*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (4 Viewers)

[psychobillies]

Jeremy Hill changes his mind and decides to enter draft.

Just clears the way for Fournette.

I'm not surprised. It really didn't make sense for him to come back. At this point I'm just praying for Collins and Turner to come back on the O line.

So much for that. Redshirt sophomore Trai Turner heading to NFL.

 

[gump]

As the Coaching World Turns...

UGA is going after Kirby Smart, who is an alum. Why would he leave UA? Because he may get the ever-sought-after Head Coach in Waiting title.

Still not sure how that's better than just waiting at Alabama til Richt leaves, but being an UGA guy you never know.

From there, Alabama would obviously go after Pruitt.

UGA may now has its sites on Pruitt.

 

[gump]

Jeremy Hill changes his mind and decides to enter draft.

Just clears the way for Fournette.

I'm not surprised. It really didn't make sense for him to come back. At this point I'm just praying for Collins and Turner to come back on the O line.

So much for that. Redshirt sophomore Trai Turner heading to NFL.

Fournette v Henry for the next 2 years is going to something to see.

 

[Slider6]

UCLA fans... What does the QB recruiting board look like? I saw they offered Kaaya yesterday. Do they think they can flip him?

FYI, I'm a Miami fan so I hope they can't.

It's Kaaya or bust right now. They put all their eggs in the Kyle Allen basket and every other high level west coast or local QB prospect (Manny Wilkins, Brad Kaaya and another dude whose name escapes me) committed before Allen did. Allen then committed to A&M in June and UCLA was left without any uncommitted options.

Yes, they think they can flip him. They've been after him pretty hard lately and had a bunch of players and coaches at his game last week before finally offering. There was one other guy they took a look at last week, Rafe Peavey from Missouri, but they ultimately decided on Kaaya.

He apparently wants to sit down with the UCLA coaches and discuss the offense. He's worried that it might not suit him because he's not much of a runner and the Bruins use a bit of zone read. But, Noel Mazzone, UCLA's OC, did not use any zone read stuff at Arizona St. when he was there with Brock Osweiller in 2010-11, so the Bruins are likely going to inform him that they tailor the offense to their QB's strengths and weaknesses.

The word from Kaaya's head coach at Chaminade is that UCLA has a very good chance here. You never know, though.

Just thought I'd update this for Slider. Kaaya and UCLA don't look like a match.

Kaaya likes Miami, likes Golden and the staff,is still skeptical about UCLA's offense and also with how he'd fit in with UCLA's #2 QB Assianti Woulard and the belief that UCLA is going to get a commitment in the next several months from the #1 QB for 2015, Josh Rosen.

So, it looks like both have now moved on.

UCLA is now going after Aaron Sharp, who is currently committed to Kansas St.

Thanks for the update. It seems that the smoke I was reading from the UM side has died down too. I'm very happy about that, I think Kaaya will be a good one and really wish he could have been an Early Entry this year.

 

[Premier]

As the Coaching World Turns...

UGA is going after Kirby Smart, who is an alum. Why would he leave UA? Because he may get the ever-sought-after Head Coach in Waiting title.

Still not sure how that's better than just waiting at Alabama til Richt leaves, but being an UGA guy you never know.

From there, Alabama would obviously go after Pruitt.

UGA may now has its sites on Pruitt.

Lol. Unless they pay him a mil and a half he's not going there.

 

[GDogg]

I kind of wish Alabama and Southern Cal were playing in the next season or two. This is pretty funny. Bo Davis, announced as the new DL coach at Southern Cal last week, will take the Alabama DL coach position this week.

 

[gump]

I kind of wish Alabama and Southern Cal were playing in the next season or two. This is pretty funny. Bo Davis, announced as the new DL coach at Southern Cal last week, will take the Alabama DL coach position this week.

Yea...he's coming back to Alabama. Mama (or in this case Papa Nick) calls...

That ends the Ogre rumor.

 

[psychobillies]

I kind of wish Alabama and Southern Cal were playing in the next season or two. This is pretty funny. Bo Davis, announced as the new DL coach at Southern Cal last week, will take the Alabama DL coach position this week.

Yea...he's coming back to Alabama. Mama (or in this case Papa Nick) calls...

That ends the Ogre rumor.

Also ends the Brick Haley to Bama rumor. That would have pissed me off.

