Comments on: You sign with the school, not the coach, son http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/ Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:58:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: tberry http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36386 tberry Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:20:39 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36386 The school is the one offering him his scholarship and he is signing with the school.<br><br>Might make a coach think twice before he looks for greener pasture and make prospective schools know that they are only getting the coach!!! The school is the one offering him his scholarship and he is signing with the school.

Might make a coach think twice before he looks for greener pasture and make prospective schools know that they are only getting the coach!!!

]]> By: shpiders http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36385 shpiders Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:02:18 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36385 What the NCAA should do is make coaches sit out a year if they change schools - just like a transfer would sit out a year. What the NCAA should do is make coaches sit out a year if they change schools – just like a transfer would sit out a year.

]]> By: Hoosier Clarion http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36384 Hoosier Clarion Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:57:42 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36384 TacoJohn has the right perspective here. Nothing has changed except the rule has been reaffirmed so schools, coaches and recruits can not run loose with adding an addendum in the LOI. It will put a school's offer and recruit's signing in concrete. It will make the bonds to each mean something, the way it is expected to be - SOLID. Might even neutralize WWW to a certain extent. TacoJohn has the right perspective here. Nothing has changed except the rule has been reaffirmed so schools, coaches and recruits can not run loose with adding an addendum in the LOI. It will put a school's offer and recruit's signing in concrete. It will make the bonds to each mean something, the way it is expected to be – SOLID. Might even neutralize WWW to a certain extent.

]]> By: tacojohn http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36383 tacojohn Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:48:54 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36383 This isn't going to change anything. This is what the rule was before. Any "addendum" was just some promise that the recruit would never have been able to enforce through the NLI program or NCAA. Now instead of a written statement on letterhead, it will be an email, or a verbal agreement.<br><br>It will scare some kids into signing in the spring, but really this is not a change in policy. This is the NCAA restating what the rule always was. This isn't going to change anything. This is what the rule was before. Any “addendum” was just some promise that the recruit would never have been able to enforce through the NLI program or NCAA. Now instead of a written statement on letterhead, it will be an email, or a verbal agreement.

It will scare some kids into signing in the spring, but really this is not a change in policy. This is the NCAA restating what the rule always was.

]]> By: tberry http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36062 tberry Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:20:39 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36062 The school is the one offering him his scholarship and he is signing with the school.<br><br>Might make a coach think twice before he looks for greener pasture and make prospective schools know that they are only getting the coach!!! The school is the one offering him his scholarship and he is signing with the school.

Might make a coach think twice before he looks for greener pasture and make prospective schools know that they are only getting the coach!!!

]]> By: shpiders http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36057 shpiders Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:02:18 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36057 What the NCAA should do is make coaches sit out a year if they change schools - just like a transfer would sit out a year. What the NCAA should do is make coaches sit out a year if they change schools – just like a transfer would sit out a year.

]]> By: tacojohn http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36048 tacojohn Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:48:54 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36048 This isn't going to change anything. This is what the rule was before. Any "addendum" was just some promise that the recruit would never have been able to enforce through the NLI program or NCAA. Now instead of a written statement on letterhead, it will be an email, or a verbal agreement.<br><br>It will scare some kids into signing in the spring, but really this is not a change in policy. This is the NCAA restating what the rule always was. This isn't going to change anything. This is what the rule was before. Any “addendum” was just some promise that the recruit would never have been able to enforce through the NLI program or NCAA. Now instead of a written statement on letterhead, it will be an email, or a verbal agreement.

It will scare some kids into signing in the spring, but really this is not a change in policy. This is the NCAA restating what the rule always was.

]]> By: Alex http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36042 Alex Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:01:52 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36042 You are correct, LOI's are not required. Not sure on the percentage of guys that sign, but it's got to be close to 99 percent. This announcement has a chance to change that, especially for the elite players, as you reference. You are correct, LOI's are not required. Not sure on the percentage of guys that sign, but it's got to be close to 99 percent. This announcement has a chance to change that, especially for the elite players, as you reference.

]]> By: Bryan http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36041 Bryan Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:50:19 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36041 A knee jerk reaction to John Calipari's move to combine two school's recruting classes, and boot the majority of his returning players off the team. Seems like they could have just taken the Big 10's oversigning rules and applied them to all member institutions, and produced a similar effect, without reducing the bargaining power of the individual student athlete. But hey, when has the NCAA ever been concerned with the welfare of the student athlete? A knee jerk reaction to John Calipari's move to combine two school's recruting classes, and boot the majority of his returning players off the team. Seems like they could have just taken the Big 10's oversigning rules and applied them to all member institutions, and produced a similar effect, without reducing the bargaining power of the individual student athlete. But hey, when has the NCAA ever been concerned with the welfare of the student athlete?

]]> By: Hardwood83 http://www.insidethehall.com/2009/10/01/you-sign-with-the-school-not-the-coach-son/comment-page-1/#comment-36040 Hardwood83 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:26:53 +0000 http://www.insidethehall.com/?p=3673#comment-36040 Won't this just increase the number of elite guys that simply won't sign an LOI? Does anyone know the percentage of guys that sign? I assume it is very high, but not required, right? Won't this just increase the number of elite guys that simply won't sign an LOI? Does anyone know the percentage of guys that sign? I assume it is very high, but not required, right?

]]>