What do you think of this NCAA Policy...........I think it's dispicable........Basically it's lying by omission

There is no lie. The coach in this case is doing what he should do. He has a duty to the school he works for. It is sort of arrogant for the recruit to believe he is entitled to all information about the coaches career. Maybe this is a well needed wake up for the recruit about how the world works.

I really can't help what you believe. I never argue for the sake of debate because I hate arguing. I firmly believe that a kid should decide on his school because of the school, not the coach. People change jobs. Coaches leave. An athlete needs to anticipate that and if I were the parents of a kid who that happened to and was still getting off the hook for paying for school, or knew that my kid wasn't going to start adult life with a massive loan debt over his head, I would be grateful to the school for the scholarship and I'd hope my kid liked the new coach.

And in the original scenario in this thread, there is no lying unless a recruit explicitly asked the coach if he was planning to be there for the next four years and the coach said he would be. Even then, the coach may have thought that to be true when asked and changed his mind shortly afterwards. i really do not think that an adult has a responsibility to discuss his career plans with a 17 year old. As long as the school honors the scholarship after the coaching change I see nothing wrong.

HRE, you are kind of long winded. Your posts are pretty long. Lets get right to the point. I ASK YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION. A coach has already accepted a job from school B. He already knows he is leaving. He currently works for school A and is actively recruiting an athlete. Lets say he is a 100m guy and the coach is one of the best sprint coaches in the country and the kid tells him he is really looking foward to being coached by him. THE KID ASKS THE COACH IF HE HAS ANY PLANS ON LEAVING!! My simple QUESTION is this.........................

Are you saying you have no problem with the coach looking the kid straight in the face and LYING?????

I believe I already addressed that topic in my last, long winded post.

HRE, try to keep your answer to a few sentences.

HRE wrote:

I believe I already addressed that topic in my last, long winded post.

Just so we all understand, telling a kid a bold face lie is OK?

880dude wrote:

HRE wrote:

I believe I already addressed that topic in my last, long winded post.

Just so we all understand, telling a kid a bold face lie is OK?

No. Where do I say anything like that?

If you can get through his long drawn out explanation, he basically says there are reasons why lying to a recruit is perfectly fine.

white lie wrote:

If you can get through his long drawn out explanation, he basically says there are reasons why lying to a recruit is perfectly fine.

Maybe you could pick through the drawn out explanation and show where I said that.

another old guy wrote:

There are only two advantages to the athlete in signing the NLI:

1. The NLI binds the school to offer a scholarship for the coming year (but for that one year only).

2. It gives the athlete a cool photo op at his/her high school.

That's it.

If you are good enough an athlete to avoid signing the NLI, DO NOT SIGN. There aren't many out there that are really good enough. Plenty of coaches won't give you the scholarship without the NLI unless you are truly elite.

The NLI does not bind the school to offer a scholarship. The Athletic Grant-In-Aid paperwork does that. It is supposed to accompany an NLI, but an athlete can sign the Grant-In-Aid without the NLI.

It seems like we're not making any progress here so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

There are some questions that you just can't answer given the circumstances involved. There is no athlete/coach contract and the athlete/parent has no right to get an honest answer to that question or impose that expectation on a coach. The question shouldn't be asked. It's up to you to read the situation and determine whether the coach is likely to stay (if that's important to you). Is the coach achieving above his/her position/title? Are they nearing retirement? Have they been there a while? Do they have kids in school? At the end of the day it's still a guess and even the best coaches leave/retire. Vin was at the top of the game at Stanford and he still moved on. It happens.

If everything that you are saying is true, what would you have the coach say/do? He/she's doing his best to represent his/her current employer, which ethically speaking (contracts aside) is appropriate. I suppose he/she could have just made his/herself unavailable (and had an assistant handle the NLI) to avoid the question (but that goes against the ethics of doing your best).

Now if the coach was going out of his/her way (unprovoked) to sell the idea that they would be there for a long time while already verbally agreeing to the terms of an offer somewhere else then I would change my opinion.

HRE,

I am ashamed and disappointed in your position. The moral equivocation that I'm reading from you and a few others posters here help me to understand a bit more why cheating in sports has become so widespread and acceptable.

The question is not whether a kid should be appreciative to the college or should just be concerned about the school, its about honesty and misleading young trusting athletes. Do I really need to say that to tell a student that you are staying when you are not is simply wrong. Yes there are disadvantages to the college to do so. That's not relevant to ethics though is it?

But I go further, if you explain your coaching and lead the kid to think that that this is the coaching program he will have, but you know you will be gone, you are committing a moral lapse of omission. You should ALWAYS BE CLEAR WITH THE STUDENT THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE the following year.

You can't pretend to be guiding and advising this young person while at the same time you are misleading them.

C

Your buyer beware approach is really taking the moral low ground. A kid talking to a revered seasoned coached is not dealing on a equal knowledge and power base. The moral responsibility lies WITH THE COACH to make sure the kid doesn't have faulty assumptions. He doesn't have to say he won't be there but he should be clear that that's a possibility.

He OWES it to the kid he is advising. Its just the right thing to do.

It should be made clear to ANY student considering attending ANY university that the people working there after they enroll may be different from the ones working there while the student is considering enrolling. If I were a college coach I'd tell the kid the whole way through the process to ask himself whether he'd want to go to that school if I left. If the answer is no, I'd tell him that he shouldn't go there. But I would not discuss my personal business or career plans with a 17 year old kid. If that kid feels betrayed after I left I would understand the feeling but would remind him that I'd been telling him all along to pick a school, not a coach.

By the way, I really would not want to coach at a high powered college mostly because I think it's mildly immoral and thoroughly degrading for an adult to kiss some 16-17 year old kid's behind hoping to get that kid to attend a school he otherwise would not because it helps that adult's career.

PS,

I still don't see how a coach benefits from misleading a kid he's recruiting to go to a school the coach will no longer be working for. Wouldn't it be more unethical to recruit a kid for the coach's next school under the guise of recruiting the kid to his current school?

HRE wrote:

It should be made clear to ANY student considering attending ANY university that the people working there after they enroll may be different from the ones working there while the student is considering enrolling. If I were a college coach I'd tell the kid the whole way through the process to ask himself whether he'd want to go to that school if I left. If the answer is no, I'd tell him that he shouldn't go there. But I would not discuss my personal business or career plans with a 17 year old kid. If that kid feels betrayed after I left I would understand the feeling but would remind him that I'd been telling him all along to pick a school, not a coach.

.

OK, that's a bit more clear and I think that position is fair.

Thanks.

another old guy wrote:

There are only two advantages to the athlete in signing the NLI:

1. The NLI binds the school to offer a scholarship for the coming year (but for that one year only).

2. It gives the athlete a cool photo op at his/her high school.

That's it.

If you are good enough an athlete to avoid signing the NLI, DO NOT SIGN. There aren't many out there that are really good enough. Plenty of coaches won't give you the scholarship without the NLI unless you are truly elite.

You were right! This linebacker is refusing to sign a NLI with any school. He is good enough to be one of the few athletes to pull this off.