Recruits refusing to sign LOIs - a new trend?

JeffAtlanta · Feb 10, 2015

Some interesting news has come from the Roquan Smith saga. He is the 4* LB from Georgia that signed a LOI with UCLA, but refused to fax it in once he learned that an assistant coach was leaving.

Smith now states that he won't sign a LOI with the school that he chooses. Instead, he will only verbally commit and enroll in the summer.

http://recruiting.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/09/new-roquan-smith-wont-sign-loi-with-new-school-per-coach/

Smith and his high school coach feel that this approach gives him the most flexibility and protects him from coaching staff or other changes.

The AJC article mentions that this may become a new trend as a reaction to coaching changes after signing day. At first glance this seems like a very bad direction to go as it would extend recruiting season until the summer and prevent schools from properly planning their rosters. While few players have the leverage to do this, it's those same players that the schools would keep a roster spot open for.

Thoughts?

Lost in TN · Feb 10, 2015

I seriously doubt that it would work for a Bama recruit. We just do not have the room to take a chance.

uafanataum · Feb 10, 2015

I think CNS would tell them where to go if they try this with him. Maybe a little more politely than I would.

RTR91 · Feb 10, 2015

uafanataum said:
I think CNS would tell them where to go if they try this with him. Maybe a little more politely than I would.

Well, Scout reports Bama has contacted Smith to see how interested he is.

bamabelle1991 · Feb 10, 2015

So, after reading this article, I gather in a nutshell that by not signing an LOI, a player can transfer and be eligible immediately? Is that the only benefit if it is a benefit at all?

Someone please Cliff Note this article. LOL!

JeffAtlanta · Feb 10, 2015

bamabelle1991 said:
So, after reading this article, I gather in a nutshell that by not signing an LOI, a player can transfer and be eligible immediately? Is that the only benefit if it is a benefit at all?

Someone please Cliff Note this article. LOL!

From what I gather, the major benefit is that a player is free to change his mind all the up to the day he enrolls in school.

In this case, Smith plans to sign the paperwork that binds the school to him (grant-in-aid) but not the papers that bind him to the school (LOI).

Padreruf · Feb 10, 2015

I

bamabelle1991 said:
So, after reading this article, I gather in a nutshell that by not signing an LOI, a player can transfer and be eligible immediately? Is that the only benefit if it is a benefit at all?

Someone please Cliff Note this article. LOL!

Yes...LOI benefits the school and toes down the player. A really top player could keep his options open by not signing.

CullmanTide · Feb 10, 2015

Padreruf said:
I

Yes...LOI benefits the school and toes down the player. A really top player could keep his options open by not signing.

His options would dwindle as schools filled their quota. It's a dangerous game to play with your future.

lorange · Feb 11, 2015

This is interesting. I just read that one of Bama's BB recruits did this and I wondered why.

bamahippie · Feb 11, 2015

lorange said:
This is interesting. I just read that one of Bama's BB recruits did this and I wondered why.

Yep, saw that too. Scarbinski likened it to a "Rosa Parks" moment, and then backed off. What a knucklehead. But it would be trailblazing if more and more kids take the route of signing scholarship papers only, and no LOI. Like lorange said, another article stated that Dazon Ingram did not sign an LOI with Bama. Not sure how true that is, but if Grant is fired, he would be free to go elsewhere, and teams could still recruit him.

russtang · Feb 11, 2015

Yeah as usual Scab writes a ridiculous article.

No LOI is basically free agency.
The NCAA will change the rules before it becomes a "problem".

bamahippie · Feb 11, 2015

russtang said:
The NCAA will change the rules before it becomes a "problem".

Possibly, but I'm looking forward to see how that all gets hashed out. I mean, these kids are not committing to buildings, concrete, brick, steel, professors, teachers, dorms, etc. They are committing to people. People that they've built relationships with, grown to trust, etc. I can see how people hiding the truth, or outright lying, would make you want to step back and re-evaluate. They are kids, for crying out loud, and this is definitely one of the most important decisions that they will ever make.

