know that actually signing a letter of intent is completely voluntary?
In other words, the actual signing going on during signing day isn't required.
Kind of ruins the name, doesn't it?
A growing chorus of athletes' advocates and lawyers believe something else is going on... Go here for the remainder.
Just found a couple of interesting links.
The first one is an article in which an NCAA offical is quoted as saying a NLOI cannot be modified in any manner.
The second is a Seth Davis article on letters of intent.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Sign a NLOI or a scholarship agreement?
Posts
3 comments:
I find this article to be a bit silly. It repeatedly states that an athlete can just sign a scholarship agreement instead of the LOI and thus not be bound to the school. No school would let him do that so it's a complete red herring. I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be difficult for a judge to find the process unfair to the athlete. If he has offers from 6 schools he's not being forced into anything by the more powerful party.
I do recall one such recent situation but unfortunately the details are eluding me. It was either a UCLA or USC basketballer who signed a scholarship agreement -- I'm thinking it was Kevin Love but don't hold me to it -- rather than a national-letter-of-intent. If it was Love, he obviously had the power to basically do whatever he wished as no coach would turn him down because of his shying away from an NLOI. And just as obviously, very, very few Kevin Loves come along. Does anyone recall this or am I hallucinating (again)?
I can see someone like love having that authority, but you would think it would be some small school that would take the risk, not a school like UCLA. Or maybe they had his word that as long as nothing changed with coaches he'd come to UCLA?
I had never heard that before. But, yes, that would only be the exception that proves the rule. Not many schools would tie up a scholy with no LOI. I just didn't like the way the article made it seem like something any old athlete could do.
Post a Comment