Michael Carvell goes the extra mile and asks for the NCAA’s reaction to the Roquan Smith signing news. It’s a beaut.
“This really places that athletics team in a bad position for planning for the upcoming year if there is no binding agreement. This results in no accountability on the student’s behalf but the institution is accountable for providing the athletics aid.
“Contrary to what some people report, the NLI is a two-way agreement between the student and the institution and there is a release process if the NLI signee chooses to request it. Hopefully because a parent or legal guardian has to sign the NLI with the prospective student-athlete if under the age of 21, that individual is assisting the student in understanding what making a commitment means.”
We’ll skip past that whole “assisting the student” nonsense there, and head straight to the two-way agreement. Say what?
… But then I asked this — Isn’t it fair to say the same about the colleges, who put the (recruit) in a “bad position” with college coaches that leave for another job the day after signing day — as if they deceived and tricked a kid into signing the NLI?
“Yes, that is a fair statement and that is why I say it is a two-way agreement,” Peal said. “Both parties are making a commitment, not just one. As for deceiving a kid into signing, this is something that institution needs to deal with and if the NLI signee asks for a release due to this reason, the institution should consider the circumstances.”
Hey, that’s exactly what Urban Meyer did!
Oh, and by the way, Ms. Peal did let one thing slip about the early signing day proposal: “…there is no exception for a coaching change with any of the signing periods…”
If there’s something in the NCAA regs that truly favors the student-athlete, it’s probably an oversight.