UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[iam416]

I think LOIs can be modified to allow transfer with a player sitting out a year and that year counting as a redshirt so he doesn't lose any eligibility (Ty Isaac would be a redshirt sophomore).

But LOIs serve a valuable purpose of predictability and stability. Staples is remarkably disingenuous when he says that a LOI signs away the players right to be recruited. The player IS recruited for 2 years! The LOI represents his final decision. In the world without LOIs, players sign multiple financial aid packages to secure their spot and force schools to recruit them up and until Fall Camp. And then if they don't like you in fall camp, they can transfer -- as early as the next semester! That's insane.

I liken LOIs to non-compete provisions in employment contracts. In the real world it's in the interest of businesses in high tech fields or intensive sales fields to employ non-compete provisions. These provisions are narrowly tailored to the field of the business, geography and time (2 yrs,max). So employees that leave the business can go do a myriad of different things for 2 years and then go compete directly against his former employer.

In the case of CFB, the LOI is basically a 1-yr non-compete. You commit to the school. If you want to leave, you have to sit out a year (in the B10, it's 2 if you go to another B10 school -- further highlighting the non-compete nature of the LOI). It's rational in that sense and it's utterly rational in setting a cut-off for recruiting.

Finally, the other thing kids can do is wait to sign their LOIs. Obviously, NLOID is simply the first day you can sign. It's fine with Smith or McDowell or Pryor want to wait forever to do it, but IMO you still need the LOI mechanism.

[hack]

So, basically, we have to give the schools all the leverage because otherwise the kids would have all the leverage? There isn't another solution?

[iam416]

The kids have gads of leverage until they sign the LOI, then it shifts to the schools. I mean, as I understand it, the existing structure gives kids the ability to be freely recruited until they sign their LOI which is typically past halfway through their senior year in high school. At that point, they are bound by the terms of the contract. It is, to my mind, no different than an employment contract.

This whole canard is especially disingenuous in view of the movement toward "4-year scholarships" which will bind a University to an athlete for 4 years (which I agree with). But if Universities are going to go all-in for 4 years then something to a similar effect should be coming back there way -- at a minimum, a 1 year sit-out if the student elects to leave.

[hack]

What's with the quotation marks there?

[iam416]

They're irrelevant to the point. I think I was using them to indicate a title or formal description.

[hack]

OK, fine. So back to the point then -- you see no possible way for the two sides to share a bit of leverage? Would that be desirable?

[iam416]

I must not be making myself clear.

(1) The recruits enjoy a tremendous amount of leverage. They get to pick the school they want to attend. For those lucky enough to advance to the next level that will not be the case.

(2) The LOI is a contact similar to contracts employees enter every day.

(3) As with any contract, the parties are bound by certain terms that restrict behavior.

(4) The LOI can be made more player friendly by allowing the "sit out year" for a transfer to qualify as a redshirt year.

(5) The LOI when coupled with a binding 4-year scholarship is, IMO, absolutely equitable.

(6) Student athletes still have additional avenues to pursue if they wish to transfer, namely going directly to an FCS school.

So, yeah, I'm not weeping for a kid that can freely choose amongst a host of options which school will pay for his education.

[iam416]

Finally, if the movement is to simply signing aid packages as opposed to LOIs (which what Mgoblog is on it's high horse about), then I would expect and encourage Universities to follow the explicit approach of renewable 1-year deals. I mean, if the kids can jet any time without consequence then the coaches ought to be able jettison them any time without consequence.

And I absolutely believe this would an unintended consequence of doing away with LOIs.

[hack]

You don't think there's a way to share that post-signing day leverage? Obviously some kids aren't happy about it, which is why it's an issue now. They clearly have a point. Seems pretty easy to put in a few stipulations that would add transparency. What's the problem with that?

[iam416]

What stipulations?

I think with a 4yr pledge the post-signing day leverage is absolutely equitable. The University is bound to the kid and the kid to the University. What ISN'T equitable about that?

[hack]

OK, at this point choose: do you want to have a stupid discussion about this or a reasonable one?

[iam416]

You've said absolutely nothing of substance. You have repeatedly the term "leverage" without actually explaining what you mean. So, it would appear we're nowhere near an actual discussion; just me telling you, in detail, what I think and why.

I'm surmising we're miles upon miles apart on this issue, so starting a two-way discussion is most likely fruitless.

[hack]

A few posts up you seemed to understand what I meant by leverage, as you responded in context. I haven't mentioned leverage since. Suddenly you aren't clear about what I mean?

[iam416]

I took issue with your statement on "leverage" at least two separate times and you've yet to explain in any way, meaningful or otherwise, what the "leverage" is, how the "leverage" is unfair and the solution to reduce the "leverage."

It's been an entirely vapid exercise on your part unless the agenda is to ask one silly question after another in lieu of a positive statement of position. I'm tempted to throw a semicolon in this post to prompt another one. Eh, whatever.

I'll revise my above statement: we're miles upon miles apart on this issue, so starting a two-way discussion is fruitless.

[hack]

Before we go on, so we can be clear about things, please choose:

1. You understand what I mean and take issue with it
2. You don't understand what I mean and take issue with it