I got a lot of media play on National Signing Day.
First, I wrote a piece on SportsAgentBlog.com
Attorney Dan Fitzgerald weighed in on the NLI and my comments.
Next, Ramona Shelburne from the Daily News quotes me in her article, "National letter of intent not always a two-way agreement."
Tom Hoffarth blogs on the oxymoronic de-commitment. Or is it decommitment? He even dusts of my first book, published back in 2000. BREAKING NEWS: We have broken our commitment with McGraw Hill (Actually, since our agreement was negotiated by two willing and capable parties, our break up was mutually agreed upon). We will announce our intentions in the near future. Stay tuned.
A friend raised the issue of hypothetically what might happen if the NLI was replaced with a non-binding contract. He suggested coaches would respond by "overcomitting" available financial aid as an alternative. The coaches will say: "we didn't want to do this, but we HAD to, because nobody would give us a firm commitment."
My response...
First, this is a zero sum game...a school may lose a player, but they also may gain a player. In the end, coaches would have less control, but it would eventually work itself out just like it does in college baseball where top prospects go down to the wire deciding between attending college or signing an MLB contract.
In my ideal world I would abolish the NLI. However, I am perfectly fine with rewriting the NLI to reflect reality. If a coach leaves or is fired, the student athlete should have the option to either attend the school or not. No releases. No restrictions. No questions asked.
Once a player signs, the school has complete control of the process. And if the NCAA and its members are genuine when they claim that this whole thing is voluntary (Madoff also wants to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge), then the best solution is for prospects not to sign the NLI and work toward complete anarchy. So...my compromise at least attempts to find some middle ground.
Next, Ramona Shelburne from the Daily News quotes me in her article, "National letter of intent not always a two-way agreement."
Isenberg, the Santa Monica-based writer who also runs the influential MoneyPlayers blog, does not advocate a repeal of the program, but thinks it should be collectively bargained with representatives on both sides and that there should be student-athlete representation on the NLI program steering committee...[He] doesn't think that it's wise for anyone but a superstar recruit, like basketball players O.J. Mayo or Derrick Rose, to refuse to sign a letter of intent.
"It can only start at the top," he said. "With the guys who have market power to dictate the terms of their enrollment.
"And then, it only works if it reaches a critical mass. If 10 kids to do it this year, 20 next year, and eventually it puts pressure on the schools to change this.
"I agree that there's got to be something done to stop the recruiting madness. But why do we heap the solution on the athletes?"
"It can only start at the top," he said. "With the guys who have market power to dictate the terms of their enrollment.
"And then, it only works if it reaches a critical mass. If 10 kids to do it this year, 20 next year, and eventually it puts pressure on the schools to change this.
"I agree that there's got to be something done to stop the recruiting madness. But why do we heap the solution on the athletes?"
Tom Hoffarth blogs on the oxymoronic de-commitment. Or is it decommitment? He even dusts of my first book, published back in 2000. BREAKING NEWS: We have broken our commitment with McGraw Hill (Actually, since our agreement was negotiated by two willing and capable parties, our break up was mutually agreed upon). We will announce our intentions in the near future. Stay tuned.
A friend raised the issue of hypothetically what might happen if the NLI was replaced with a non-binding contract. He suggested coaches would respond by "overcomitting" available financial aid as an alternative. The coaches will say: "we didn't want to do this, but we HAD to, because nobody would give us a firm commitment."
My response...
First, this is a zero sum game...a school may lose a player, but they also may gain a player. In the end, coaches would have less control, but it would eventually work itself out just like it does in college baseball where top prospects go down to the wire deciding between attending college or signing an MLB contract.
In my ideal world I would abolish the NLI. However, I am perfectly fine with rewriting the NLI to reflect reality. If a coach leaves or is fired, the student athlete should have the option to either attend the school or not. No releases. No restrictions. No questions asked.
Once a player signs, the school has complete control of the process. And if the NCAA and its members are genuine when they claim that this whole thing is voluntary (Madoff also wants to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge), then the best solution is for prospects not to sign the NLI and work toward complete anarchy. So...my compromise at least attempts to find some middle ground.
What do you think? Let me know.
--Marc Isenberg
Comments