 

[psychobillies]

Jeremy Hill changes his mind and decides to enter draft.

Just clears the way for Fournette.

I'm not surprised. It really didn't make sense for him to come back. At this point I'm just praying for Collins and Turner to come back on the O line.

So much for that. Redshirt sophomore Trai Turner heading to NFL.

Fournette v Henry for the next 2 years is going to something to see.

You're right. Especially with both teams starting new QB's. I'm curious to see if Brandon Harris or even Rettig can challenge Anthony Jennings. Still, Turner was a run blocking machine. Keeping La el Collins is going to be a big deal one way or another.

 

[Premier]

Is it September yet

 

[The Commish]

How should I value Eli Gold's opinion on Alabama football?

 

[The Commish]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m
Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

 

[Slider6]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

 

[hagmania]

Who's going to be the next Vandy coach?

It doesn't matter, we stink again. It was fun.

 

[The Commish]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

 

[The Commish]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

 

[gump]

How does Rivals still get away with charging for content? It's not like it's a cheap price either. +$100 a year to read bs internet articles that should be free?

They get what they do (as does 247) because they provide recruiting content that's ridiculously in depth. Which is why half-assed attempts like ESPN's Team Sites fails.

They provide other cool content, such as practice reports, but they understand that detailed recruit data is something fans will pay for and enjoy following in a big way.

I'm a member because that in depth info draws a lot of people connected to the schools in different ways, which provides an ideal place for me to 'keep my finger on the pulse' of schools for business purposes.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

They don't want to pay the fee because who wants to write a check for $50M when we have lawyers and judges?

 

[Tiger Fan]

Uh oh. Alabama DL coach Rumpf has taken a job at Texas. Rumors abound that The Ogre may be following Kiffin to Tuscaloosa.

as long as he's a position coach not not a coordinator, you should be fine. he's a top recruiter

 

[Premier]

Pruitt to UGA. Must have got P-A-I-D.

 

[Premier]

850k for Pruitt.

Jimbo recently got an extra 500k for his assistants so either he didn't think Pruitt was worth it or the guy just wanted to go to Georgia.

 

[Quez]

He has gotten some good commits, and has some good undecided as well. Lets hope he doesn't take them to GA. Lateral moves are strange. I would assume he would jump at the first HC opportunity , so maybe jumping around makes his name hotter?

 

[Premier]

It's all about money. He got a 60% raise that FSU wouldn't match. So off he goes.

 

[Slider6]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

Yeah, but that's what I meant. They were part of the conference when the exit fee was voted in, just because they voted against it they think they don't have to pay?

 

[GDogg]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

Yeah, but that's what I meant. They were part of the conference when the exit fee was voted in, just because they voted against it they think they don't have to pay?

No, the fact that they voted against it shows that they didn't want to be subject to it back then and didn't want to pay it if they left. The fact that they are fighting it now shows that their views have not changed and they still don't want to pay it. It's not that they think they don't have to pay. It's that they don't want to pay. It IS $50M after all. It's a smart move.

I'll have to look for it, but I believe I read that most schools challenge the exit fee and end up reaching a settlement with their former conference. They usually end up saving a great deal of the exit fee (granted, some of that goes to attorneys fees).

 

[RUSF18]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

Yeah, but that's what I meant. They were part of the conference when the exit fee was voted in, just because they voted against it they think they don't have to pay?

No, the fact that they voted against it shows that they didn't want to be subject to it back then and didn't want to pay it if they left. The fact that they are fighting it now shows that their views have not changed and they still don't want to pay it. It's not that they think they don't have to pay. It's that they don't want to pay. It IS $50M after all. It's a smart move.

I'll have to look for it, but I believe I read that most schools challenge the exit fee and end up reaching a settlement with their former conference. They usually end up saving a great deal of the exit fee (granted, some of that goes to attorneys fees).

Rutgers is dealing with a similar situation with the Big East/AAC. Except it's over a much smaller number, and Rutgers is also claiming that the Big East/AAC has withheld money owed to the school from the West Virginia/Pitt/Syracuse exit fees which have already been collected but not distributed. The school wants to be subjected to the original $5MM exit fee which was in place, not the increased $10MM fee that was hastily voted in during the conference expansion phase. Who voted against it? Shockingly, Rutgers and Louisville...

