SoCalHoops Recruiting News

LA Times Kapono Article:  A Small Correction
With A Big Impact--(May 21, 1999)

The LA Times today published their obligatory "Jason Signs with UCLA" article, which is all well and good, because it's surely news.   But they got one small part wrong in the story.  See if you can spot it.   Here's the relevant excerpt:

"Jason Kapono, an Artesia High basketball standout, signed a letter of intent with UCLA on Thursday, and that may be only the start of a late rally after a series of recruiting losses and other personnel setbacks for the Bruins. Kapono, a 6-foot-8, 210-pounder, will add immediate depth to the front line in the wake of Travis Reed's decision to transfer. And as someone who handled the ball a lot while leading Artesia to a 32-2 record and the Southern Section I-AA championship as a senior, those skills can help offset the loss of Baron Davis to the NBA.  The signing is not only significant for the Bruins because they had been shut out in recruiting battles for Carlos Boozer and Kareem Rush, but also because Kapono at one time had eliminated UCLA from consideration.. . . "

Did you spot it?  If you did, good, then you go to the head of the class and get to skip straight to the bottom of this article.  If not, then we'll break it down further for you.  Here it is again (but this time we've edited out even more stuff to make it easier to spot the problem stuff), so see if you can find it:

"Jason Kapono, an Artesia High basketball standout, signed a letter of intent with UCLA on Thursday. . . The signing is not only significant for the Bruins because. . . .

Still stumped.  How about this:  We'll make it really simple.

". . . signed a letter of intent with UCLA on Thursday. . . "

We trust that by now most of you have figured out what's wrong with the story.  Jason did not  sign a letter of intent.   Instead he signed a scholarship agreement.

And the differences between a National Letter of Intent and a scholarship (or "grant-in-aid") agreement, although subtle or perhaps non-existent to the average person reading the Times article, are actually vast, and there are tremendous differences between the two.  Indeed, part of the reason that Jason's late signing with UCLA was so newsworthy (in addition to the fact that he's a great basketball prospect, and a potential impact player to the program) is because he did not sign a letter of intent. 

What are the differences?  Well, to start with, a national letter of intent is a contractual commitment on the part of the player that he will not play for any other NCAA insitution in that player's sport.

Here's the scoop from the National Letter of Intent Website.  First a little history into what a NLOI is:

The National Letter of Intent Program is administered by the Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA). Started in 1964 with seven conferences and eight independent institutions, the program now has 48 leagues with over 500 participating institutions. 

After some conferences experimented with a plan generally known as the "Letter of Intent" to help curtail aggressive recruiting following WW II, the idea was presented to the 1961 NCAA Convention. Poorly received, the proposal was defeated twice. Following the second rejection, the commissioners and faculty representatives from each of the major conferences met to discuss a voluntary, cooperative program. 

The accepted plan, developed by a steering committee, called for a prospective student-athlete to sign, along with a parent or legal guardian and the athletic director, an "Inter-Conference Letter of Intent" on a specific date. This letter served as certification that the student intended to enroll at a certain institution in the fall. The athletic director indicated the type and extent of financial aid the institution was willing to provide. Other cooperating conferences and institutions would then respect
his/her decision and not attempt to recruit him/her further. This agreement was subject to the prospective student qualifying for admission to the institution of his/her choice and the NCAA requirement for financial aid.

Over the years, some of the terms of the National Letter of Intent agreement have changed, yet the basic premise has remained the same, to provide certainty in the recruiting process. Specifically, pursuant to the terms of National Letter of Intent program, participating institutions agree to provide a prospective student-athlete, who is admitted to the institution and is eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules, athletics aid for one academic year in exchange for the prospect's agreement to attend the institution for one academic year. Furthermore, participating institutions agree to not recruit a prospective student-athlete once he/she signs a National Letter of Intent with another institution. Accordingly, a prospective student-athlete who signs a National Letter of Intent no longer is subjected to recruiting contacts and calls and is ensured an athletic scholarship for one academic year.

While this all sounds innocuous enough, i.e., the school agrees to provide aid for a one year period while the student agrees to enroll (provided the student is eligible and is admitted to the institution), there's a major catch, which is actually found in the text of the National Letter of Intent itself, at Paragraph 4.   And the NLOI people make no secret of this "catch".  It's in bold-face type and prominently described in the letter:

4.Basic Penalty.  I understand that if I do not attend the institution named within this document for one full academic year, and I enroll in another institution participating in the NLI program, I may not represent the latter institution in intercollegiate athletics competition until I have completed two full academic years of residence at the latter institution. Further, I understand that I shall be charged with the loss of two seasons of intercollegiate athletics competition in all sports, except as otherwise provided in this NLI. This is in addition to any eligibility expended at the institution at which I initially enrolled.

There are other penalties, but this is one of the stiffest.   Let's consider a hypothetical situation.  Purely hypothetical.  Now remember, this never happens, it's purely make-believe. A just-suppose-type-situation.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a player signs with a school to play after he graduates high school.  He signs in the fall of his senior year, after having a spectacular summer following his junior year.   The player is a hot commodity, a top 100 consensus player who has been recruited hard by all the top major programs.  But the player really likes one program in particular, really likes the coach, likes the other players, and has a great visit to the campus.   He decides he doesn't want to be distracted with additional recruiting, or with worrying about where he'll attend college after he graduates from high school, and so the player decides that it's a smart thing to sign early.   He'll get it out of the way and be able to concentrate and have fun during his senior year.

