Last week, ESPN published an article discussing the lack of
an escape clause for student-athletes who sign their National Letter of Intent
(NLI) and are then informed the coach who recruited them is leaving for another
institution or another level. This means that the students are obligated to
stay at the school he/she signed with even if the coach who recruited them
leaves. The student-athlete must enroll at that school or else he/she would be
“ineligible as a freshman and would lose one of his [her] four years of
eligibility” (Schlabach, 2015, para. 5).
Roquan Smith is a prime example of a student-athlete who was
affected by a coaching change after he publicly announced his commitment to
UCLA on the nationally televised signing day broadcast. After his announcement
he was informed that Ulbrich, the defensive coordinator at UCLA, would be
leaving to work with the Falcons. Thankfully, he had not signed his NLI yet and
was able to re-open his recruitment. According to the ESPN article, “[Smith] wasn’t the only recruit who was left high
and dry after National Signing Day” (Schlabach, 2015, para. 7). Twenty coaching
changes were made within collegiate football within hours and days of the NLI’s
being signed.
Mike Weber is another example of a young man who was recruited by a
coach, Drayton in this case for the Buckeyes, and signed an NLI only to be
informed Drayton was leaving for the Bears. Weber tweeted: "I'm hurt as hell I ain't gonna lie" (Schlabach,
2015, para. 15).
Mack Brown, ex-president of the America Football Coaches
Association, has supported a version of an escape clause. Brown supports the
idea of a weeklong grace period in which the prospective student-athlete can
back out of their commitment in the case where the coach who primarily
recruited them taking another position at another school.
I like the idea of the grace period in which a
student-athlete can back out of a commitment in the case of their main
recruiting coach leaving the program. Is it right that the athletes have to
stay at the school they signed their NLI to in light of changing circumstances?
Do you like the idea of an escape clause for student-athletes like Smith and
Weber who were surprised by the position changes within the coaching staffs they
signed to play for? Coaches can leave their current programs for better opportunities;
should the athletes being given a grace period like Weber suggested?
Marissa Tashenberg
Reference:
Schlabach, M. (2015, February 11).
Time for escape clause for recruits? Spate of coaching changes immediately
after signing day unfair to locked-in players. ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12308125/coaching-changes-national-signing-day-unfair-football-recruiting?src=mobile
I am torn when it comes to this topic. Part of me believes that it is right that the student-athlete has a grace period where they can opt out of their NLI due to special circumstances (like a coach leaving). Recruits and coaches form a special bond during the recruiting process. I understand how these kids become hurt by the coaches’ decision to move on. The other part of believe believes that a recruit must pick a school based on the actual school and what the school has to offer, not based on the coaches. It is very rare to see a coach stay at a school for multiple years at a time. I also think that giving recruits a grace period could open up the flood gates to other issues, that is why I believe that if you did give them a grace period then it would have to be for specific, special circumstances like I mentioned before.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough situation for College Football. I do think it is wrong if a coach stays at an institution and recruits a kid when he knows he will be leaving after signing day for another job. Coaches are doing wrong by the kid because of the fact that they have built a relationship with that player and are a big reason for them coming. The tough part of this is that it would be hard to regulate who the recruiting coach is for each player. Many college football staffs are recruiting kids by using multiple coaches. In this instance, the NCAA would have to declare who recruited the kid and how substantial of an impact that coach made on the player.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that players should have a way out if a coach were to leave. The 1 week clause is not the answer. Coaches will then leave a week and one day after signing day and we will have the same issue. The fact of the matter is that high school kids need to fall in love with the institution, not with the coach that recruits him there.
Derek Shay
Marissa,
ReplyDeleteI would definitely say that a type of grace period could be a solution to this problem. A student-athlete is bound to develop a certain bond with his/her coaches, and if a prominent coach leaves for a better position, their should be a certain time period where athletes should be able to follow them if they wish to do so. The one week clause is definitely flawed, as well as my suggested solution, but something along the lines of each could help resolve this.
I do think it is unfair that a student-athlete is forced to stay at his/her committed school even after major coaching changes; teams are described often as "family" and many athletes maintain strong relationships with coaches and teammates alike. If your coach, mentor, and "family member" were to leave in the middle of my playing career, I would hope to be given the opportunity to follow them and continue my career under their guidance.
Joey Durant