Cannot Falter

Truzenzuzex over at A Sea of Blue was pondering an early signing day in football. I think it’s a fantastic idea, and want to build on an almost throwaway suggestion for improving recruiting that he throws out near the end of the post, something I’ve pondered for almost two years, but in a slightly different form:

A national “no call” database (like the national “Do Not Call” list for sales calls) managed by the same people who manage the national letter of intent program, and a written agreement by all Division I college coaches to abide by it.  A recruit who verbally commits may enter his name into the database, and he would be off-limits to other coaches and their representatives until/if the recruit removes his name from the list.  This will stop the badgering of verbally committed recruits, and minimize the “babysitting” by schools.  This would be a nice thing to extend to the basketball side as well.

Tru is thinking of this in terms of football recruiting, but Indiana (and more likely, Illinois) fans will think about basketball first. Everyone knows the recruit that planted the seed for this idea too: Eric Gordon.

While I will argue until I’m blue in the face that the animosity coming from Illinois fans had nothing to do with how Gordon decommitted from UI and committed to IU, and everything to do with the simple fact that he did it, clearly something about that process could be improved. While Gordon was clearly not committed to Illinois and was flirting with and considering IU, he was continually saying he was committed to UI. Bruce Weber should never have (and I would bet didn’t) rely on those statements, but I don’t think anyone would argue that avoiding this situation would be desirable in the future.

That’s why I would propose an additional step in the recruiting process. I would change the Letter of Intent program and add an additional step. Some might call it a written commitment. I would call it the new letter of intent, and change the old letter of intent to the new letter of commitment.

Letter of Commitment

The basics of the new LOC would be almost exactly the same as the LOI. A binding agreement between player and school where the school would agree to furnish the player with one year of financial aid, and the player would agree to either attend that school, or spend a year in residency at another school without practicing or financial aid before practicing with or receiving aid from the second school, not to mention the loss of one season of eligibility. The LOC would be the absolute end of a player’s recruitment, barring negotiations to release a player by mutual consent.

Letter of Intent

The new letter of intent would be a preliminary end to the recruitment process. Tru proposes the player being able to end the barrage of calls and letters. I would go one step further and have the player give up something in exchange. Once a player signed the new LOI, any other coach would be barred from contacting the player either in person, via mail (including e-mail), or by phone. Violations of the rule by coaches would result in lost recruiting opportunities for other prospects like visits, phone calls, or off-campus contacts, possibly on a two-for-one basis. Continual violations would result in the possibility of a major infractions case.

The player though would be unable to further their own recruitment by other schools at the same time. Players would be unable to have any on- or off-campus contact with coaches. They would be unable to call up coaches or send them letters, e-mails, or text. There could not be another Eric Gordon situation where a recruit claims to be committed to a school but is visiting another. Violations by the player could result in withholding penalties, and if the player was to take an official visit, they could be required to pay back the full cost of the visit (which could reach into the thousands of dollars, not to mention the penalties to the coach/school for hosting the player).

The biggest difference between the old LOI (now the LOC) and the new LOI is that it is non-binding. At any time the player or the school can withdraw the letter, re-opening the player’s recruitment. If the school wants to pull the scholarship offer, they can, and if the player changes his mind, he can. Only after the LOC (the old LOI, still with me?) is signed are the player and the school locked together.

Pros

This accomplishes much of what an early signing day would without locking a player and a team together. Coaches would not have to “babysit” verbals as much, although they would have to remain connected with the player. Perhaps signing the new LOI would result in relaxed restrictions on phone calls and off-campus contacts. While coaches would not have to spend as much time making sure their committed recruits weren’t poached, they could be given the freedom to help them through the end of the high school careers and their preparations for college. Perhaps the media restrictions on coaches could be lifted allowing them to discuss future prospects.

Cons

The biggest criticism of this plan, as I see it, lies in the current debate over young commitments. Should the new LOI be available too early, it might cause coaches to pressure recruits into agreeing to this seemingly non-binding agreement. Once the player has a written agreement with the school, though revocable, the player might feel extra pressure to avoid withdrawing his LOI and reopening his recruitment. In addition, the new LOI is slanted toward protection for coaches rather than players. While the coach can recruit many players at a position and withdraw the letter at will, the player cannot put a Plan B into place until the letter is withdrawn.

Conclusion

I think formalizing the commitment process and destroying the illusion that a verbal commitment means something is ultimately better for the sport. Allow players to end their recruitment and focus on their high school careers and class, while still giving them the flexibility to bail on a bad situation (see Basketball, Indiana). Generally, players will only withdraw the letter when they are unhappy with the school they committed to, not because some rival coach is whispering in their ear about greener pastures. Oversigning penalties could be instituted to avoid coaches loading up on players who are more committed to them than the school is to the player. And contact restrictions preceding the letter, backed up by some evidence (say the submission of phone and/or travel records?) could lessen players being pressured to sign the letter.

All in all, the new LOI and LOC would result in a more formal recruiting process where the player is given many of the benefits of the old LOI earlier, but still retains a great deal of protection against changing circumstances.

Join the forums for more IU discussion and news.