New Rule? Sign LOI Immediately after verballing?

[tornado]

In an effort to cut down on the number of commits who change their minds and back out on verbal committments before signing their LOI,
college coaches are discussing and possibly seeking a new proposal to allow a commit to sign right away
or any time within 30 days after his verbal committment.

"How to hold on to commitments continues to be a pressing issue and has
resurfaced yet again with the high-profile decommitment of Josh Selby from
Tennessee. One idea that circulated Monday night that might be of interest
to the National Association of Basketball Coaches to pursue is to get rid of
the signing periods and allow a player to sign a binding national letter of
intent within 30 days of giving a verbal commitment. The 30-day window
would give the player a bit more time to ensure he has made the right
decision. The other component that should be included in the letter of intent
to get the document up to the current era is an out for the player if the
coach leaves the school. Schools are less likely to fight a player's decision to
ask out of the letter of intent if the coach is no longer at the school. The
most recent example involved Xavier Henry. He signed with Memphis, but
once Calipari left for Kentucky, Henry asked out of his letter and went to
Kansas."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4361227&name=katz_andy


Call this the anti-Calipari- he is stealing our recruits-rule

 

[BradleyBrave]

On the surface, I could see this being advantageous to a school like BU. However, I could also see this as something that prompts more heavy recruiting of jr. high kids and even grade schoolers. Overall though, I think it would be a good rule to put in place. It would make people stand behind their word, which is something sorely lacking in today's society.

 

[SFP]

On the surface, I could see this being advantageous to a school like BU. However, I could also see this as something that prompts more heavy recruiting of jr. high kids and even grade schoolers. Overall though, I think it would be a good rule to put in place. It would make people stand behind their word, which is something sorely lacking in today's society.

Amen! Also it would keep the handlers from being able to manipulate the situation at their will.

 

[real fan]

I like this idea of signing a recruit as long as they are in their senior year of high school, how about adding that no one is to bother or communicate with any kid that is not at least a jr. in high school so our younger players can concentrate more on playing the game without all the pressure and distractions that come with college recruiting, let"s make it a game instead of a big business for our younger kids.

 

[tornado]

Fact--
if there's any hint that such a new rule might benefit the smaller schools or mid-majors, and
keep the big boys from stealing their recruits, then it'll never pass. It'll only pass if it benefits the big boys.

 

[DoubleJayAlum]

Honestly, I don't think this rule change would matter much as guys are already regularly getting out of LOIs whenever they want.

 

[SFP]

I believe the only way to break away from the AAU handlers and the LOI fiasco is to first of all give the players a monthly stipend so they do not have to depend on anyone for their meals and pocket money and verbal/LOI can only be granted if you have qualifying scores. The other rule should be that coaches can not contact a player unless they are playing for their Varsity team.

 

[BradleyBrave]

Fact--
if there's any hint that such a new rule might benefit the smaller schools or mid-majors, and
keep the big boys from stealing their recruits, then it'll never pass. It'll only pass if it benefits the big boys.

Very true, although I think the overall landscape of recruiting is changing, and could be changing for the better for teams like BU. I think you'll see more and more blue chippers heading to Europe from HS rather than do the '1 and Done' joke in college. That coupled with players signing as soon as they verbal could somewhat level the playing field between the BCS and Mids.

However, all of this is moot pending the ruling in the NFL v. American Needle Inc. If the NFL wins, all pro sports leagues and likely the NCAA/BCS will enjoy unprecedented powers that will likely destroy any chance a school like BU would ever have at getting anything remotely close to a fair shake v the BCS.

"Both the NCAA and the BCS would welcome a decision in favor of the NFL. For the NCAA, the single-entity concept could bring to an end a string of embarrassing and expensive losses in antitrust lawsuits. And the BCS would enjoy new protection against antitrust attacks that have the potential to break up its bowl system."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261