LSU loses a recruit set to sign early to Auburn after telling him that it only had five scholarships available and seven players enrolling early.
And I bet this went over like a lead balloon:
LSU asked Miller’s father to pay for the spring semester, which prompted Miller and his family to explore other options.
Really.
Get The Picture 
This is the kind of thing that needs to be cleaned up in college football. I HATE the way the kids are treated. The playing field needs to be leveled.
LikeLike
And he’s got two more to screw over. Needs to call Saban & borrow Bama’s medical withdrawal experts to dump some dead weight & make room.
LikeLike
Although, if Auburn is the alternative then paying your own way looks pretty good.
LikeLike
Why do you say that? If the kid is good enough not only will he get free tuition ,etc., the Aubies will pay HIM to go there.
LikeLike
At least the kid was able to salvage a scholarship. Some kids don’t get the memo until signing day and really have to scramble.
LikeLike
This story out of LSU smacks of a$$ covering. Miller, a kid out of the heart of Florida and a coveted tackle prospect by many programs, would likely not have been the first kid they would have asked to put off enrollment. There are even quotes from Miller earlier in the summer where he claims Miles told him he was their number 1 target of the whole class. TIFWIW.
LikeLike
Miller’s head coach in High School was Jack Daniels. I don’t know about ya’ll but that a HUGE Red Flag.
LikeLike
On a serious note: Would having an Earlier Signing Period help correct some of this from happening?
LikeLike
It isn’t a total solution but to answer your question: yes, I think having an early signing period would benefit the recruits, and the recruiters. This hanging on for months/years is counter productive, let’s spend the time on new remaining HS players, not ones that have already committed. It would also allow the coaches the ability to fill roster needs by position in a more efficient way.
LikeLike
Earlier signing period just rearranges the windows for roster management, as well as locking even more kids into new coaches when the guy they originally committed to gets canned.
The problem here is the 85 cap. Even then, kids still end up with a free education, which makes the term “screwed” rather relative. My neighbors, who are sending their collective 7 kids to community college first for an associate’s degree to cut down on their time at a 4-year state school, would love to have such a problem.
My preferred solution (not mine, saw it somewhere else, can’t remember who to credit) would allow a school to have as many kids on scholarship as they want to afford with Title IX – but kids 71 and below have unlimited out-of-season transfer rights. Or something like that — the numbers are less important than the basic concept.
“That’s not fair to Boise State or MSU!” Fine – we can have that conversation, so long as we both agree up front we have switched the argument from what’s fair for the kid to what’s fair for schools like Kentucky and Purdue.
LikeLike
Hypothetical: Because I don’t know alot about how scholly’s are awarded.
School offers the kid. Kid then commits early. Kid is then allowed to sign his LOI in an early signing period(Start of SR year), can the school still reneg on the offer(barring no legal/academic issues for the kid). I always thought the once LOI was submitted/accepted by the school it was binding for 1 year.
Or are my assumptions totally wrong?
LikeLike
LOIs are binding for the kid but not the school. Making it mutual presents legal complications, but an equitable solution shouldn’t cost the NCAA more than a few dozen billable hours.
LikeLike
^THIS should be corrected.
LikeLike