Here's an interesting article on the national letter of intent process, problems that have recently come about and future considerations for players from SI.com


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college..._siwriters

Very interesting indeed.

That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

(06-18-2013 12:46 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

I would agree with you if the schools were held to the same standard. However, they are allowed to over sign players and then hang them out to dry if they sign more than they can keep. The process is extremely one sided at this point.

(06-18-2013 06:17 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:46 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

I would agree with you if the schools were held to the same standard. However, they are allowed to over sign players and then hang them out to dry if they sign more than they can keep. The process is extremely one sided at this point.

Yep. Never mind that the kid gets 4 years of his life to play college football, and you're taking one away from him, when on the other side of the coin, the school can just poach the next kid on their list at the last minute from someone else, and screw the team the next tier down.

(06-19-2013 02:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:17 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:46 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

I would agree with you if the schools were held to the same standard. However, they are allowed to over sign players and then hang them out to dry if they sign more than they can keep. The process is extremely one sided at this point.

Yep. Never mind that the kid gets 4 years of his life to play college football, and you're taking one away from him, when on the other side of the coin, the school can just poach the next kid on their list at the last minute from someone else, and screw the team the next tier down.

Not to mention that coaches can move when ever they want and do not have to sit out a year.

(06-19-2013 09:00 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:17 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:46 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

I would agree with you if the schools were held to the same standard. However, they are allowed to over sign players and then hang them out to dry if they sign more than they can keep. The process is extremely one sided at this point.

Yep. Never mind that the kid gets 4 years of his life to play college football, and you're taking one away from him, when on the other side of the coin, the school can just poach the next kid on their list at the last minute from someone else, and screw the team the next tier down.

Not to mention that coaches can move when ever they want and do not have to sit out a year.

this is the one that really gets me

(06-20-2013 09:56 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 09:00 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:17 PM)blah Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:46 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  That article is a very one-sided argument. The national letter of intent also allows the schools to move their resources on to recruiting someone else. When a kid decommits at the last minute the schools have lost countless hours of time and money spent recruiting this kid. Also, that position may have been then less recruited because the school assumed the position was filled and thus other kids at that same position they could have signed were stopped being recruited. I certainly think the school has the most leverage here but it does go both ways. When a kid makes a commitment he needs to stick to it and learn there is penalties for making bad choices in life. Allowing a kid to freely change his mind adds to the entitlement mentality this country already faces.

I would agree with you if the schools were held to the same standard. However, they are allowed to over sign players and then hang them out to dry if they sign more than they can keep. The process is extremely one sided at this point.

Yep. Never mind that the kid gets 4 years of his life to play college football, and you're taking one away from him, when on the other side of the coin, the school can just poach the next kid on their list at the last minute from someone else, and screw the team the next tier down.

Not to mention that coaches can move when ever they want and do not have to sit out a year.

this is the one that really gets me

I don't think the NLI is the problem. The problem is that the University and coaches should be subject to a similar set of rules.