Nevada denies request to let recruit out of LOI

[AdaSooner]

The University of Nevada is refusing to release 6' 10" 225 center, Steven Bjornstad, from his LOI. An assistant coach at his high school is quoted as saying the kid will never play for Nevada and that he will go the JUCO route if necessary.

OU fans are painfully familiar with the position Nevada is in. We know how it feels to lose quality recruits after a coaching change. While I understand that recruits usually make their college choice because of the coach, an LOI is a contract with the school. The coach was just an instrument in getting the recruit and his parents or guardian's signatures.

In all honesty, I'm torn between allowing recruits out of their letters of intent and taking a stand in situations like this. I realize coaches break contracts like they were written on toilet paper so they can be easily flushed down the toilet. But, I can't help but believe that these practices are setting a bad precedent for our young people and teaching them that old saying "a man's word is his bond" means nothing anymore. Am I wrong?

Nevada basketball recruit Steven Bjornstad has asked for a release from his national letter-of-intent and Nevada turned down the request, his high school coach said Friday.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20090502/SPORTS06/905020340/1018/SPORTS

 

[coacht]

There is no good solution to the situation. I would make the recruits wait to meet with the new coach before they make their decision, but after that I would release them if that is what they wanted.

Like you said Ada, it is difficult to hold a recruit to a contract right after a coach breaks his.

 

[SoonerfanTU]

I think alot of it depends on timing. I have no problems with Nevada not releasing the kid IF the kid waiting until now to ask for his release. I know they changed coaches and all, but the kids can't start waiting until school is almost out, and then demand a release. The new coach needs time to recruit a replacement, and that is nearly impossible at this point.

Tought situation for all, but the LOI is with the school, and not the coach. It is a risk you run, IMO.

 

[campbest]

I know the contract is with the school, but I believe an overwhelming majority (especially at the mid-major level) choose a school based on the coach. The NCAA is there for the student-athletes correct? Then make it a level playing field between coaches and players when it comes to this subject.

Nothing is gained on either side by not letting this kid out of his LOI.

 

[SoonerfanTU]

Then make it a level playing field between coaches and players when it comes to this subject.

You can't. It isn't apples to oranges. The coaches, you are talking about their jobs, their right to earn a living when/where/how they want. You get into all kinds of right-to-work arguements/laws.

With the kids, it is simply where they are going to go to school, and play ball.

 

[campbest]

You can't. It isn't apples to oranges. The coaches, you are talking about their jobs, their right to earn a living when/where/how they want. You get into all kinds of right-to-work arguements/laws.

With the kids, it is simply where they are going to go to school, and play ball.

If the NCAA wanted to do something about it, they could.

As for any player coming out of high school now, I would put a clause on my LOI just as a precaution in case the coach I wanted to play for left.

 

[AdaSooner]

Excellent points made by all, and not much I don't agree with. This is indeed a tough situation for everyone involved. It's easy to understand why a school would be reluctant to release a recruit from his LOI at this late date. On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair to ask high school kids to honor an agreement when grown men two and three times their age are breaking contracts with regularity.

Wish I was smart enough to offer a solution to this problem.

 

[Sooner Quick]

Its definitely a lose, lose situtation. I don't blame a kid wanting out of an LOI but like TU said if he is just now asking for his release then it makes recruiting impossible for the new coach.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Excellent points made by all, and not much I don't agree with. This is indeed a tough situation for everyone involved. It's easy to understand why a school would be reluctant to release a recruit from his LOI at this late date. On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair to ask high school kids to honor an agreement when grown men two and three times their age are breaking contracts with regularity.

Wish I was smart enough to offer a solution to this problem.

What about this:

Any kid can get out of their LOI if the coach goes to another job, but they have to redshirt a year at their new school.

If they give the new coach at the school they signed with one year, they can transfer without losing a year.

 

[AdaSooner]

What about this:

Any kid can get out of their LOI if the coach goes to another job, but they have to redshirt a year at their new school.

If they give the new coach at the school they signed with one year, they can transfer without losing a year.

No a bad plan, MsProud! I also think campbest's suggestion about adding an opt out clause to the LOI in case the coach leaves is a good one (see Calipari and Memphis), except it puts the school in a tough spot.

 

[DenverSooner]

I think alot of it depends on timing. I have no problems with Nevada not releasing the kid IF the kid waiting until now to ask for his release. I know they changed coaches and all, but the kids can't start waiting until school is almost out, and then demand a release. The new coach needs time to recruit a replacement, and that is nearly impossible at this point.

Tought situation for all, but the LOI is with the school, and not the coach. It is a risk you run, IMO.

