New twist on Letters of Intent

[Billikan]

Now that Calipari is moving to Kentucky the speculation about the Memphis recruits is rampant. The big center Cousins never signed so he is available immediately. But one article I read said that Henry who is one of the top players in the country put a caveat in his LOI that gives him an out if Calipari is not the coach at Memphis. I had never heard of this before but if it is true and Kentucky gets both of them and keeps Meeks and Patterson they may be in a position to make a run at the final four.

[Billiken Law]

Now that Calipari is moving to Kentucky the speculation about the Memphis recruits is rampant. The big center Cousins never signed so he is available immediately. But one article I read said that Henry who is one of the top players in the country put a caveat in his LOI that gives him an out if Calipari is not the coach at Memphis. I had never heard of this before but if it is true and Kentucky gets both of them and keeps Meeks and Patterson they may be in a position to make a run at the final four.

First off, PLEASE refer to the National Letter of Intent by its proper acronym: NLI.

Secondly, to get a caveat like that is up to the school and it is not legally binding. UAB refused to do this with Cousins so he reopened his recruitment. A PSA can request such an out but in reality, it violates the terms of the NLI, which is an agreement to play for a school, not a coach. The school has the final say whether or not to release a PSA from his or her NLI (i.e. Harrellson and Josh Fisher) agreement or not. What we have started to see over the past few years and will see more of is PSA's waiting until the April signing period to see if the coach they want to play for will be at the school or somewhere else.

[Quality Is Job 1]

First off, PLEASE refer to the National Letter of Intent by its proper acronym: NLI.

Secondly, to get a caveat like that is up to the school and it is not legally binding. UAB refused to do this with Cousins so he reopened his recruitment. A PSA can request such an out but in reality, it violates the terms of the NLI, which is an agreement to play for a school, not a coach. The school has the final say whether or not to release a PSA from his or her NLI (i.e. Harrellson and Josh Fisher) agreement or not. What we have started to see over the past few years and will see more of is PSA's waiting until the April signing period to see if the coach they want to play for will be at the school or somewhere else.

Law, why is it such a big deal for YOU if the average Joe uses LOI to refer to letter of intent? And what do public service announcements have to do with anything?

[DeSmetBilliken]

Law, why is it such a big deal for YOU if the average Joe uses LOI to refer to letter of intent? And what do public service announcements have to do with anything?

I would assume that PSA means Prospective Student Athlete, or something close to that, not Public Service Announcement.

[slufanskip]

First off, PLEASE refer to the National Letter of Intent by its proper acronym: NLI.

Secondly, to get a caveat like that is up to the school and it is not legally binding. UAB refused to do this with Cousins so he reopened his recruitment. A PSA can request such an out but in reality, it violates the terms of the NLI, which is an agreement to play for a school, not a coach. The school has the final say whether or not to release a PSA from his or her NLI (i.e. Harrellson and Josh Fisher) agreement or not. What we have started to see over the past few years and will see more of is PSA's waiting until the April signing period to see if the coach they want to play for will be at the school or somewhere else.

It doesn't matter what the NLI (happy) says. If you get the letter you're out. What he's saying is it's a new twist, one I bet we begin to see more of. Imo it's a good thing. Regardless of what the LOI (I want to be fair to all acronyms) says, we all know kids commit to coaches as much if not more than they commit to the school. F..k the NCAA and the way they think they can own kids.

[kshoe]

It doesn't matter what the NLI (happy) says. If you get the letter you're out. What he's saying is it's a new twist, one I bet we begin to see more of. Imo it's a good thing. Regardless of what the LOI (I want to be fair to all acronyms) says, we all know kids commit to coaches as much if not more than they commit to the school. F..k the NCAA and the way they think they can own kids.

Disagree. The coaching carosel (sp?) is a joke as evidenced by all the crap Mizzou and Memphis fans had to go through this week. How much worse will system be if not only is a coach for sale after one decent year but all of the recruits he has coming in are also for sale with the coach. The kids still get no money but the coaches are able to hold schools even more hostage then they already do.

[HCMA]

Disagree. The coaching carosel (sp?) is a joke as evidenced by all the crap Mizzou and Memphis fans had to go through this week. How much worse will system be if not only is a coach for sale after one decent year but all of the recruits he has coming in are also for sale with the coach. The kids still get no money but the coaches are able to hold schools even more hostage then they already do.