The player signs a National Letter of Intent with his favorite school in November of the player's senior year.  He's feeling pretty happy,   secure in the knowledge that he'll play at a big time program and he'll get financial aid as well. Heck, he's even visited the NLI Official Website, and he likes what he's seen.

But what can happens with our hypothetical player and our hypothetical school that can make signing the NLOI problematic?  Let's try out a couple of different scenarios. 

Scenario 1:   University X, which had been a top program, is found by the NCAA to have committed major prior recruiting violations, and is placed on NCAA probation and barred from post-season competition for the next two years.    

Scenario 2:  The head coach at University X, who had personally recruited the player, convincing him to sign the LOI, is offered another job (or is fired), and leaves University X.

In each of these scenarios,  the player is stuck. He has committed contractually and is bound to play for University X regardless of whether there is a coaching change, and whether or not the school is placed on probation or assessed penalties by the NCAA, whether or not the coach stays, whether or not the players he liked are there or have themselves transferred out, and whether or not a new coach has "recruited over" the player during the spring late signing period.

Of course, depending on the severity of the penalties, or the situation with the coach, the school can grant the player a release or the NLI Steering Committee can grant a release if there are extenuating circumstances (this is all spelled out in the Letter of Intent itself, at least as to the basics)  but there is a whole appeals process that may need to be followed, and that of course, takes time, which is something that most athletes have precious little of since they have only a limited amount of eligibility.  And in Scenario 2, the player is now stuck playing for a coach who didn't recruit him, may not see what the prior coach saw in the player, and his playing time may be severely limited.  What can the player do?  Either grin and bear it, or transfer.  If the player transfers, there is at least a one year penalty; if the player transfers before his first season with University X, there is a two year penalty.  Which is why many players, in order to void a letter of intent in such a situation, decide to go the JC route, because the Junior Colleges do not subscribe to the NLOI system, and enrolling at such an institution is not a violation.    And some players even take to the extreme measure of attempting to void their own letter of intent by sabotaging their academics and failing a course so that they can't qualify for admission (which is certainly one way to void the letter), and wind up at a prep school or a jc for another year before signing with another school.

There are many, many other scenarios we could conjure up to point out the pitfalls and perils of signing a National Letter of Intent (e.g., the player signs early, and then has a bad senior year and the school backs out of the letter. . . interestingly no penalty is assessed to the school for backing out, just the player). The list goes on and on. 

Bottom line.  If a player backs out, boom, penalty time.  Not so though when a school backs out.

Why do so many students and schools enter into NLOI's?   Well, because in the grand scheme of things, it's generally better for most student athletes to have the certainty of knowing that if they do enroll at their favorite school they'll be given financial aid and that no other schools will be able to continue to recruit them once they've signed.  And after all, in the uncertain world of college coaching, most coaching positions are, by and large, pretty stable.  The turnover among D-I coaches was, last year, about 10%,  so that means there's about a 10% chance that an athlete who signed early will be playing with a different coach, or a 90% chance he'll play for the coach and in the system that signed him.  And the number of schools who ultimately are placed on probation is also pretty small each year.   Generally, it's not a bad system.  Clearly favors the schools, but then what in the NCAA world of things doesn't?

There's no question that a Scholarship Agreement, which is merely a binding contract that the institution will provide a scholarship to the student (similar to the NLOI commitment) is much less demanding on the student:  Unlike the LOI, the student is free to enroll at another institution, the only penalty being that the first institution will no longer be contractually committed to provide a grant (financial aid).  Sure a student "commits" to the school by signing the contract.   But there is no penalty imposed if the student doesn't ultimately enroll, and instead elects to attend another institution.  In the case of a high profile player like Kapono, this was a potentially major consideration.

Take the following what-if's for example: What if Jason had committed early to Rhode Island because he wanted to play for coach Harrick (why he would even consider such a thing is, of course, a different matter, and one that we won't even comment on)?  Where would Jason be now?  He'd be heading for Rhode Island next year, that's where, while Harrick would be in Georgia/Rhode Island/Georgia.  What if Jason had signed with UNLV?  Well, who knows, but the NCAA is still examining the program and there may yet be some penalties assessed which could possibly affect the Rebels post-season appearances in the future (hey, we don't believe it will happen, so hold off on the angry mail, but the NCAA investigators haven't been visiting because they wanted to check out the new Venetian resort have they?).  

Anyway, you get the idea.  The Scholarship Agreement route isn't for everyone.  Most schools won't wait for players beyond the signing periods, but will instead attempt to lock up their commitments early.  Few players command the kind of presence of a Jason Kapono to get a school to wait for them beyond the signing period.  Not everyone can play the situation out the way that Jason Kapono did and still have it work out to both the player's and the school's  satisfaction.

But from a news reporting perspective, there is a major difference between the two types of agreements, one which players and parents should be aware of as they proceed through the recruiting process.

And the whole point of this story was not to make fun of the LA Times, but instead to highlight the differences between the two agreements.  Of course, we would have expected better from the Times, but we're really not trying to be too hard on their overworked and underpaid writers. Hey, they're still learning just like the rest of us.  They'll get it right yet, even if we have to help them out.

 
©Copyright 1997-1999 All rights reserved
Questions? Comments? Need Information?
E-mail: jegesq@socalhoops.com