At the end of the day, it's all legal maneuvering...Rutgers will be free to move to the B1G on July 1st and the actual amount owed will be very little, if any, when factoring in money that the conference has been withholding for the past year.

 

[The Commish]

And it's officially the offseason

Alex Prewitt ‏@alex_prewitt 2m

Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.

I don't understand this at all. Maryland was part of the ACC when they voted to raise the exit fee to $50M. Now they don't want to pay the exit fee?

FSU and Maryland both voted against it.

Maryland's president first initiated the idea too. Regardless of who votes for or against if it passes everyone plays by the same rules. I figure Maryland will settle once they have already lost 30-40M of the exit fee but there's no way they are going to win this one.

Was just helping slider understand why Maryland doesn't want to pay the fee

Yeah, but that's what I meant. They were part of the conference when the exit fee was voted in, just because they voted against it they think they don't have to pay?

Well, that's a different question than the original. They don't want to pay it because it's a lot of money. This really isn't that hard. They didn't like the idea and voted against it. Is it really a shock that they are fighting something they didn't agree with? Are you guys just screwin' with me??

 

[Raider Nation]

Colts OC Pep Hamilton is a candidate for the Vanderbilt HC job, according to multiple league sources.

Indy OC to Vandy HC doesn't really strike me as a step up.

 

[gump]

Bama fans: how is the recruiting going? Any qbs? Who is gonna start next year at qb? I've let all my subscriptions to Bama sites run out and can't find a free one worth a crap.

Recruiting has never been better. Likely Sabans top-scoring class...should finish a solid #1. If DB Humphrey fromBham commits as predicted, Bama will have 3 of the top 5 players, 4 of the top 10, and the top player from Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Alabama (according to the composite rankings).The QB signee is David Cornwell, the top player from Oklahoma...who has enrolled. But no one has a clue who the starter will be next season. Sims was the backup, but most doubt he ever starts. Rumors have had Del Rio (Jack's son) as the Fall surprise, and he could threaten to start. Otherwise most guys are too green (Cornwell).

That's where the play for FSU backup Coker comes into play. He could be a season maker.

So Luke Del Rio announced he's transferring today. He was a walk-on obviously wanting a scholarship...and all signs were pointing to him being a player in the QB competition. So Bama Fan is aflutter wondering if this means there is no scholarship because it's going to another new QB.

 

[FDAS]

Bama fans: how is the recruiting going? Any qbs? Who is gonna start next year at qb? I've let all my subscriptions to Bama sites run out and can't find a free one worth a crap.

Recruiting has never been better. Likely Sabans top-scoring class...should finish a solid #1. If DB Humphrey fromBham commits as predicted, Bama will have 3 of the top 5 players, 4 of the top 10, and the top player from Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Alabama (according to the composite rankings).The QB signee is David Cornwell, the top player from Oklahoma...who has enrolled. But no one has a clue who the starter will be next season. Sims was the backup, but most doubt he ever starts. Rumors have had Del Rio (Jack's son) as the Fall surprise, and he could threaten to start. Otherwise most guys are too green (Cornwell).

That's where the play for FSU backup Coker comes into play. He could be a season maker.

So Luke Del Rio announced he's transferring today. He was a walk-on obviously wanting a scholarship...and all signs were pointing to him being a player in the QB competition. So Bama Fan is aflutter wondering if this means there is no scholarship because it's going to another new QB.

Has to be Coker.

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

 

[scottybo]

Bama fans: how is the recruiting going? Any qbs? Who is gonna start next year at qb? I've let all my subscriptions to Bama sites run out and can't find a free one worth a crap.

Recruiting has never been better. Likely Sabans top-scoring class...should finish a solid #1. If DB Humphrey fromBham commits as predicted, Bama will have 3 of the top 5 players, 4 of the top 10, and the top player from Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Alabama (according to the composite rankings).The QB signee is David Cornwell, the top player from Oklahoma...who has enrolled. But no one has a clue who the starter will be next season. Sims was the backup, but most doubt he ever starts. Rumors have had Del Rio (Jack's son) as the Fall surprise, and he could threaten to start. Otherwise most guys are too green (Cornwell).

That's where the play for FSU backup Coker comes into play. He could be a season maker.

So Luke Del Rio announced he's transferring today. He was a walk-on obviously wanting a scholarship...and all signs were pointing to him being a player in the QB competition. So Bama Fan is aflutter wondering if this means there is no scholarship because it's going to another new QB.

