He has changed his mind or is at least thinking about it. The CJ this morning said he left his college choice BLANK on the form he filled out for playing in the Derby Classic game.

That was before what he said out of his mouth. They filled that form out last week.

I can certainly understand that senitment...BUT if I were a school, I wouldn't release him until the new coach had gotten to meet with the kid, etcetera.

 

I agree. I have no problem with a school requiring a kid meet with a new coach first. However, I do have a problem with them sticking it to a kid.

 

Coaches can leave at a moments notice, schools can fire coaches whenever they choose, schools and coaches can withdraw scholarship offers, so the only party that can't change their mind apparently is the student.

I think a player should be able to be released from their LOI if the coach leaves. The new coach may run a system that is not suited to the player and if a person is honest with themselves they must admit that players sign for the coach and style of play at least as much as they do for a certain school.

Maybe for another thread, but should an incoming coach be able to revoke the scholorship that the former coach signed? Since they signed with the coach and school.

I am really not seeing why Louisville is even being brought up in this thread. It has nothing to do with UL.

Go start a UL is the victim thread or something.

: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?

Taking the proverbial one step further...

 

I also think that if a coach leaves, current players on scholarship should be allowed to transfer without setting out a year. (and yes, before someone asks, it should apply to this years UK players too).

 

Maybe not to the school the old coach switches to, that could be problematic.

 

I don't think other schools should be allowed to initiate contact with kids in this situaiton and recruit them off somebody else's roster. But if a player wantes to leave, he could declare he is abandoning his scholarship, and then he would be fair game.

 

I know it is idealistic, but I think we use these kids enough as it is and they are swallowed by the system. When coaching changes happen, and the entire landscape changes for them, they should have some options, IMO.

If Patterson would have committed to UK early and then Tubby left and he wanted out of it to go to Florida, would UK release him from his LOI... I think not...I can understand Tx A&Ms position and think Gillispie is doing the right thing by not trying to get him here..Now, if he chooses on his own accord to get out of it and they release him, I would have no problem with BG getting on him with all he's got, cause you can bet everyone else sure will be....

In a perfect world it would be this way but's it's not a perfect world. Why should A&M release him from his LOI? I wouldn't and if they don't the kid loses not one but two years of eligibility.

 

I read the NCAA's explanation of the letter of intent and understood it to say the athlete would only lose one year. He hasn't enrolled at A&M yet let alone play so I'm not sure why anyone would think he'd lose two years...:confused:

 

Personally, I don't know anything about the kid, but any athlete that asks for a release should be given one unless there is reason to believe there is something shady going on.

That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't make good business sense to me.

 

How can you possibly expect a kid (whose future is on the line) to have any loyalty to a school he has never even enrolled in?

 

It is a contract (the LOI) between two parties. If a coach leaves, that drastically changes the priciples of the contract. In those cases, the contract is breached by the University, or at least altered, and the kid should get a free pass, IMO.

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 read the NCAA's explanation of the letter of intent and understood it to say the athlete would only lose one year. He hasn't enrolled at A&M yet let alone play so I'm not sure why anyone would think he'd lose two years...:confused:

 

Personally, I don't know anything about the kid, but any athlete that asks for a release should be given one unless there is reason to believe there is something shady going on.

The two year rule is an SEC thing. Other conferences might do it, but I know for sure the SEC does.

 

Remember, the LOI is not run by the NCAA.

I read the NCAA's explanation of the letter of intent and understood it to say the athlete would only lose one year. He hasn't enrolled at A&M yet let alone play so I'm not sure why anyone would think he'd lose two years...:confused:

 

Personally, I don't know anything about the kid, but any athlete that asks for a release should be given one unless there is reason to believe there is something shady going on.

The program has changed since I was more involved with college sports then. At one time it was a two year loss (because I clearly remember that was what Alan Houston was facing had Louisville not releaed him to follow his father to Tennessee) of eligibility but now the student-athlete must attend the second school for one full academic year before he/she is eligible to play. But it is clearly stated that unlike a transfer the year COULD NOT be used as a redshirt, the SA forfeits one year of his/her eligibility. Remember this is a program that is run by the College Commisoners Association and the various conferences not the NCAA.

 

Letter of Intent Text

 

Please note number 19

If Coach Leaves. I understand I have signed this NLI with the institution and not for a particular sport or individual. If the coach leaves the institution or the sports program, I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI. I understand it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position.

It seems fairly cut and dry to me.

 

Where do you draw the line at granting the release?

For the record, and I've said this in another thread on another player, but it applies here as well:

 

I'm sure A&M will release Jordan. It wouldn't be unusual for the school to release him with restrictions like not to sign in conference or to the coach's new school. However, I understand that the AD at A&M is tight with Mitch, so it wouldn't be shocking if Jordan were released from the LOI.

They will give him the realease if he wishes I think, but not until he meets witht he new coach. And if they do that I will have respect for them, I think that is the way it should be. If I was a AD I wouldn't want a kid playing for me if he didn't really want to be there, I dont care what the talent is. That is why I was glad when Morris left, he didn't want to be at UK, so I didn't much care if he was there neither. I would want kids that want to be at my school and if Jordan didn't like the way things was going I would release him, but if he was happy I'd be very happy as the A & M AD.

I think most schools would release a player from a LOI for fear of getting a black eye. JMO. Who wants a kid who's heart is not in playing for your school. Why punish an 18 year kid that would be pure selfishness. I do agree with some on here that Billy Clyde should have no contact with Jordan as long as he is still signed with A&M, but if he is released all is fair game.

...but now the student-athlete must attend the second school for one full academic year before he/she is eligible to play. But it is clearly stated that unlike a transfer the year COULD NOT be used as a redshirt, the SA forfeits one year of his/her eligibility...

 

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.

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.