FWIW - The parent also has to sign an NLI. It is not like the kid did this on their own.
Akron refuses to allow student-athlete out of Letter of Intent
- Thread starter sluggers
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Nov 29, 2009
- 2,975
- 83
The whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test. What would she do if she were a regular student who found out underage kids at college smoke, drank, had relations and any of the other number of stupid things you see them putting on social media? Would she wan to transfer? Somehow I don't think so.
One of my DD's old coaches had a name for the entitled thinking kids. He called them SLRK's. Spoiled Little Rich Kids.
A written contract is a contract. I'd bet nothing would be said if the athlete was dumped at the last second and the family was holding the University to a year's worth of tuition. Sorry, no love going on here.
Last edited:
Consequences to your actions. Too many parents grew up where nothing was their fault and they pass the same attitude to their kids.
Its not like this girl was 12 when she signed, and where were the parents when she did sign, that's right, prob telling everybody their kid
had a scholarship to play softball at Akron. Now with that in hand, they got another offer from a team that won more and now they wanna
jump ship.
Sorry, but oh well, no broken heart here either. How many kids don't get money towards college and have to make due and figure it out.
Its not like this girl was 12 when she signed, and where were the parents when she did sign, that's right, prob telling everybody their kid
had a scholarship to play softball at Akron. Now with that in hand, they got another offer from a team that won more and now they wanna
jump ship.
Sorry, but oh well, no broken heart here either. How many kids don't get money towards college and have to make due and figure it out.
The below quote comes from one of the comments on the original article. I believe it presents a very valid reason for forcing a student to uphold a NLI contract.
"It’s less about not letting her go, and more about recognizing that the NLI serves a crucial purpose in the recruiting process for coaches/programs. We put a lot of effort, time and money into recruiting the kids we wanted into our program. The NLI formalizes the agreement on both parties’ sides, at which point we (the coaches) curtail recruiting of other athletes because our resources are committed to this particular athlete. The expectation is then that the athlete will turn down offers from other schools. If player A commits, I stop pursuing players B, C, and D. If a bigtime catcher commits for this year, I will likely notify catchers in the next recruiting year that we’re not looking for a catcher. In that way, a late change of a recruit’s mind can fudge up your recruiting well beyond any one season.
It’s pretty clear what happened here (and it’s not about smoking and drinking): The athlete committed in November when she wasn’t a particularly hotly recruited player. She then went on to have a great senior season in the spring and attracted attention from schools that were bigger and better. She got a “better offer” and wanted to jump ship from the program that took a chance on her when she wasn’t a hot commodity—the program that saw her potential early and bought in.
The problem with letting athletes just change their mind without penalty after signing an NLI is that, by the time the spring of their senior year rolls around, it is practically impossible for the Akron coaches to find, recruit, and get committed another kid to take that spot. It puts you way behind the eight ball. Enforcing the year waiting period is also a disincentive to other programs to pursue already-committed athletes. Miami essentially now has to commit a scholarship to a kid who can’t play—they essentially have to pay 4 years’ worth of money for 3 years’ eligibility, so you’d better be sure the kid is worth it before you go messing around with another program’s recruits.
If a kid doesn’t want to play for us, that’s fine. But I’d have a problem with another program making overtures to a player that’s already signed to my program. That sort of interference, if/when it results in an athlete jumping ship, throws your roster into chaos, and that’s what the year waiting period is designed to discourage.
Again, I think the NCAA’s transfer rules for athletes who want to leave a school they’re already enrolled in are arcane and harmful. But the rules on breaking an NLI serve a pretty necessary purpose of keeping the recruiting calendar from becoming the wild wild west with athletes getting poached by other schools in May and June and screwing the program that took a chance and committed resources to them early on."
"It’s less about not letting her go, and more about recognizing that the NLI serves a crucial purpose in the recruiting process for coaches/programs. We put a lot of effort, time and money into recruiting the kids we wanted into our program. The NLI formalizes the agreement on both parties’ sides, at which point we (the coaches) curtail recruiting of other athletes because our resources are committed to this particular athlete. The expectation is then that the athlete will turn down offers from other schools. If player A commits, I stop pursuing players B, C, and D. If a bigtime catcher commits for this year, I will likely notify catchers in the next recruiting year that we’re not looking for a catcher. In that way, a late change of a recruit’s mind can fudge up your recruiting well beyond any one season.
It’s pretty clear what happened here (and it’s not about smoking and drinking): The athlete committed in November when she wasn’t a particularly hotly recruited player. She then went on to have a great senior season in the spring and attracted attention from schools that were bigger and better. She got a “better offer” and wanted to jump ship from the program that took a chance on her when she wasn’t a hot commodity—the program that saw her potential early and bought in.
The problem with letting athletes just change their mind without penalty after signing an NLI is that, by the time the spring of their senior year rolls around, it is practically impossible for the Akron coaches to find, recruit, and get committed another kid to take that spot. It puts you way behind the eight ball. Enforcing the year waiting period is also a disincentive to other programs to pursue already-committed athletes. Miami essentially now has to commit a scholarship to a kid who can’t play—they essentially have to pay 4 years’ worth of money for 3 years’ eligibility, so you’d better be sure the kid is worth it before you go messing around with another program’s recruits.
If a kid doesn’t want to play for us, that’s fine. But I’d have a problem with another program making overtures to a player that’s already signed to my program. That sort of interference, if/when it results in an athlete jumping ship, throws your roster into chaos, and that’s what the year waiting period is designed to discourage.
Again, I think the NCAA’s transfer rules for athletes who want to leave a school they’re already enrolled in are arcane and harmful. But the rules on breaking an NLI serve a pretty necessary purpose of keeping the recruiting calendar from becoming the wild wild west with athletes getting poached by other schools in May and June and screwing the program that took a chance and committed resources to them early on."
I am NOT an expert on the subject, but once the NLI is signed by the player and the school it is a legally binding contract. The NCAA will allow players out of the NLI if there is a coaching change or some mitigating circumstances that would make a player have a change of heart. It is my understanding a player who signs an NLI can still transfer to another school, but they would have to sit out a year.
- Aug 12, 2014
- 647
- 43
No, players cannot get out of an NLI if the coach leaves. The NCAA steadfastly refuses to admit that the coach is usually a bigger factor in where an athlete signs than the school itself. That's a big part of how the NCAA justifies requiring players to sit out a year if they transfer but allowing coaches to change jobs without having to sit out.
I do not know all of the details, but I know a player who was committed to Delware, signed her NLI and ended up at Baylor after the coaching staff was fired. It may just be that the AD signed off on the players release, which I would imagine most of them would do after firing the coaches.
So my wife played college softball for the coach who is now at Akron (years ago, at a different school). She is an amazing coach and even better person, and has always ran an amazing program. Their record was bad last year because they had so many injuries, like their top 6 or 7 players were out. While this on the surface seems like a simple issue, I bet it is much more complicated, and really a rock and hard place kind of thing for Akron. It's a commitment the player and her family made to the school, and the rules are in place to protect the schools and the players.
Similar threads
