Why Cant?

[Collier11]

Ive heard this question asked a few times since the u$c think blew up and here lately with all the SEC schools.

Why cant a school put in the LOI that is signed by the student athlete that if you get in any trouble that involves taking money or dealing with an agent or booster, you must pay back all or a portion of your scholly depending on the level of what you have done?

[soonerborn30]

Because none of them would sign it?

[Collier11]

if it was mandatory they would have to or they would have no right to an athletic scholarship.

[KantoSooner]

Because they (the schools) are not courts, for one thing.
I would also be surprised if the LOI's were considered fully contractual in nature.
that would be my suspicion at any rate.

[Collier11]

I think they are on a year to year basis, someone correct me if im wrong

Its no diff than a job in my view, if you do something unethical at your job they can fire you and terminate your salary. If you do something unethical why couldnt the school demand all or a portion of their money back?

Especially something that may harm the school financially or otherwise

[stoops the eternal pimp]

NLI's are strictly that...intent to go to school somewhere and in this case play sports..They still have to apply to the school which is essentially the big agreement....

What would have to change is university policy for all students not a clause on a LOI

[Collier11]

OK, well arguing the specifics of how it would have to be done doesnt get us anywhere.

Essentially, however it had to be done or re-worked, could it be done?

[Collier11]

Im thinking they would have to attach it to the actual scholarship and not the LOI but is there something legality-wise that would prevent this? It seems too common sense to not have happened yet

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think the legal issues that would come from something like that would be so expensive that nobody would want to do it

Since it would be school by school decision, school A could use it as a recruiting tool against school B that has that kind of agreement

If a college kid is broke enough to break rules for a few thousand dollars, odds are that he or she will not have whatever the money is to pay something like that back

[Collier11]

Well yea, it would have to be a uniform action by all schools

[humblesooner]

What's to pay back? Basically, these students attend school for free. You could assign a value to it based on what non-athlete/non-scholarship students would pay. But it isn't like a bank pays the tuition and then writes off the debt upon completion of 3-4-5 years.
But to answer the question, like step said, probably a large percentage of these kids wouldn't have the means to pay anything back anyway.

[Collier11]

There is a scholly to pay back, they just dont get to school for free

[Leroy Lizard]

Its no diff than a job in my view, if you do something unethical at your job they can fire you and terminate your salary. If you do something unethical why couldnt the school demand all or a portion of their money back?


Try that with an employee.



Since it would be school by school decision, school A could use it as a recruiting tool against school B that has that kind of agreement

I would love to hear that recruiting pitch. "Come to our school; because if you sign with an agent and get us in trouble, we can't do anything to you."

[prrriiide]

Im thinking they would have to attach it to the actual scholarship and not the LOI but is there something legality-wise that would prevent this? It seems too common sense to not have happened yet

More schollies than not outside of athletics have a good behavior clause and a minimum GPA requirement. Now, I've never seen one with a payback clause. However, I know thqt many privately endowed schollies have some pretty serious retention requirements.

[PLaw]

Some action needs to come from the NCAA. Here are a few observations from over 40 yrs in the arm chair on the front porch:

1) If the University is not diligent in compliance, then the player that knowingly breaks NCAA law rarely gets impacted during the penalty phase of the NCAA action because they are long gone. Reggie continues to enjoy a charmed life, while Bomar is nothing more than an asterisk.

2) I see nothing wrong with an integrity pledge statement in the annual scholly that requires retribution to the University if the player causes financial harm to the institution. If you don't drive over the speed limit, then you don't need to worry about a speeding ticket. It would be need to be enacted nationally by the NCAA to every member institution.

3) On the flip side, should a player become injured during the course of participating in their sport or otherwise not have their scholly renewed, then the University should honor the scholly through the completion of the athlete obtaining a degree provided the athlete stays academically eligible.

While one of the pillars of collegiate athletics is to provide an education for those that are less fortunate and who otherwise could not afford an education, our culture has largely succumbed to the position that collegiate athletics are a professional league farm system.

Things that make me shake my head:
1) Freshman eligibility
2) Three and out
3) 85 scholly limit
4) Coaches and players that drive programs into the NCAA hell hole and walk scott free.

In all things, BOOMER

[Leroy Lizard]

We used to have four-year scholarships. But coaches wanted to win real bad, so they changed it to single-year commitments. College football's desire to win is its own worst enemy.

(deleted)

[oudavid1]

Things that make me shake my head:
1) Freshman eligibility


What! Why? (keep in mind im very young and have never known any times before when FR didnt play)

[PLaw]

Add to that:

5) Universities giving only one-year commitments to players that must give four-year commitments in return.

We used to have four-year scholarships. But coaches wanted to win real bad, so they changed it to single-year commitments. College football's desire to win is its own worst enemy.

double ditto dat double L. All the reason for point (3) above.

BOOMER

[soonerborn30]

I thought the scholarship limit was to keep teams like us from hoarding all the good players and never using them?

[PLaw]

I thought the scholarship limit was to keep teams like us from hoarding all the good players and never using them?

Technically, you are correct. Reality is that occasionally there are misses in the recruiting evaluation and a kid winds up at a school where it's not a good fit and he will lose his scholly. Some kids transfer, often down to a lower division school with a scholly there. Other kids wind up back on the street without an education.

Of course, at some schools you can argue that they don't get an education anyway - just ask Dexter Manley to read a couple of paragraphs for you.

BOOMER

[Leroy Lizard]

What! Why? (keep in mind im very young and have never known any times before when FR didnt play)

I think the best reason is to allow a student-athlete a full year to get acclimated to college life and his academic progress on track.

Not that this is important.

BTW, one good thing about changing to single-year commitments was the elimination of running off players. Coaches like DKR used to inflict serious cruelty to players because of the four-year scholarships.

It just goes to show that in the zeal to win, coaches are willing to subvert any rule designed to be fair to the athlete.