Commitment Contract

[dukey4life47]

well, for any who watched the mcdonalds all-american game tonight, you would have heard the very long discussion about whether player's should be allowed to transfer if the coach they signed for gets a new job. any thoughts on this? i'm split in between. i believe if you sign the contract, your making a commitment, and you need to stick with a commitment. also, i think you might be going because of the coaching, and if the coach you signed for leaves, you shouldnt be forced to play under a coach you werent originally planning on playing for.

[RenegadeLonghorn]

I agree. There was some discussion about this on ESPN today in light of Calipari's move to Kentucky. The kids he recruited to play under him at Memphis should be allowed to transfer elsewhere without penalty. If a coach can get out of his contract three years early then kids should be able to transfer.

[garnett_21]

Yep, I'm with you guys too...if coaches have that option of leaving, then the players should too.

[Enigma]

Well, I know recruits can have that added to their Letter of Intent that they can opt to back out of committing to a school if the coach leaves.

The way I look at it is a recruit is making a commitment usually to the coach first and then the school. Therefore, the recruit should have the option to back out and sign elsewhere, but only at the new school the coach ends up. If the coach is fired/leaves and does not get a new job elsewhere, then the recruit should have the opportunity to go elsewhere.

Now once the summer comes (after graduation), then a recruit should not be permitted to back out of a commitment as that school no longer has time to fill those scholarship positions as all recruits have chosen a school by then.

[Aikman_TheGreat]

Its a tough subject. I believe if you OFFICIALLY COMMIT to a school you should be stuck there. Then transfer if you need to.

Now....I also believe that many players (in any sport) commit to schools because of prestige and coaches. If I committed to a school (such as Memphis), and then the coach left, I'd probably not want to go there. In college football it'd be a little different (but not much). Its just a hard thing to think about.

[gladdyontherise]

they should be able to get out of the contract

[dherm360]

If you are not enrolled, you should be allowed to transfer without penalty.

I think there are many reason that could make you rethink your choice. What if you had committed to Duke to play Lacrosse before the sex scandel and it was brought to light the summer before you are starting your Freshman year. You have the bad pub associated with it and I believe they cancelled the season.
Or a bunch of NCAA violations occur brought to light after you commit and now your banned from the tourney for three years--would you still want to go to that school?

[Filthy]

My take on it is this......


If a coach doesnt have to honor his contract with the school......Why should a 18 year old kid, have to honor his? Its a sad day and age, when a contract doesnt mean a darn thing.



But on a related note........ Keith "Tiny" Gallon and Tommy Mason-Griffin tore it up last night. I cant wait to see these two guys at Oklahoma next year. It will be the first time in school history that 3 Mcdonalds All Americans are on the court at teh same time.

[Gtbballer20]

I feel if you committed to a school you need to stay true to your commitment...even for a year and then transfer...but would they have the heart to play???