Reality, there's a good start except that reality is what everyone makes for themselves. Reality is an opinion, everyone's has their own "view" of reality.

On one hand, I say that kids(<18yo) as most of us already know, don't have the experience to understand to what they are commiting, and we as adults should understand that when they sign a NLOI.

However, I also feel that kids don't get enough direction from the world(adults) on personal responsibilities and this would be a great message to send to kids if were to play out that Billy G. had to turn him away. Yes, it would hurt us very much, but that is exactly why I think that Billy should make the tough decision for morality. Otherwise, "the ends justify the means" would become the new moral Golden Rule.

Like Tru said, The NCAA has made it clear on numerous occasions that a player is committing to a school and not the coach, which is why the LOI is worded that way. I'm too lazy today to go search for links, but 'tis true. And it is a contract, as legal as one Jordan might be signing for Nike or Da Bulls later in life.

(Ha, Jordan to Da Bulls! Did you like that? Clever!)

The contracts are written to protect the schools and not the players. After all, the school loses money if it can't get good recruits to win basketball games and fill the stadiums. They may justify this with the scholar-athlete "getting a free education" stuff, but ultimately they're looking to pump more money out of the sport-hungry alums.

If the next several recruiting classes are smart, they should legally challenge the school or the NCAA about that "committing to the school" notion before signing on the line. However, until then, those recruits are still legally signing intent to the school. Then even before the ink is dry, Myles Brand comes crashing in on his rocket cycle, removes his judge helmet and screams "I AM THE LAW!"

And while I see how the NCAA tries to make a "perfect world" of scholar-athletes, I would argue that the "perfect world" analogy would be best used to describe a school doing what's best for the player; letting them out of LOIs, letting them practice more than the current limits set, giving them some cash outside of the scholarship for books and beer, etc. What percentage of our scholar-athletes -- at least, the scholar-athletes that are nationally-ranked athletes that have a shot at playing pro ball -- are really concerned about being a scholar? But the world's not perfect and, like you, I'm a big realist.

Until the world is perfect for players, the player's parents read and should understand what they and their son/daughter is signing, and should consider all possibilities before inking the document. Which means, basically, "don't sign a LOI early!" So, Jordan is hosed for at least two years -- one at TAMU, another to sit out to go to another program.

Two, if a school does not release a student-athlete from the NLOI, I believe the student-athlete is bound to the contract and would be unethical in breaking it. It is similiar to lying and breaking a trust between two parties. Combining my first two points, I believe is permissible and ethical to ask a party to void or excuse a contract but the party is perfectly justified in holding the other party to the contact and likewise both parties fulfilling their agreement, even if one party is not happy with it.

My third point is similar to DavW83's post that I am of the mind that the NLOI concept is out dated with modern times. I have too much to say about that in the limited space of a blog's comment section, but I would say that if coaches can leave with no penalty, then players should be granted similiar freedoms. Thus, the NLOI should be dropped or its restrictions changed.

Let's take ourselves out of the situation for a minute and look at things rationally.  Let's look at another school that is in the same sort of situation as Texas A&M: Kansas State.  Look at the top 150 recruit commits.  It's obscene how many are going to K. State (including #1 recruit Beasley).  If you had been in a time capsule for two years and had come out and shown that list, you'd think you were in the Twilight Zone.  None of those kids committed to K. State because of the school, it was because of coach Huggins and his staff.  And now Huggins is gone.  So even though the school didn't mean it to be, it was a bait-and-switch.

It is certainly not at all unethical at all for a kid to ASK to be let out of an inadvertent bait and switch.  And the school should be big enough to say, "Yes, the situation has drastically changed from what you agreed to.  Please consider us again on our merits.  As a token of our respect for you as a person, we release you."

Think about it.  The coaching staff is going to be a major part of the kid's life for the next few years.  The coaching staff will be the kid's boss, for all intents and purposes.  And being a student-athlete is the kid's job (at least for the reason that he's banned from taking any other job).  So, let's look at the real world analogy.  I agree to take a job because the boss is my friend and like the system I'm told I'll be working on.  And then for whatever reason my friend isn't there anymore, and he's been replaced by a ball-buster I deplore.  I should be able to at least ASK to be let out of my agreement given the change of circumstances.

