There should be some kind of an answer in a weeks time.

That was the way I understood it...:thumb:

 

As for where to draw the line, I should have been clearer...I think the kid should be released if the coach leaves, especially if it happens before the athlete has even enrolled.

Even though the LOI specifically states that the coach leaving does not negate the LOI?

 

Since the NCAA doesn't adminster this program if the conferences of schools want it changed then change it, otherwise live up to what you are signing.

Even though the LOI specifically states that the coach leaving does not negate the LOI?

 

Since the NCAA doesn't adminster this program if the conferences of schools want it changed then change it, otherwise live up to what you are signing.

 

I think everyone understands the LOI....However, fact is, its pretty commonplace to see kids ask to opt out of one and gets it approved more often then not....If Jordan does get it done, it's not earth shattering news or setting any sort of precidence....The only difference is it's more recognizable when it's a bigtime prospect and a bigtime program involved.

Does the fact that he signed an agreement that CLEARLY states that a coach leaving doesn't in any way negate the agreement not make any difference? How many of you have signed a contract and been able to change the parameters of it after the fact?

 

And I'm not just saying this as a person with no love for UK but rather as a person who believes in personal responsibility and integrity. He signed a contract, he should live up to the agreement he made.

 

And let's please leave the "he's an 18 year old kid" out of this. 18 year olds are recognized legally as adults and as such are bound by contracts they sign.

 

So why does it only become an issue when it deals with UK?

:laugh:

 

Didn't see Florida in there?

 

It has nothing to do with U of L. I was using that as an EXAMPLE. I could have just as easily added Duke to that list.:thumb:

 

Care to try and tackle my point on the merits?

 

I think most people wouldnt care if a kid did this to go to UL. There would be a select few fans like some of you guys are doing coming out against it.

 

Here is the thing. Most people go to college to prepare themselves for the future. A big part of what a lot of highschool players are wanting is to get prepared for the NBA. A lot of times players pick a school because he believes that college coach will prepare him the best for his future. If he leaves then that changes the player's future right there.

I know its not exactly the same, but if I am going to UK for their architecture program and they all of a sudden did away with it then I would have to rethink my decision.

I think most people wouldnt care if a kid did this to go to UL. There would be a select few fans like some of you guys are doing coming out against it.

 

Here is the thing. Most people go to college to prepare themselves for the future. A big part of what a lot of highschool players are wanting is to get prepared for the NBA. A lot of times players pick a school because he believes that college coach will prepare him the best for his future. If he leaves then that changes the player's future right there.

I know its not exactly the same, but if I am going to UK for their architecture program and they all of a sudden did away with it then I would have to rethink my decision.

:confused:

 

What the heck do you mean by that? I'm against releasing players from their LOI? I hope you can find that post.

:confused:

 

What the heck do you mean by that? I'm against releasing players from their LOI? I hope you can find that post.

 

I didnt say you I just characterized you into the UK-haters that usually do say something like that. You know guys who look to criticize UK in any way possible.:thumb:

I didnt say you I just characterized you into the UK-haters that usually do say something like that. You know guys who look to criticize UK in any way possible.:thumb:

Then don't.

 

For one, as the best-behaved child in my household growing up, I learned to absolutely despise being lumped into any group. I was constantly held to group punishments and tongue lashings I didn't deserve.

 

Two, I don't belong in that group. I may not be a big fan of 18%ers, but I do NOT indiscriminately hate UK, their teams, their coaches, or their players.

Then don't.

 

For one, as the best-behaved child in my household growing up, I learned to absolutely despise being lumped into any group. I was constantly held to group punishments and tongue lashings I didn't deserve.

 

Two, I don't belong in that group. I may not be a big fan of 18%ers, but I do NOT indiscriminately hate UK, their teams, their coaches, or their players.

 

Kinda like me and democrats...I have nothing against them and nothing against voting for them...it just always seems that the other side seems a little better...:lol:

Does the fact that he signed an agreement that CLEARLY states that a coach leaving doesn't in any way negate the agreement not make any difference? How many of you have signed a contract and been able to change the parameters of it after the fact?

 

And I'm not just saying this as a person with no love for UK but rather as a person who believes in personal responsibility and integrity. He signed a contract, he should live up to the agreement he made.

 

And let's please leave the "he's an 18 year old kid" out of this. 18 year olds are recognized legally as adults and as such are bound by contracts they sign.

 

As the LOI program now stands, I agree with you, it is cut and dried. My posts have been based on my own personal feelings that coaching changes should be an exception. I'm not advocating that any of these kids should be let out of their LOI's under the current system because the agreement clearly addresses that.

 

The LOI program is a good one and it does protect the athlete as much, probably more than the institutions. No way it should be done away with. Even in the cases where I think there is an inequity, the good far, far outweighs the bad and if a few kids have to make tough decisions, or even sit a year, in those few and far between cases, then so be it. The overall integrity of the sport is protected by the LOI program. But there are always things that can be improved upon.

 

 

And again, I'm not speaking of any particular player or any specific case.

Then don't.

 

For one, as the best-behaved child in my household growing up, I learned to absolutely despise being lumped into any group. I was constantly held to group punishments and tongue lashings I didn't deserve.

 

Generalizations and lumping people together for any reason is my absolute biggest pet peeve... I've argued generalizations in at least a few hundred of my posts.

How did the University breach the contract? The kid is still going to get a scholarship, the kid is still going to get a chance to play basketball which is what the University agreed to provide for him. Another thing to remember, the LOI program is not administered by the NCAA it is a voluntary program administerd by the schools and conferences. It is just as much to protect the kid as the school. Can you imagine the chaos if it wasn't in place? Recruiting could take place right up till the kid enrolled in a school, they would never get ant peace. Also the kid would have no assurance that the scholarship would be there until he or she enrolled in school and the scholly was paid. He/she is also assured that the scholly will be paid for the entire year. When the young man signed early he should have realized that there was a chance that the coach would leave, there always is. If he wanted to be sure that he didn't then he should have waited until now to sign.

 

I said "breached, or at least altered".

 

Breached was probably the wrong word, as it has legal meaning and I didn't intend to use it that way. I just meant that the deal has changed for any kid whose coach leaves and IMO it is a situation that should be considered. Legally, the university has done nothing wrong and has every right to hold the kids accountable to the agreement they signed.

Then don't.

 

For one, as the best-behaved child in my household growing up, I learned to absolutely despise being lumped into any group. I was constantly held to group punishments and tongue lashings I didn't deserve.

 

Two, I don't belong in that group. I may not be a big fan of 18%ers, but I do NOT indiscriminately hate UK, their teams, their coaches, or their players.

 

:cry: You always jump on chances to criticize UK. Its a big contradiction.

So why does it only become an issue when it deals with UK?

It's not and I said so earlier in the thread. I would maintain this stance with any other school except in a few very rare circumstances.

 

Playing for his father is one (Alan Houston)

 

Many have spoken about how common this practice is. I would love for someone to provide a few names that this has happened with because I don't think it's that common at all.

I think most people wouldnt care if a kid did this to go to UL. There would be a select few fans like some of you guys are doing coming out against it.

 

Here is the thing. Most people go to college to prepare themselves for the future. A big part of what a lot of highschool players are wanting is to get prepared for the NBA. A lot of times players pick a school because he believes that college coach will prepare him the best for his future. If he leaves then that changes the player's future right there.

I know its not exactly the same, but if I am going to UK for their architecture program and they all of a sudden did away with it then I would have to rethink my decision.

You're wrong about me.

 

And to the bolded part if A&M did away with their basketball program then I would support the player going wherever he wanted.