My thinking too.

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

 

[Slider6]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

From the article:

The problem surfaced this year as a result of an October legislative interpretation that permitted mid-year enrolling freshmen to sign financial-aid paperwork with college programs after July 31 of their senior years.

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

This is sorta my point. I don't see this as a big deal or advantage other than the scenario I mentioned above about the guy who's an average talent with a few different offers. And to be honest, I'm not sure they would offer that "type" of player the option in the first place.

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

This is sorta my point. I don't see this as a big deal or advantage other than the scenario I mentioned above about the guy who's an average talent with a few different offers. And to be honest, I'm not sure they would offer that "type" of player the option in the first place.

I agree that being able to sign multiple scholarship agreements is not a big deal or advantage, but you don't think signing a scholarship agreement rather than a letter of intent is a big deal or a big advantage to the recruit?

 

[GDogg]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

From the article:

The problem surfaced this year as a result of an October legislative interpretation that permitted mid-year enrolling freshmen to sign financial-aid paperwork with college programs after July 31 of their senior years.

?

 

[The Commish]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

This is sorta my point. I don't see this as a big deal or advantage other than the scenario I mentioned above about the guy who's an average talent with a few different offers. And to be honest, I'm not sure they would offer that "type" of player the option in the first place.

I agree that being able to sign multiple scholarship agreements is not a big deal or advantage, but you don't think signing a scholarship agreement rather than a letter of intent is a big deal or a big advantage to the recruit?

Well, I'm of the belief that those who are in this situation where they can sign multiple aren't there for school in the first place, so I don't see a big advantage for them. As I said before though...for lesser talents who might only get an offer or two I can see the benefit, yes....it keeps them from being dumped for better talent

 

[Slider6]

WTF....I didn't even know this was possible. Just a minor loophole

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

From the article:

The problem surfaced this year as a result of an October legislative interpretation that permitted mid-year enrolling freshmen to sign financial-aid paperwork with college programs after July 31 of their senior years.

?

Just pointing out that the article is about Early Enrollees and has nothing to do with the NLI and how bad they are for the "student".

I'm not sure what the rule was before regarding when an EE could sign financial-aid paperwork, but this really doesn't do anything for the kids other than allow coaches unrestricted access and the schools can talk about the player freely. No idea why this "loophole" needs to be closed.

 

[GDogg]

I think it's great. Give the coaches a taste of their own medicine. The guys that signed those scholarship agreements were all guaranteed scholarships at each place. The schools were bound, but the players weren't.

As an aside, the recruits (particularly the elite recruits) should never sign letters of intent and should only sign scholarship agreements.

You think what is great? Getting rid of this or allowing it to continue? There's a significant communication loophole here as well.

I was referring to recruits being able to sign multiple agreements. I think it's great and it should be allowed to continue. But, then again, I care more about the recruits/players than the schools/coaches.

What are your thoughts?

These are financial aid agreements. They can sign one at every school if they want to. It goes away when they sign their LOI as I understand it. I don't see a major advantage to the player. I'm not sure coaches are really thinking "man, I have to keep this spot open for player x" in this situation. What I find laughable is the FIRST school he does this with doesn't have to abide by the communication rules anymore. Doesn't matter how often they contact him, can talk to him during quiet periods etc.

I can see an advantage to a guy who has two or three offers from schools, but I'm not sure THOSE kinds of guys are the ones being offered early financial aid help.

The major advantage is that it binds the school to the player. It's a reverse letter of intent. The coach may not be thinking they need to keep a spot open for player X who signs a scholarship agreement, but he should be. Because that player now has a spot in his class in the Fall.

And, I'm not sure you are understanding this. The player who signs these does not sign the NLI. The agreement doesn't go away. It replaces the NLI and the school has to give a scholarship to the player, assuming he shows up in the Fall (or Winter or Spring, depending). That's why it's beneficial for a player. He signs this and can go to that school. That's why these schools have been sending out press releases of mid-year signings.

Or, if he has a change of heart for whatever reason (or change of circumstance), he can go to another school and not face any penalties.

An NLI is a one way street. It only benefits the school. The player has to attend the school he signs with and faces a loss of a year of competition if he doesn't, barring a waiver from the NCAA or NLI committee (see UCLA DL Eddie Vanderdoes). The school, at most, will look like jerks to the public if, after a kid signs an NLI, they tell the kid to take a hike because there is no room at the inn. There are no penalties.

