Mike Greenberg tears the Georgia Bulldogs a new ***crack

[Blumpkin Souffle]

I hear you and you make a good point. Such things can be argued for the future. However, when an athlete signs a contract LOI today, it comes with the commitment I mentioned. If you don't like the commitment, don't sign the paper.

If you're good enough, you can get away with not signing a LOI. For the other 99.9% of student athletes its in their best interest to sign one and lock up their scholarship spot(unless they commit to Tennessee ).

Wherever DRob ends up, I doubt he signs a LOI.

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, there are non-compete clauses in a lot of professional contracts.

Coaches that leave early to go elsewhere typically pay.

 

[Boomergump]

Unfortunately, the "don't sign the paper" argument is not a very realistic measuring stick, in my opinion. It's like saying, if you don't like the President, stop complaining, just leave the country. Many people's only options are to stay in the USA, just like many of these kids only option to better themselves through education is through the national LOI program. They worked to create a marketable value for their skills. I think this thread highlights that the only reason the rules are the way they are is to protect already well protected institutions and coaches from 18-19 year old kids. I think most people on this board are market people who prefer less regulation, so I am a little surprise that we are not up in arms about the fact that the NCAA and institutions is limiting the market potential for these SA, in the way of mobility. Once again, free up the regulations and let the market dictate what happens. Just my two cents.

By the way, I think this thread is a very good discussion topic. It really makes me appreciate this board. To the admins, thanks for letting me participate.

Hi Scrappy, thanks for posting and joining the discussion. You are right, I am for freedom and less regulation. Predictably, I would have no problem if the language on the LOIs changed completely to favor flexibility. What I am pretty steadfast about, however, is the binding nature of contracts and the meanings of words. Too often in this country we look at written contracts and documents in a creative sense where we can interpret them to mean anything that suits us. If, in the present day, the contracts limit your flexibility, and you sign it, you need to live with the consequences.

BTW, I am not a huge fan of your analogy using the president. We each have a vote, but no control over who becomes president. We have complete control over what agreements we enter into.

 

[scrappy_95]

Fwiw, there are non-compete clauses in a lot of professional contracts.

Coaches that leave early to go elsewhere typically pay.

Agree but in most cases these sports contract framework have been collectively bargained, so the people or group of people that have been affected have had some say in the framework of the non compete nature of the contract. Unfortunately, these kids have not had an opportunity to have their voices heard. This is the major difference between the professional non compete.

 

[flea77]

Ga is a right to work state. So if you are going to compare Professions with College sports, its a slippery slope. Im in sales, I have never and will never sign a no compete. If the Head Coach leaves, the players should have options. Fair is fair.

 

[AE 87]

Agree but in most cases these sports contract framework have been collectively bargained, so the people or group of people that have been affected have had some say in the framework of the non compete nature of the contract. Unfortunately, these kids have not had an opportunity to have their voices heard. This is the major difference between the professional non compete.

I wasn't speaking exclusively of sports-contracts but generally of employment in competitive market places. I also wasn't throwing it out there as a final answer to the question but as data. Some people can get jobs where they don't have to sign non-compete clauses, others can't. I'm not sure that it makes sense to tell Google or Phizer or whomever that they can't have those clauses if they want to. IIuc, the philosophy behind these clauses is protection of intellectual property and/or competitive standing. So, I don't know enough about what SA's pick-up during their time with a team, but if a team/league thinks it makes sense to have that restriction, it's not like they're doing something unheard of in the real world. That was my only point.

Fwiw, my opinion, is that a university's primary mission is education. Sports programs are ancillary to this mission. SA's are agreeing to play football, for example, in exchange for scholarship and support of their attendance at the educational institution. I think we go wrong when we think/talk as if they are receiving a scholarship in return for their playing football as if that were the primary thing.

 

[scrappy_95]

Hi Scrappy, thanks for posting and joining the discussion. You are right, I am for freedom and less regulation. Predictably, I would have no problem if the language on the LOIs changed completely to favor flexibility. What I am pretty steadfast about, however, is the binding nature of contracts and the meanings of words. Too often in this country we look at written contracts and documents in a creative sense where we can interpret them to mean anything that suits us. If, in the present day, the contracts limit your flexibility, and you sign it, you need to live with the consequences.

BTW, I am not a huge fan of your analogy using the president. We each have a vote, but no control over who becomes president. We have complete control over what agreements we enter into.

Boomer, I can buy that argument. If you are strictly stating it is a contract compliance issue versus a freedom of market issue.

My major concern is that the NCAA is a government protected organization that doesn't have to compete with other like organization. Basically, the LOI contract is used as a monopolized tool supported to protected individual institution from competing with each other. In essence, the NCAA is a collective bargaining organization working for the the enhancement of colleges and universities, who limit the collective bargaining or market value of their SA. Once again it goes back to the double standard that I think many on here railing against.

OK...I think I have beat this horse to death. Thanks Boomer for your feedback!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Fwiw, my opinion, is that a university's primary mission is education. Sports programs are ancillary to this mission. SA's are agreeing to play football, for example, in exchange for scholarship and support of their attendance at the educational institution. I think we go wrong when we think/talk as if they are receiving a scholarship in return for their playing football as if that were the primary thing.

Good point and an important reminder.

 

[flea77]

I wasn't speaking exclusively of sports-contracts but generally of employment in competitive market places. I also wasn't throwing it out there as a final answer to the question but as data. Some people can get jobs where they don't have to sign non-compete clauses, others can't. I'm not sure that it makes sense to tell Google or Phizer or whomever that they can't have those clauses if they want to. IIuc, the philosophy behind these clauses is protection of intellectual property and/or competitive standing. So, I don't know enough about what SA's pick-up during their time with a team, but if a team/league thinks it makes sense to have that restriction, it's not like they're doing something unheard of in the real world. That was my only point.

Fwiw, my opinion, is that a university's primary mission is education. Sports programs are ancillary to this mission. SA's are agreeing to play football, for example, in exchange for scholarship and support of their attendance at the educational institution. I think we go wrong when we think/talk as if they are receiving a scholarship in return for their playing football as if that were the primary thing.

I agree with what your saving. But the truth is the majority of college football players are going to school to play football. Most see the education part as kinda in the way... GT is different , most players are " value of the degree" focused. If you think like a factory player, and you commit because of a head coach and he bails... Thats where I think the issue is. If the coaches at GT left, my son is still staying until he graduates. He was sold on the 40 year plan. I have no issue with a transfer policy that would allow players to transfer anywhere if the head coach leaves.

 

[scrappy_95]

SA's are agreeing to play football, for example, in exchange for scholarship and support of their attendance at the educational institution. I think we go wrong when we think/talk as if they are receiving a scholarship in return for their playing football as if that were the primary thing.

I think we will disagree on this but I understand your point in general.

 

[AE 87]

I agree with what your saving. But the truth is the majority of college football players are going to school to play football. Most see the education part as kinda in the way... GT is different , most players are " value of the degree" focused. If you think like a factory player, and you commit because of a head coach and he bails... Thats where I think the issue is. If the coaches at GT left, my son is still staying until he graduates. He was sold on the 40 year plan. I have no issue with a transfer policy that would allow players to transfer anywhere if the head coach leaves.

I accept what you say is the truth about the majority of college football players, but I'm not sure that applies much, if at all, beyond men's football and basketball. Also, I'm not as concerned about the situation-policy of "when a coach leaves" as the general-policy of "because a coach can leave and go anywhere."