Yes, it's written into the NLOI that a coaching change isn't legal termination, that it's between the kid and the school regardless of coach.  But you also have to consider, how many of these kids have been told with a wink and a nod, "Oh, that just has to be in the contract because of NCAA rules, coach X will be with us forever, hasn't he told you that repeatedly?"

So the contract can't be terminated automatically by the prospective student-athlete in the case of a coaching change.  Fine.  But that doesn't mean the contract can't be consentually terminated or re-negotiated.  Or that it's unethical to do so.

Contracts are re-negotiated all the time.  Coaches get raises when they do well.  Is it wrong for a coach to get a raise?  Shouldn't they just honor the remainder of their contract and be happy about it?  That would be the strict legal interpretation of the contract.  But as it turns out, it's legal for both sides to agree to a new contract as well.  

And just as ethical.

I know of no other type of undergraduate scholarship that requires an adhesion contract in order for the student to accept the scholarship.  Rather, the scholarship providor says, "you are a talented student, which the scholarship providor values, if you come to our school, enroll and don't drop out, we will pay you something."  This is a binding contract for value.  Both sides have the right to terminate for lack of substantial performance.

The NLOI says, "you, the athlete, provide a valuable and scarce commodity of major value, which we, the NCAA and our member schools, being major businesses, have an interest in procurring.  That being said, we have a major interest in keeping the flow and distribution of the commidity stable.  Our member school-businesses need to procure the commodity in order to make money.  The higher the value of the commodity, the more money we make, the more interest we have in controlling the commodity's flow.  You, the athlete have an interest in an education and athletic training.  The better the athlete, the more important is the interest in athletic training.  The contract is this: we, the powerful member school-business offer you, the 17 year old athlete, an education and our athletic training in exchange for your talent-commodity.  We the member school-business have the right to profit from your talent-commodity in any way we wish without sharing the profit, and retain the right to drastically alter the amount and value of your athletic training without notice.  You, however, must provide your talent-commodity to us, no matter how much we change the terms of the contract, or else suffer liquidated damages in the amount of one year of your talent-commodity."

The NLOI is similar to a company forcing its workers to sign a one year contract that says the company can change their salary at any time, without notice, and the employee cannot quit, or if the employee quits he could only work for the next year for minimum wage.  Such a contract would be unethical and unenforceable.  I think that it cannot be unethical to back out of an unethical contract of adhesion.

That first sentence, although true :), didn't contribute to my point so I probably shouldn't have included it.  Likewise the ad-hominems in your reply to mine didn't contribute to the debate, so let's call it even. :)

Just because there isn't a clause in the contract about termination, doesn't mean it can't be terminated consentually, or "released" or however you would like to put it.  IANAL, but it can happens.  Just to be clear here, I am not using the  "Golden Rationalization" here, this is the legal case without regard to ethics.

Maybe I should have outlined it more clearly, but I decided to go with the storytelling approach.  Now that that's been done, here's the summary of the core points that I think is not mentioned in the original post:

With regard to ethics and contracts, I claim if it is consentual, it is ethical.  This goes for both termination and agreement to a contract.

I think it is ethical when a University unintentionally perpetrates a bait-and-switch that they release the prospective student-athlete.  And because it is ethical, it is ethical to consent to letting the student-athlete out.

Kids are told verbally by their coaches acting as an agent of the university, and the university staff itself, that the current coach will be their coach.  Show me a coach that recuits by saying "I will take the next best job that comes along given the opportunity, so if I do well this year I won't be here the next!" and I'll show you a school with very few good recruits.  So kids are given something akin to a verbal "contract" if you will that the coach will still be there.  On the basis of this contract, they sign the NLOI.  The school (inadvertently) breaks this verbal contract.  I claim it is ethical for the University to release the student from their NLOI based on the breach of this verbal contract.

I claim it's ethical for a student to ask the University to act ethically.  Thus the student may ethically ask the University to release him from his NLOI based on the verbal contract being broken.

BTW, I truly thank you and JL for running a great website.  It's great to have a place where UK fans can have an intellectual and passionate debate without having a flamewar.

Have a great day and Go Cats!

But even if the "rules" do not require a NLOI, it seems hardly believable that recruits are not in practice required to sign a NLOI.  I wonder how many times per year a recruit is told that, if you want to play for me (coach x) you need to sign a NLOI.  I guarantee you that recruits are pressured into signing a NLOI, for the reasons I explained above.

The NLOI is an unethical contract that guarantees the school exactly what it wants, but guarantees top athletes nothing they want.