How is this kid waiting any longer than James and Reynolds? Didn't Sampson leave after the NCAA Tournament and then OU took a few weeks to make a decision, then James and Reynolds took a week or so to make it official.

Honestly, I don't really see how a kid does it much faster than this.

 

[DenverSooner]

No a bad plan, MsProud! I also think campbest's suggestion about adding an opt out clause to the LOI in case the coach leaves is a good one (see Calipari and Memphis), except it puts the school in a tough spot.

Isn't one year as a redshirt the current rule? They don't get the know redshirt benefit if they try it for a year so I guess that is something new.

 

[qwertyqaz]

You can't. It isn't apples to oranges. The coaches, you are talking about their jobs, their right to earn a living when/where/how they want. You get into all kinds of right-to-work arguements/laws.

With the kids, it is simply where they are going to go to school, and play ball.

see, I don't necessarily agree with the "simply" portion of your last sentence. It's a very big deal...ball is one of the defining elements of these kids' scholastic experience, so I think it stands to reason that where they go to school (incl, who is the coach) is actually pretty relevant.

Now, some of the potential solutions in this thread are very interesting, such as LOI special clauses or some of the ideas posed by MsProud. I just think we should remember (as of course I know we all do) that where and *for whom* a kid chooses to play is at least as important as where the coach coaches--and I'd argue the former is more important on a life than the latter.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Isn't one year as a redshirt the current rule? They don't get the know redshirt benefit if they try it for a year so I guess that is something new.

Right now, they are supposed to redshirt if they transfer, but I don't think they have to redshirt if they have signed a LOI but never attended class.

 

[Cheno]

If schools start holding kids to LOI when a coach leaves I think you will begin to see far worse things happen. I believe kids will wait later and later to sign if they sign at all. I think kids will wait until say May to sign when the coaching changes are pretty much over. And top 50 kids may not sign at all, just verbal. Also, if a kid doesn't want to be there but is forced to he could cause some real turmoil his freshmen year and things could get ugly. I don't think it would be good. If someone doesn't want to be there why force them? Why should a coach who's getting paid not be held to a contract but the student athlete should? I don't like it.

 

[campbest]

If my son was being recruited as a high school graduate next year, the first thing I would make sure is signed would be a letter stating that my son will not be held to his LOI if the coach leaves before my son arrives on campus. There would be signatures from the AD and coach to guarantee such an action.

If the school is serious about my son as a project, then they would honor our request.

 

[baeksu]

There is no good solution to the situation. I would make the recruits wait to meet with the new coach before they make their decision, but after that I would release them if that is what they wanted.

Like you said Ada, it is difficult to hold a recruit to a contract right after a coach breaks his.

I would only take it a step further - I wouldn't release them from their LOI to play for a school in the same conference.

Maybe that's overboard or too rough, but to me it seems stupid to let a player who pledged his intent to play for the university (not the coach) go, only to watch him become a star for your rival.



If it were up to me, I'd hold them to the LOI unless the coach leaves, and then I'd let them go only on the condition that they not play for any other Big XII schools. Or at LEAST any other Big 12 South schools.

 

[JBaker]

They should make it something like a recruit has 30 days after a coach is fired or leaves to get out of their LOI.

 

[Soonerspiff]

I would only take it a step further - I wouldn't release them from their LOI to play for a school in the same conference.

Maybe that's overboard or too rough, but to me it seems stupid to let a player who pledged his intent to play for the university (not the coach) go, only to watch him become a star for your rival.

I don't disagree with you not wanting a recruit to sign with a rival school after he is let out of his LOI, but if the kid's goal in life is to reach the next level in the sport, then he is signing with the best coach that can facilitate that. Not the best school. Their prof's are not teaching them on the court.

However, if you look at kids that sign with a school like Duke, yeah, in some cases a lot of it has to do with the academic aspect. But for others it might be because they want to play for a coach that led the US to Olympic gold...

But if you look at Reynolds and James, I think they went with their second choices, with the coach's that had also been recruiting them all along. They didn't know Capel, and felt more comfortable with the guys they knew. I have nothing wrong with that.

 

[Darwin]

The kid who is on campus for 1 season is screwed when the coach leaves but the kid who has only signed a letter is now 1 of the most highly sought after kids in the country. The kid should be able to choose where he goes but he should have to redshirt.

Things are too volatile!!!

If the late period were only for jucos and for highschl kids that must redshirt then kids would take a different attitude in the early period when picking their school. Schools couldn't expect quick fixes by overpaying for coaches that would bring 1 to 3 bigtime players with them for the next season. Coaches may not move if they have to stick with the talent already there for a season.

At least push 2nd signing to mid May and give new coaches plenty of recruiting time with early signees before they can void their letter and talk with other schools.