SOooooo. Let me get this straight......
A kid reads through the entire NLI and looks at the
accmpanying financial aid package that the school is committing to and understands it. He locks that school into a scholarship for 2 semesters and they lock him into coming school for 2 semesters after a long courtship where he has visited campus(es) courtesy of the institution (s) The NLI is binding only for that first year. Transfers past that follow a different set of rules. He has decided he loves the campus and academics and chooses that place over every other school he visits. He has done his due diligence and asked the coach what his future looks like. He reads that coaching changes are a part of the deal and chooses to sign the document along with the handlers/parents/guardians. The school has entertained him and academics, coachng staff and even in our case, Dr McDavis has taken time to meet with him. Folks are saying the kid should automatically be granted a release without meeting the new coach....irregardless of everything else that transpired?
Yes. The fact that the school has recruited a player doesn't give that school any more right to the player's services than a prospective employer has to my services after flying me out for a job interview. The school hasn't given these kids anything of value yet, so I don't see why they should be bound to the institution.
Ultimately, the NLI is, in my opinion, an illegitimate contract. While the top 20 or so players in the country every year could feasibly elect not to sign a letter of intent, for the overwhelming majority of players they have no choice. They either sign it, or they will not be able to play college basketball. It's a take-it-or-leave-it agreement, with no room for negotiation (a classic contract of adhesion in legal terms).
Compounding matters, players will often sign a NLI before they've even reached the age of majority (i.e., 18), meaning that they lack the legal capacity to enter into the contract in the first place.
Moreover, in my view, the NLI represents an illegal price fixing agreement. In no other industry would we accept all potential employers in the field colluding together to decide how much they will pay their employees. Heck, courts have even said that it is illegal for universities to agree on the terms of the academic scholarships they will offer to prospective students. If it weren't for the NCAA's rules, does anyone doubt that schools would compete to attract a talented prospect like Owens? I can virtually guarantee that OU would, at a minimum, have offered him a guaranteed 4-year scholarship had Owens had any real negotiating power.
At the end of the day, I don't understand why some would hold 18-to-22 year old kids to a higher standard than the adults who receive hundreds of thousands (or in some cases, millions) of dollars to coach them. If coaches can come and go as they please, without sitting out a year in the process, then the players should be able to do the same. After all, universities invest as much, if not more, in advancing their coaches' careers as they do their players'.
All that having been said, I agree that this particular situation is a little overblown, as we will undoubtedly release Owens if he presses the point. But I don't think he should have to press the point. In any event, there most certainly are cases where forcing a kid to meet with a new coaching staff before obtaining his release could have a serious negative impact on his ability to sign on elsewhere. While we have been blessed with a fast-acting, decisive AD, many schools aren't. Marshall's coaching search has been dragging on for over a month. I don't know if Marshall is taking the same approach with their recruits that we are, but if so, those kids have been twisting in the wind for over 30 days, while other suitors fill their scholarships during the open recruiting period. That's unfair.
Last Edited: 4/16/2014 8:25:31 PM by Flomo-genized