I had never heard of this until today so I fully admit that I don't know a ton about this. What you're saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is still obligated to give him a scholarship if he chooses to go to Bama? How does that work?

No, what I'm saying is that if a player signs up with Bama and signs up with Texas, Texas is obligated to give him a scholarship until he attends Bama or Texas.

Practically-speaking, it probably won't matter for Texas. Texas is going to know with reasonable certainty that a player who intends to go to Bama is going to Bama well before the Fall.

What it might do is get coaches to think long and hard about who they make committable (a term I learned from our SEC fans on SEC boards) offer to.

ETA: And, I'm a little offended that you hadn't heard of this until today. I've been posting for at least a couple years that every athlete that possibly can should sign a scholarship agreement rather than a national letter of intent.

This is sorta my point. I don't see this as a big deal or advantage other than the scenario I mentioned above about the guy who's an average talent with a few different offers. And to be honest, I'm not sure they would offer that "type" of player the option in the first place.

I agree that being able to sign multiple scholarship agreements is not a big deal or advantage, but you don't think signing a scholarship agreement rather than a letter of intent is a big deal or a big advantage to the recruit?

Well, I'm of the belief that those who are in this situation where they can sign multiple aren't there for school in the first place, so I don't see a big advantage for them. As I said before though...for lesser talents who might only get an offer or two I can see the benefit, yes....it keeps them from being dumped for better talent

I think football comes first for 99% of all recruits. They are going to college for free based on football and most want to do well. The exception seems to be those that go (well, went, prior to Harbaugh) to Stanford.

The advantage isn't simply that they are guaranteed a scholarship. The advantage is that they aren't bound to a particular school.

For example, Florida St. Frosh LB Matthew Thomas did not want to go to Florida St. He wanted to go to Southern Cal. I'm pretty sure he was under the age of 18 on signing day, so he needed a parent to sign the NLI, too. His mom would not sign his NLI for Southern Cal. She told him he had to go to FSU. So, he signed an NLI with Florida St., grudgingly. A couple months later, he made a bunch of noise about wanting to get out of his NLI. He couldn't. There was no hardship. And, Florida St. refused to let him out of his NLI. Because of that, if he chose to go to Southern Cal anyway, he was going to lose a year of competition. He'd have three years to play three. He decided to remain at Florida St.

If Thomas had signed a scholarship agreement instead (or not signed an NLI at all), then he could have simply told Florida St. that he wasn't going there in May or June or whenever it was that he wanted out, contacted Southern Cal, asked if they had room, signed a scholarship agreement with them, and played last year at Southern Cal as he originally wanted.

Granted, it worked out for the best as a player since he saw PT before an injury and his team won a national title.

But, it's a huge advantage to a recruit to not be bound to a school lest you lose a year of competition if you change your mind. The NLI is a one-sided agreement that benefits ONLY the school. The scholarship agreement benefits the players and allows them the ability to go elsewhere should something happen between signing day and the start of fall camp in August.

 

[Raider Nation]

Reading this page last page on mobile is death.

 

[Premier]

Seriously. This board sucks major ****.

 

[Slider6]

For example, Florida St. Frosh LB Matthew Thomas did not want to go to Florida St. He wanted to go to Southern Cal. I'm pretty sure he was under the age of 18 on signing day, so he needed a parent to sign the NLI, too. His mom would not sign his NLI for Southern Cal. She told him he had to go to FSU. So, he signed an NLI with Florida St., grudgingly. A couple months later, he made a bunch of noise about wanting to get out of his NLI. He couldn't. There was no hardship. And, Florida St. refused to let him out of his NLI. Because of that, if he chose to go to Southern Cal anyway, he was going to lose a year of competition. He'd have three years to play three. He decided to remain at Florida St.

If Thomas had signed a scholarship agreement instead (or not signed an NLI at all), then he could have simply told Florida St. that he wasn't going there in May or June or whenever it was that he wanted out, contacted Southern Cal, asked if they had room, signed a scholarship agreement with them, and played last year at Southern Cal as he originally wanted.

Then that is a failure on the USC coaching staff if you ask me. If they knew of the kids actual thoughts/wishes, they should have made him aware that he could go the other direction and have freedom of choice.