A LOI (or NLI) is binding upon the athlete.....once signed and submitted, the school must agree to release the prospetive athlete in order for that athlete to pursue another scholarship in that year.....

The clause that Xavier Henry's LOI contains is simply a premptive release......Memphis has agreed, in advance of a request, to release him upon request....

its too much leverage for a coach much less the players......I can't see wide spread use.....

I think the NCAA should allow this rule change......if a coach resigns or is released from his position, a prospective player can be released from his letter WITHOUT the school's concurrance....HOWEVER that athlete should be required to sit a year before gaining eligibility if he attends a school that hires his formr coach

[drkelsey55]

A LOI (or NLI) is binding upon the athlete.....once signed and submitted, the school must agree to release the prospetive athlete in order for that athlete to pursue another scholarship in that year.....

The clause that Xavier Henry's LOI contains is simply a premptive release......Memphis has agreed, in advance of a request, to release him upon request....

its too much leverage for a coach much less the players......I can't see wide spread use.....

I think the NCAA should allow this rule change......if a coach resigns or is released from his position, a prospective player can be released from his letter WITHOUT the school's concurrance....HOWEVER that athlete should be required to sit a year before gaining eligibility if he attends a school that hires his formr coach

I tend to agree with this, however, I would let the athlete play right away but he would only have four years to complete his four years, no red shirt years for any reason.

[Billikan]

First off, PLEASE refer to the National Letter of Intent by its proper acronym: NLI.

Secondly, to get a caveat like that is up to the school and it is not legally binding. UAB refused to do this with Cousins so he reopened his recruitment. A PSA can request such an out but in reality, it violates the terms of the NLI, which is an agreement to play for a school, not a coach. The school has the final say whether or not to release a PSA from his or her NLI (i.e. Harrellson and Josh Fisher) agreement or not. What we have started to see over the past few years and will see more of is PSA's waiting until the April signing period to see if the coach they want to play for will be at the school or somewhere else.

You must be a very important big time lawyer! I am very sorry your worship for using the term that so many reporters use. By the way, a PSA test is one that is used to detect prostate cancer!

[jimbofive]

First off, PLEASE refer to the National Letter of Intent by its proper acronym: NLI.

Take off, eh? Hoser...

[Quality Is Job 1]

I would assume that PSA means Prospective Student Athlete, or something close to that, not Public Service Announcement.

I know. I figured that out as I was reading it. However, for someone to be so picky about LOI v. NLI, you would think he would define PSA (prospective student athlete) before using its acronym -- especially when that acronym has other, more common, uses.

[jimbofive]

I know. I figured that out as I was reading it. However, for someone to be so picky about LOI v. NLI, you would think he would define PSA (prospective student athlete) before using its acronym -- especially when that acronym has other, more common, uses.

Big rule in the business world - don't be a doucherocket about acronyms. We share high-fivedness on this, thicks.

[William Iken]

LOI LOI LOI LOI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cowboy]

-this waiver or whatever in the letter of intent is quite clever and i can see where every recruit would want that protection

-i had not heard of this prior to yesterday, but now that the horse is out of the barn it will be interesting to see how the ncaa reacts to this one

-and for whoever said "calipari isn't that low", i think we will find out soon

[billiken_roy]

-and for whoever said "calipari isn't that low".....

who did say that?

[jjray]

Secondly, to get a caveat like that is up to the school and it is not legally binding. UAB refused to do this with Cousins so he reopened his recruitment. A PSA can request such an out but in reality, it violates the terms of the NLI, which is an agreement to play for a school, not a coach. The school has the final say whether or not to release a PSA from his or her NLI (i.e. Harrellson and Josh Fisher) agreement or not. What we have started to see over the past few years and will see more of is PSA's waiting until the April signing period to see if the coach they want to play for will be at the school or somewhere else.

An NLI is a contract. The NCAA is not a legislative nor judcial entity. It's a private institution. Violation of NCAA rules does make an action or promise contained in a contract ILLEGAL. For someone so prissy about terminology, I would have thought you would be careful when using a such a term. If an NCAA bylaw forbids giving a kid a preemptive out clause (I have no idea whether that is correct), the remedy is not for the NCAA to unilaterally strike the offending clause (i.e., rewrite the contract entered into between the recruit and the school) because they lack the authority to rewrite a private contract. The NCAA has only one option if there is a clause in the NLI that violates its rules, declare the NLI unenforceable.

