forums

Is the National Letter of Intent unfair to recruits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted3746
  • Start date Start date
Advertisement
I wonder how many kids know that they don't have to sign a NLOI to get an athletic scholarship? it would take a huge effort of having the top 50-100 kids ALL refuse to sign to bring about any change.
 
2Focusd804 said:
I wonder how many kids know that they don't have to sign a NLOI to get an athletic scholarship? it would take a huge effort of having the top 50-100 kids ALL refuse to sign to bring about any change.
Click to expand...

Probably close to 100%. I always assumed it was mandatory.
 
The article is accurate, but limited. When a NLI is tendered to a prospective "student athlete" (did you know the NCAA invented that term after it ran into some workers' compensation problems with football players?), so is a financial aid agreement. Signing a NLI is "voluntary", but failing to do so does not guarantee you a spot or, more importantly, financial aid.

I have researched the NLI, extensively, for some time. It's a crap deal, a standard form contract (meaning no negotiation as to content), and largely one-sided. It also, in my opinion, is a contract of employment, an issue we are about to hear more about.

It's also the only game in town, thanks to the NCAA and its member institutions.
 
what if you dont qualify.... maybe on purpose (will go prep but wont lose eligibility) are you still responsible for the LOI?
 
Advertisement
rustywalkedaway said:
The article is accurate, but limited. When a NLI is tendered to a prospective "student athlete" (did you know the NCAA invented that term after it ran into some workers' compensation problems with football players?), so is a financial aid agreement. Signing a NLI is "voluntary", but failing to do so does not guarantee you a spot or, more importantly, financial aid.

I have researched the NLI, extensively, for some time. It's a crap deal, a standard form contract (meaning no negotiation as to content), and largely one-sided. It also, in my opinion, is a contract of employment, an issue we are about to hear more about.

It's also the only game in town, thanks to the NCAA and its member institutions.
Click to expand...

Signing an NLI does not guarantee anyone a spot anymore, given oversigning. Or so a story from the article is trying to convey.
 
First things first, is this provision stupid? Yes.

The following is allowed:

So you are a 2012 recruit and you play as a freshman during the 2012 season. Midway through the season you hate it and choose to transfer. You transfer and sit out the 2013 season aka your sophomore year , which counts as a “REDSHIRT.” So when you can play again in 2014, you have 3 years of eligibility left because you are a redshirt sophomore.

So instead you’re a 2013 recruit, you decide why would I want to go to Notre Dame and choose UCLA instead. You never step foot on ND campus after you sign your LOI. Instead you have to sit out in 2013 and are eligible for the 2014 season as a sophomore with 3 years of eligibility left. I suppose the 2013 recruit can still redshirt and preserve a year but he can only play 3 more seasons.

Both players are in different classes, both players have 3 years of eligibility left.

This provision is insane but I suppose the school wants some guarantee or ACTUAL COMMITMENT at some point, so this is how they do attempt to solve that issue.

Second, what is wrong with these kids/recruits?

Why is it so difficult for them to make a decision and stick to it? You are recruited for X years, you go on five official visits plus any unofficial visits. You meet the coaching staffs, presidents, deans, faculty etc. You have in home visits with the coaching staffs. You have plenty of time and MUCH MUCH MUCH more opportunities that are not available to the average student enrolling in college. You think the average Joe Schmo gets to meet the President on an official visit to a school? Maybe these kids need to take it more seriously, maybe these parents/coaches/guardians and counselors need to help the kid understand what is going on.

Third, a solution.

1. Don’t sign then. If you can’t handle this, then don’t sign the LOI. You live by the consequences if you sign, you die by the consequences if you sign. If you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game.

2. Ask the school to remove this provision or alter it.

3. Take the process more seriously and understand what is going on.

Finally, I think this is more of a problem with this country then with college football. No one is or wants to be accountable anymore. Listen, you may think these kids should get paid, that is a different issue. But how about they take this stuff more seriously and focus on the commitment.
 
Consigliere said:
First things first, is this provision stupid? Yes.

The following is allowed:

So you are a 2012 recruit and you play as a freshman during the 2012 season. Midway through the season you hate it and choose to transfer. You transfer and sit out the 2013 season aka your sophomore year , which counts as a “REDSHIRT.” So when you can play again in 2014, you have 3 years of eligibility left because you are a redshirt sophomore.

So instead you’re a 2013 recruit, you decide why would I want to go to Notre Dame and choose UCLA instead. You never step foot on ND campus after you sign your LOI. Instead you have to sit out in 2013 and are eligible for the 2014 season as a sophomore with 3 years of eligibility left. I suppose the 2013 recruit can still redshirt and preserve a year but he can only play 3 more seasons.

Both players are in different classes, both players have 3 years of eligibility left.

This provision is insane but I suppose the school wants some guarantee or ACTUAL COMMITMENT at some point, so this is how they do attempt to solve that issue.

Second, what is wrong with these kids/recruits?

Why is it so difficult for them to make a decision and stick to it? You are recruited for X years, you go on five official visits plus any unofficial visits. You meet the coaching staffs, presidents, deans, faculty etc. You have in home visits with the coaching staffs. You have plenty of time and MUCH MUCH MUCH more opportunities that are not available to the average student enrolling in college. You think the average Joe Schmo gets to meet the President on an official visit to a school? Maybe these kids need to take it more seriously, maybe these parents/coaches/guardians and counselors need to help the kid understand what is going on.

Third, a solution.

1. Don’t sign then. If you can’t handle this, then don’t sign the LOI. You live by the consequences if you sign, you die by the consequences if you sign. If you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game.

2. Ask the school to remove this provision or alter it.

3. Take the process more seriously and understand what is going on.

Finally, I think this is more of a problem with this country then with college football. No one is or wants to be accountable anymore. Listen, you may think these kids should get paid, that is a different issue. But how about they take this stuff more seriously and focus on the commitment.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the difference between the 2012 and 2013 recruits with regards to transferring is whether or not they were released from the scholarship. If the 2012 recruit is not released, he will need to sit out 2 years (1 redshirt, if available, and 1 year of eligibility).

Long but really good article on the history of the NCAA, and how unfair some of its practices are to students.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/
 
Advertisement
ChiCane said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the difference between the 2012 and 2013 recruits with regards to transferring is whether or not they were released from the scholarship. If the 2012 recruit is not released, he will need to sit out 2 years (1 redshirt, if available, and 1 year of eligibility).
Click to expand...

I thought the rule was that if the school won't grant permission than that means you have to actually SIT OUT and can't enroll in the school till 2014 (on scholarship, you can pay your own way). If the school gives permission than you can enroll in a scholarship right away while you sit out 2013.

That is my understanding, so TIFWIW

I am not saying this is right or wrong either, just saying why the provision on losing eligibility is stupid.
 
Chi Cane,

Is that article on LOI or just paying kids? It is long so I did not read it or really skim through the content.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top