Bamabuzzard · Feb 11, 2015

Schlabach calls for an "escape clause" for recruits whose coaches/recruiter leaves after signing.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12308125/coaching-changes-national-signing-day-unfair-football-recruiting

BAMAVILLE · Feb 11, 2015

bamahippie said:
Yep, saw that too. Scarbinski likened it to a "Rosa Parks" moment, and then backed off. What a knucklehead. But it would be trailblazing if more and more kids take the route of signing scholarship papers only, and no LOI. Like lorange said, another article stated that Dazon Ingram did not sign an LOI with Bama. Not sure how true that is, but if Grant is fired, he would be free to go elsewhere, and teams could still recruit him.

russtang said:
Yeah as usual Scab writes a ridiculous article.

No LOI is basically free agency.
The NCAA will change the rules before it becomes a "problem".

Year I saw the link to that article on AL.com and I would even give it the satisfaction of a click. Just ridiculous. I agree with you Russ, the rules will get changed on this sooner rather than later

B1GTide · Feb 12, 2015

If this becomes a trend it will hurt more kids than it helps. If you are able to lock up a scholarship at a school that is going to be able to help you for the rest of your life, you don't "hold out" just in case something bad happens. You only hold out if you are in the position of power, and most recruits are not (though they are treated as if they were).

That said - if the best players in the country start to do this it could actually be better for the sport altogether. It will force greater honesty and integrity, which would benefit all players. I don't think that it would hurt the top schools, even though they are the ones who will have more players holding out as they have more resources to keep up with those players. It's not like they stop recruiting on NSD now - they just shift their focus to the next class.

It is a shame that this is happening, but it is a result of the huge amount of money that has flowed into the sport. It has coaches hopping every year for greater opportunity, and who can blame them. But, just as these coaches have a right to protect their interests in pursuit of their dreams, so do recruits.

Redwood Forrest · Feb 12, 2015

There is a tug-o-war between schools/coaches and recruiting services/recruits. It will be interesting as it plays out. I think the sentiment is with the players but the goose who lays the golden eggs must be kept healthy too.

RTR91 · Feb 12, 2015

B1GTide said:
If this becomes a trend it will hurt more kids than it helps. If you are able to lock up a scholarship at a school that is going to be able to help you for the rest of your life, you don't "hold out" just in case something bad happens. You only hold out if you are in the position of power, and most recruits are not (though they are treated as if they were).

That said - if the best players in the country start to do this it could actually be better for the sport altogether. It will force greater honesty and integrity, which would benefit all players. I don't think that it would hurt the top schools, even though they are the ones who will have more players holding out as they have more resources to keep up with those players. It's not like they stop recruiting on NSD now - they just shift their focus to the next class.

It is a shame that this is happening, but it is a result of the huge amount of money that has flowed into the sport. It has coaches hopping every year for greater opportunity, and who can blame them. But, just as these coaches have a right to protect their interests in pursuit of their dreams, so do recruits.

As long as the player signs the financial aid agreement, the player has a scholarship.

JustNeedMe81 · Feb 12, 2015

If he signs the FA paperwork,, not the LOI... does that mean he's free to transfer to school of his choice, no matter what?

B1GTide · Feb 12, 2015

RTR91 said:
As long as the player signs the financial aid agreement, the player has a scholarship.

How many can a kid sign? Can a kid sign with 4 schools and lock them all in while he decides?

RTR91 · Feb 12, 2015

B1GTide said:
How many can a kid sign? Can a kid sign with 4 schools and lock them all in while he decides?

He can only sign one AFAIK.

Here's a Q&A he did with UGASports.com.

Recruits refusing to sign LOIs - a new trend?

All-American

1st Team

All-American

Super Moderator

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

1st Team

All-SEC

All-American

All-SEC

FB Moderator

Moderator (FB,BB,REC)

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Super Moderator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!