Letter of Intent is not a binding contract...

[Bookcat]

People try to associate a letter of intent as some sort of legal business contract in which if one of the agreeing parties breeches the contract, they are punished.

And if punished..it's usually with money.

But an LOI is different. It's not a punishable agreement. You can't sue a kid if he doesn't want to play for your school anymore. And if you do "sue" a player...what kind of damages would a school claim? What kind of message would that send to a potential recruit if you did "sue" a player for not obliging his LOI agreement?

In short, the school, which fronts ALL THE FINANCIAL burden to recruit, coddle, and pretty much ass-kiss these 18 year old egos is totally at the disadvantage of any agreement made between the school and player.

In short, the only thing punishable is a players eligibility to play at another school of the same Division. So wer'e back to square one. The University would look like the bad guy if they chose not to grant a release and thus, destroy the eligibility of said recruit.

JMY.02

[BarryMcCockner]

People try to associate a letter of intent as some sort of legal business contract in which if one of the agreeing parties breeches the contract, they are punished....

Which is correct, they are punished by not being able to play DI bball that year.  How difficult is that to understand???  I haven't heard anyone claim the school would sue for damages.  What is your point?

[Bookcat]

Sure, you can force a kid to sit out a year...but my point is about the kind of disadvantage a school is positioned when reaching and agreement with these brat kids.

[opcat]

People try to associate a letter of intent as some sort of legal business contract in which if one of the agreeing parties breeches the contract, they are punished.

And if punished..it's usually with money.

But an LOI is different. It's not a punishable agreement. You can't sue a kid if he doesn't want to play for your school anymore. And if you do "sue" a player...what kind of damages would a school claim? What kind of message would that send to a potential recruit if you did "sue" a player for not obliging his LOI agreement?

In short, the school, which fronts ALL THE FINANCIAL burden to recruit, coddle, and pretty much ass-kiss these 18 year old egos is totally at the disadvantage of any agreement made between the school and player.

In short, the only thing punishable is a players eligibility to play at another school of the same Division. So wer'e back to square one. The University would look like the bad guy if they chose not to grant a release and thus, destroy the eligibility of said recruit.

JMY.02

Yes, we shouldn't destroy recruits. We are holding them hostage with guns.

See ya later Beasley!  Take the rest of the class and your friends too. 

Bruce Pearl= evil man who destroyed recruits.

[BarryMcCockner]

Agreed.  I actually think that in the press conference, Weiser was addressing the current players with the blanket statement that 'we do not grant releases'.  When asked later about the recruits, he said something to the affect that no releases would be granted until a staff was in place, which makes perfect sense.  I've never heard him say unconditionally that no relseases would be granted to recruits.