National Letter of Intent

November 08, 2010

The National Letter of Intent Sucks!

This Wednesday, November 10th, is National Signing Day for college basketball and several other sports. Accepting an athletic scholarship is a huge deal. Unfortunately, the hype and media attention surrounding National Signing Day overshadows the actual agreement, the National Letter of Intent.

Most athletes (and their families) are thrilled to end the recruiting process and accept a guaranteed (or so they are led to believe) 1-year athletic scholarship. 

College sports can be great in many ways, but the NLI shows just how lopsided the relationship between athlete and institution really is.

There at least 10 reasons why the NLI sucks. Reading the NLI and listening to the decades-old spin from the NCAA community, it reminds me of the fraternity initiation (er, whipping) from Animal House. "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

1) It totally misrepresents reality

The NLI stipulates that athletes are signing with school, not athletic program, even if the actual recruiting process reflects the opposite. Yes, we want athletes to factor the school into their decisions, but every dollar—or thousand—an athletic department invests to sign a player signals just the opposite. Kentucky coach John Calipari, who is one of the few coaches willing to put his money where his mouth is (more on that later), once said: "Kids come and go to programs in most cases because of the coach. We can say that's not the case and they're supposed to sign at the school, but let's be real. They want to play for the coach."

2) Yeah, right the NLI is a "voluntary"

Technically, the NLI is a voluntary program. In 2007, the NCAA's Susan Peal, the director of the NLI, told Seth Davis: "Parents call me all the time [with questions], and I tell them hey, you don't have to sign the NLI. The coach will give you an athletics aid agreement, which has to accompany the NLI anyway. Now, will institutions let you do that? Maybe not, but it's worth asking the question." Wishful thinking.

3) "Know the rules...before you sign"

The first thing you see on the NLI website is that statement, which is like telling taxpayers, "Learn the IRS tax code." Even if you know everything, you still have pay taxes. For athletes and their families, even if they know the NLI and NCAA rules cold, almost every recruit will still sign the dadgum thing. The most galling part of the NLI website is that it lists the "many advantages to both prospective student-athletes and participating educational institution." If you say something enough times, you start to believe it. And so do others.

Continue reading "The National Letter of Intent Sucks!" »

Posted at 09:56 AM in National Letter of Intent, NCAA sports | | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2009

National Signing Day: The Day After

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."

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?"

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

Posted at 06:50 AM in National Letter of Intent | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 18, 2008

Seth Davis and I want to start a revolution

We're not asking for much. We just want the National Letter of Intent to either be abolished or rewritten. Seth believes we are the only two "schmos" writing about the inequity of the NLI. Come on. We need some help. The NLI is an absurdly one-side contract.

We both wrote about it last year. This year, I had active conversations with two players and their families about not signing. Seth actually found someone who is so far refusing to sign the NLI.

Today, Seth wrote about DeMarcus Cousins, a top recruit who wants to attend UAB, but only if Mike Davis is the coach. Sounds reasonable. If Davis is not at UAB next season, then Cousins wants UAB to agree in writing that it will release him from his National Letter of Intent (NLI).

Cousins doesn't sound like a radical:

"My whole point of committing to the school was to play for coach Mike Davis," Cousins told me [Davis] Monday. "If he gets another job offer or leaves for his own personal reasons, I want to be able to leave [UAB] without any problems. I need that in writing so there won't be any issues. That's real important to me."

I also wrote about National Letter of Intent in my September Basketball Times column. I will continue to write on the subject, but here's my central argument:

The National Letter of Intent (NLI) [is] ann agreement that heavily favors athletic departments over recruits. In fact, lawyers I've consulted with believe the NLI is what can legally be defined as a "contract of adhesion," which is "a standard-form contract prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position…who adheres to the contract with little choice about the terms." Technically, the NLI is a voluntary program, but unless an athlete is a superstar, he or she does not have market power to dictate terms of enrollment.

Stay tuned: Unless the NCAA and its members transforms NLI into a fair, two-sided agreement , I will have more to say on the subject. And I know Seth Davis will do the same. Bank on it.

--Marc Isenberg

Posted at 10:24 PM in National Letter of Intent | | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

About

Money Players: The book

Recent Posts

Categories

Investing

Archives

More...

Subscribe to this blog's feed