[William Iken]

An NLI is a contract. The NCAA is not a legislative nor judcial entity. It's a private institution. Violation of NCAA rules does make an action or promise contained in a contract ILLEGAL. For someone so prissy about terminology, I would have thought you would be careful when using a such a term. If an NCAA bylaw forbids giving a kid a preemptive out clause (I have no idea whether that is correct), the remedy is not for the NCAA to unilaterally strike the offending clause (i.e., rewrite the contract entered into between the recruit and the school) because they lack the authority to rewrite a private contract. The NCAA has only one option if there is a clause in the NLI that violates its rules, declare the NLI unenforceable.

I suspect that what Memphis did was to give the recruits assurances (i.e. their word) that they would relese them from the LOI/NLI if Calipari left. I can't see it being attached to the actual binding letter. So I don't actually think the NCAA will need to react.

On contracts - actually the NCAA could attempt to enforce its standard terms and the player could take them to court. A court could simply strike out the unenforceable clause. This is very common (and yes, if there really was some sort of out clause attached to the NLI/LOI [which I doubt] this could end up in court. Doubtful, but possible).

[slufanskip]

Disagree. The coaching carosel (sp?) is a joke as evidenced by all the crap Mizzou and Memphis fans had to go through this week. How much worse will system be if not only is a coach for sale after one decent year but all of the recruits he has coming in are also for sale with the coach. The kids still get no money but the coaches are able to hold schools even more hostage then they already do.

The coach can leave at anytime, regardless of the commitment they made to the kid.

The school can fire the coach at anytime, the school can fire the kid after any year with no penalty.

The only one who gets penalized for changing his mind is the kid. Sorry, it's wrong. Not just imo it's wrong. It is wrong no ifs ands or buts and I have no room for any other opinion. I'd love to see a kid sue the NCAA

[Quality Is Job 1]

-and for whoever said "calipari isn't that low"

who did say that?

Roy, slu72 said it.

[GoBills]

The coach can leave at anytime, regardless of the commitment they made to the kid.

The school can fire the coach at anytime, the school can fire the kid after any year with no penalty.

The only one who gets penalized for changing his mind is the kid. Sorry, it's wrong. Not just imo it's wrong. It is wrong no ifs ands or buts and I have no room for any other opinion. I'd love to see a kid sue the NCAA

This is a good topic and I can see both sides. I see where you are coming from and I used to share that opinion. But I think in a practical sense you can't have players leaving without having to sit out one year. I think that would only further hurt the non-BCS schools and it would continue to promote a hired gun mentality with the players. Let's say a football factory type school comes along and wants to hire a Mark Few and they also have several open scholarships. If you allowed kids to leave without sitting out a year, that would make it very easy for a down and out program with enough money to get good in a hurry. You would not only be buying Mark Few, you would be potentially buying his players to come along too. Coaches could actually exploit their players and dangle that carrot to potential employers. "Hire me and I will bring my top players with me." You not only hurt some of the smaller programs once by taking their coach, you further cripple them by taking their top players. I think this would potentially lead to a lot of under-handed stuff. Currently, nobody is stopping a kid from transferring during a coaching change. If that kid is really serious about it, all they have to do is sit out a year. One year may seem like an eternity in the life of 19 or 20year old, but there are worse punishments than to have to spend one more year in college at no charge before having to enter the real world. Yes a lot of kids pick schools based largely on the coach. But if I was a recruit or his parents, they have to think about this realistically. Before signing with a school, they should ask themselves, if this coach leaves or gets fired, does the school and program still have enough to offer me where I would be happy. The overwhelming majority of division I players at the over 300 programs will never play professionally, so the educational opportunity has to play an important role for most of these kids. If a kid doesn't like the basketball situation he is in, he can still pursue opportunities elsewhere.

[William Iken]

