“It’s about asset protection.”

Dude, you misspelled “National Letter of Intent” in your header.


Filed under Recruiting

8 responses to ““It’s about asset protection.”

  1. I’ve always thought new recruits should be able to transfer and play immediately when the head coach leaves. The Justin Fields of the world…not so much.


    • That might be the 4% that are mentioned


    • Macallanlover

      I could almost go down that path when it is the HC that leaves, but where do you draw the line? Coordinator? Position coach? Lead recruiter? Just don’t know which tooth on the saw cuts when you use that thought process, you can make a case for each. But they all come with consequences. Also, with 75%+ signing on the early date, do you throw all those fish back and have them sign again by the February date? What about EEs? Seems we are headed for a jumbled mess regardless when you add this to the transfer portals, which is growing annually. Only the grad transfer process looks solid, and defensible, imo.


  2. 1smartdude

    No one is preventing athletes or coaches from leaving a school. The coach has signed a contract and the student has too with the LOI. Both can get out of them, but there is generally a cost. Athletes might have to sit out a year, coaches might have to pay the buyout portion of their contracts. If a coach was hired, a contract signed and then the athletic director decided to leave, if the coach then didn’t want to be a part of that team because of that, he can leave, but he’ll still pay the buyout portion of the contract he signed. Sometimes, when your commitment is a signed contract, you’re obligated to meet those terms. Welcome to the real world.


    • … if the coach then didn’t want to be a part of that team because of that, he can leave, but he’ll still pay the buyout portion of the contract he signed.

      C’mon, man. New school almost always pays the buyout.

      Beyond that, coaches have representation when they negotiate with a school. Players, not so much.

      You really want to argue this is a level playing field?


      • 1smartdude

        I’m not arguing a level playing field. There is no such thing in life. What I’m saying is that you obligate yourself in both cases and that there is a penalty when you refuse to meet that obligation. I’ll use a different example if it makes you feel better. If a student takes out a loan to pay tuition and decides he wants to transfer to a different school, he’ll still repay the loan for the first school. I doubt he had legal representation, but he signed the contract. The athlete knows he’s bound by the LOI and he knows it upfront.


  3. Former Fan

    Until the players are compensated for their market worth, there should be no penalties at all for transfers. They should be able to transfer at any time but they have to be able to enroll in their new school. Also, how in the world colleges are able to limit transfers while signing one year scholarship agreements is just amazing to me.

    Eventually, this issue will be corrected by the market forces that are currently at work. (=That includes the market forces that have motivated people to take this entire amatuer model to court.


  4. stoopnagle

    I didn’t get any further than the intro where the athlete traded up in coaches after he was bound by the NLI. I’m agreeable to more compensation, freedom and rights to labor (always), but dude pick a better example!