Interesting Article, Why Even Sign the LOI?

[ChairForceCock]

Why wouldn't a player just say, "I will go to your school to play football, but I am not signing a LOI". It sounds like the LOI is a contract solely on what the player has in agreement to the school, but the school owes nothing to the player in the LOI. The Financial Aid Agreement is what is what is providing the actual scholarship to the player. By signing the LOI, the player is forced to uphold his agreement to play for the team, or face restrictions if transferring. By not signing the LOI, if the player decides to transfer, it sounds like he would be able to transfer without playing restrictions.

Signing Day Options

 

[ReadR00ster]

I've tried to explain this several times. Both parties have to sign in writing for this to be a binding contract. People complain about the verbal commitment not being binding when what they think is a "Scholarship offer" really isn't in the first place. It's more like saying, "Send us a signed LOI, and we'll get you a scholarship... maybe after we get it." The school reserves the final say. For their to be a contract both sides have to give "consideration" meaning, someone offers someone and the other person offers something in return. That "Maybe" makes that not a valid offer. It's more like an invitation for the recruit to make an offer at a later time. It's like asking for someone to make a bid. I guess the recruit could refuse to sign a LOI but good luck getting a scholarship from that school if you don't. I don't see a problem with it, because the school is not obligated to offer anything it doesn't want to in the first place and if it is going to agree to give someone something, it can do so whenever it wants to. That is just normal rules of business.

Now, if you commit to a coach and not a school and you sign a letter of intent based on that coach being there, and the coach leaves, than you got what you asked for. Recruits need to be smarter than that. I don't care what kind of relationship you have with any coach if you sign with a school you better be sure that is the school you want to go to no matter what coach is there, not matter what they promised or you think they promised. That is just having common sense.
This post was edited on 2/10 3:38 PM by ReadR00ster

 

[Cackdiesel]

Originally posted by ReadR00ster:

Now, if you commit to a coach and not a school and you sign a letter of intent based on that coach being there, and the coach leaves, than you got what you asked for. Recruits need to be smarter than that. I don't care what kind of relationship you have with any coach if you sign with a school you better be sure that is the school you want to go to no matter what coach is there, not matter what they promised or you think they promised. That is just having common sense.

This post was edited on 2/10 3:38 PM by ReadR00ster

I agree with this for about 99% of the kids out there. But for the handul, the top 1% that can actually make a living playing this game, they shouldn't be hindered from doing so by a new coach coming in that doesn't fit their playing style. Do you not think the players should be able to transfer? I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I missed something from earlier.

 

[ReadR00ster]

Originally posted by Cackdiesel:

Originally posted by ReadR00ster:

Now, if you commit to a coach and not a school and you sign a letter of intent based on that coach being there, and the coach leaves, than you got what you asked for. Recruits need to be smarter than that. I don't care what kind of relationship you have with any coach if you sign with a school you better be sure that is the school you want to go to no matter what coach is there, not matter what they promised or you think they promised. That is just having common sense.

This post was edited on 2/10 3:38 PM by ReadR00ster

I agree with this for about 99% of the kids out there. But for the handul, the top 1% that can actually make a living playing this game, they shouldn't be hindered from doing so by a new coach coming in that doesn't fit their playing style. Do you not think the players should be able to transfer? I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I missed something from earlier.

The entire world shouldn't have to cater to any recruit just because they are really good at a sport and could play in the pros one day. No matter what THE RECRUIT'S, motivation is. They are given that scholarship to get a degree. It they have other plans than that, that that is SAID RECRUIT'S problem, not anyone elses. No, I don't think players should be able to transfer just because the coach changed unless the school agrees. It don't think it's right to just let recruits hop and skip from one school to the next just because they feel like it. If they want to transfer, let them transfer, but don't encourage them to do so by making it easy on them not letting the school put some kind of deterrent. People complain about the coaches being able to leave when they want but if we allowed players to do the same, half the team would leave too any time there is a coaching change. That isn't good for anyone.

 

[Kmart84]

Read, a signed LOI is binding to the school and the recruit for a period of one year. If the school receives a signed LOI from a recruit then the school has to give that recruit a scholarship for one year. Below is the NCAA rules for a LOI. A recruit doesn't have to sign a LOI to receive a scholarship.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/national-letter-intent

 

[ChairForceCock]

This is exactly what I was talking about. This guy didn't sign the LOI, and will still get the same benefits of other scholarship athletes without the binding agreements to the school. Should circumstances change with the team, his family, or whatever, this kid has the opportunity to transfer to another school without being penalized a year of eligibility. Unless there is some other stipulation that I am not aware of.

I could see where some may not be in favor of it, but I am. College football has turned into a multi-million dollar business, and I don't like it that the schools hold all of the cards. It would suck to have a player play for us, get to his junior year as a projected starter, and then just transfer, but I still think that should be his right. I don't think this sort of thing would happen that much, but it does present the possibility.

As stated in the article, "if my son is good enough, I wouldn't let him sign the LOI either". How good is good enough? I don't think this sort of thing would be offered to every player, but who knows.

Grant-in-Aid Award