This is a good topic and I can see both sides. I see where you are coming from and I used to share that opinion. But I think in a practical sense you can't have players leaving without having to sit out one year. I think that would only further hurt the non-BCS schools and it would continue to promote a hired gun mentality with the players. Let's say a football factory type school comes along and wants to hire a Mark Few and they also have several open scholarships. If you allowed kids to leave without sitting out a year, that would make it very easy for a down and out program with enough money to get good in a hurry. You would not only be buying Mark Few, you would be potentially buying his players to come along too. Coaches could actually exploit their players and dangle that carrot to potential employers. "Hire me and I will bring my top players with me." You not only hurt some of the smaller programs once by taking their coach, you further cripple them by taking their top players. I think this would potentially lead to a lot of under-handed stuff. Currently, nobody is stopping a kid from transferring during a coaching change. If that kid is really serious about it, all they have to do is sit out a year. One year may seem like an eternity in the life of 19 or 20year old, but there are worse punishments than to have to spend one more year in college at no charge before having to enter the real world. Yes a lot of kids pick schools based largely on the coach. But if I was a recruit or his parents, they have to think about this realistically. Before signing with a school, they should ask themselves, if this coach leaves or gets fired, does the school and program still have enough to offer me where I would be happy. The overwhelming majority of division I players at the over 300 programs will never play professionally, so the educational opportunity has to play an important role for most of these kids. If a kid doesn't like the basketball situation he is in, he can still pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Agree - it would be pandemonium and only the rich would flourish ... and remember kids can move down to D2 without any penalty.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Right. And here's the detail that, in my opinion, strikes down Skip's argument: It's the school, not the coach, who's providing the athlete with the scholarship. Yeah, it's the coach who offers it, but the school executes it. An agent sell you insurance, but it's the company (or underwriter) which must make good on the policy, whether or not the agent remains.

[TJHawk]

Right. And here's the detail that, in my opinion, strikes down Skip's argument: It's the school, not the coach, who's providing the athlete with the scholarship. Yeah, it's the coach who offers it, but the school executes it. An agent sell you insurance, but it's the company (or underwriter) which must make good on the policy, whether or not the agent remains.

What X. Henry had in his LOI was binding not a hand shake deal, Memphis didn't have the option to keep him. This kids recruitment has been a long and strange one. His family wanted him to go to KU but he kept going behind his family to commit to MU. Now the family is hinting that he's going to KU now but I'll believe it when I see it. I think this kid just wants to go to a school that will allow him to score 25 points a game and not worry about the rest of the team. That just doesn't fly at his parents school.

[slufanskip]

This is a good topic and I can see both sides. I see where you are coming from and I used to share that opinion. But I think in a practical sense you can't have players leaving without having to sit out one year. I think that would only further hurt the non-BCS schools and it would continue to promote a hired gun mentality with the players. Let's say a football factory type school comes along and wants to hire a Mark Few and they also have several open scholarships. If you allowed kids to leave without sitting out a year, that would make it very easy for a down and out program with enough money to get good in a hurry. You would not only be buying Mark Few, you would be potentially buying his players to come along too. Coaches could actually exploit their players and dangle that carrot to potential employers. "Hire me and I will bring my top players with me." You not only hurt some of the smaller programs once by taking their coach, you further cripple them by taking their top players. I think this would potentially lead to a lot of under-handed stuff. Currently, nobody is stopping a kid from transferring during a coaching change. If that kid is really serious about it, all they have to do is sit out a year. One year may seem like an eternity in the life of 19 or 20year old, but there are worse punishments than to have to spend one more year in college at no charge before having to enter the real world. Yes a lot of kids pick schools based largely on the coach. But if I was a recruit or his parents, they have to think about this realistically. Before signing with a school, they should ask themselves, if this coach leaves or gets fired, does the school and program still have enough to offer me where I would be happy. The overwhelming majority of division I players at the over 300 programs will never play professionally, so the educational opportunity has to play an important role for most of these kids. If a kid doesn't like the basketball situation he is in, he can still pursue opportunities elsewhere.

It isn't about what's best for midmajors. I understand everything you say .... I don't care.

I have no problem with the kid sitting. Just make the rules the same for everyone. We've had this disussion before and no one ever directly answers the question. The schollarships are one year deals right? We know the answer to that question .... yes. But, it's really just a 1 year deal for the school. They can choose not to renew and suffer no penalty, in fact if they choose not to renew, the kid still pays a penalty, but not the school. If the kid decides not to renew he pays a penalty, does the school ....no. Please in simple terms explain to me how this is right. I didn't go to or graduate from a Jesuit school that must teach some kind of ethics ... so I just don't understand.

Penalize the school if they don't renew. Penalize the coach if he leaves while still under contract. Come on these schools and coaches even extend contracts so the recruits will believe the coach is staying at the school.

[Quality Is Job 1]

What X. Henry had in his LOI was binding not a hand shake deal, Memphis didn't have the option to keep him.

I thought the verbiage of the Letter of Intent didn't allow any written addendums. Then any kid would want to add clauses.