He did not have to sign the LOI. The outcome, to me, is irrelevant. Anyway, how much better could it have been? My guess is, probably no different.

The thing is, we all make choices. Choices have consequences, and when we become adults, sometimes we don’t get that second bite at the apple, for good or ill. I think, in the end, it was good for Joe, but then again, what do I know?

I appreciate the sentiment. I would only point out that anytime the schools want to change the NLI so that the kids can opt out, they can force the Commission to do so. Furthermore, the kids are not required to sign. It is 110% voluntary.

I do appreciate your sentimentality, but kids have to grow up sometime and make adult decisions. This is one they don’t even have to make, and quite honestly, colleges are ostensibly in the business of educating youngsters, not preparing NBA players. One college is as good as another for the athletes to get an education.

Let’s face it — these guys are not choosing schools based on the quality of their organic chemistry or pre-med departments in 99% of the cases, and when they do, they can hardly get it wrong.

There is no legal way to derail the Commission unless we repeal the law of contracts. Of course, we could always prevail upon the Commission to change their minds. But absent that, the kids are just going to have to look askance more often at the NLIs. Perhaps that, in itself, will persuade them.

suits me just fine……but I dont see that happening.

Unfortunately, schools don’t like that. So if the kid chooses to sign an NLI, which he doesn’t have to do, then he’s stuck with that decision.

To answer your last question, no, schools can’t withdraw the scholarship if the kid signs an NLI and is otherwise qualified. For that first year, the school is stuck with him, just like the kid is stuck with the school. If the kid blows out his knee the day after he signs the NLI, redshirts the year, and transfers somewhere else, he retains all four years of eligibility and gets a free year of education at the school he signed with without having to play for them a single minute. There is risk and reward for both sides, which is what makes the arrangement fair.

Plus, when they sign the NLI, if an even better player comes along at his position, they can’t withdraw his scholly and give it to the other player — for the first year only, of course.

… the express purpose of the NLI was to commit the athlete to the school, rather than the coach.

I have no fundamental problem with either case, though, in case that isn’t clear above. I don’t care if the NLI allows extra conditions to be established or not. I am simply saying that I understand and agree with the reasons for refusing to accept those additional conditions — it is consistent with the mission of the NLI program.

I also agree that it would be sensible to allow the modifications from the point of view of the players. But the NLI program believes that is counter to their interests. Since they establish the program, they get to set the rules, and to me, the rules make sense.

… my argument is that the NLI people don’t think it was fair and just for them. They set the rules. So what’s the problem?

The NLI isn’t about protecting anyone – it is a simple agreement that the school will provide a scholarship, and the player will play for that school for one year. That’s it.

The escape clause works against the interests of the school because it has limited control over whether or not the coach stays there. Just look at Memphis, for example – it put them in a huge hole because they lost half their recruits due to that clause.

And you’re right, the schools are the ones who negotiated the clause, and Memphis benefited at the expense of UAB, who adhered to the intent of the program. The NLI people didn’t like that. That’s one reason why they did away with it.

My whole argument is this – I am fine either way, but since the colleges run the NLI program, they can make the rules however they want. If they want to allow escape clauses, fine, just say so and have done. Apparently, they don’t. Whether that works out to their best interests or not remains to be seen, but I’d say it is irrelevant. They make the rules, and now they have to live with the consequences.

… what was happening at Memphis. They incorrectly refer to it as an “addendum,” but in reality, the NLI was never permitted to be modified – it has boilerplate text which is the only thing the program allowed.

So what the schools were doing is effectively entering into a separate agreement with the recruit about the coach as a “work around” to get around the NLI’s intended requirement to bind the recruit to the school, not the coach.

That’s exactly what the NLI program has now foreclosed.

… if the NLI agreement were actually a monopoly, wouldn’t student athletes be required to sign one as a condition of admission? They aren’t, you know. You can be admitted to a full scholarship without signing an NLI. Happens all th time.

There are other options. You don’t have to go to school, you can go straight to work, right? Or you can go to a NAIA school or other non-NCAA institution. Or, you can pay your own way through school and walk on. It isn’t as if a college education cannot be had unless you sign an NLI at a D-I school.

Nobody is being denied access to anything here. The term “monopoly” doesn’t really apply, did you not read what I wrote above about the NLI not being a requirement to obtain a scholarship? Apparently not.

The schools themselves, by the way, forbade other agreements of the NLI participants. You are aware that not every institution participates in the NLI program, right? All D-I schools and most D-II schools do, with the notable exceptions of service academies and the Ivy League (who are apparently too important to participate), but even so, NLI’s are not required in order to get a scholarship.

That makes plenty of sense to me.

this should have been a reply to the reply to my earlier comment.

… merits to both arguments, no doubt. Personally, I could care less which way they go. It could do them more harm than good in the long term, and maybe if that happens, they will change it.

If I were a superstar athlete, I would be unlikely to sign an NLI until I was sure of my reasons for attending the school. If it was the coach, I would wait until the last possible moment, or even not sign. If it was the school/tradition/location/facilities/team, I would sign right away.

… this:

The one thing that bothers me is the very loose use of word "voluntary." I’m pretty sure that college athletes do not think that the NLOI is voluntary. They are told that that must sign or they will not receive a scholarship. They believe this untruth because they are not allowed agents and do not have the money to hire lawyers. Now, I’m sure someone will say there is no proof of this undue influence. To this I say, the thing speaks for itself. In other words, the fact that top recruits still sign a NLOI is very strong circumstantial evidence that the athletes believe that they have no choice other than to sign. An action in a given situation is only voluntary if a person knows that they are free to act otherwise.

To which I simply say, “Prove it.” What you cite is neither proof, nor evidence. It is merely an assumption.

I would say that if colleges are telling recruits they must sign one in order to receive a scholarship, they are behaving unethically and reprehensibly, and that is something I would never support. So if you can prove that it is going on with direct evidence, such as producing recruits who were told that they had to sign an NLI in order to get a scholarship, I will absolutely lambast such behavior.

Now, if the school is telling recruits that it is possible they will lose their scholarship to another player if they don’t sign, that is being honest. That is possible, and is one reason why the NLI exists.

Otherwise, I don’t agree that is happening. If it is, it is wrong and the institution(s) should be ashamed, and sanctioned. What you are describing is unethical coercion, and as such, it requires substantiation.