šŸˆ Records: LSU slapped with recruiting sanctions after prospect backs out of commitment

planomateo

Member


------------------------------------------------------

Ouch.

------------------------------------------------------

A recruit’s decision not to enroll at LSU after signing a financial aid agreement has the football program in some hot water.

LSU is banned from signing early enrollee recruits to financial aid agreements for the next two years, and the program will be stripped of 10 percent of its recruiting evaluation days in 2015, according to public records obtained by The Advocate.

The penalties, handed down by the Southeastern Conference and reported by the school Feb. 3, stem from a violation that occurred this fall involving an unnamed recruit.


The recruit signed a financial aid agreement with LSU intending to enroll early in January and giving the school umlimited contact with him. But he decided not to enroll at the school. That makes at least some of LSU’s unlimited contact with the prospect illegal.

Matt Womack, an offensive tackle from Mississippi, signed a financial aid agreement with LSU in August intending to enroll at the school in January. Instead, Womack de-committed — as hundreds of prospects do each year — and signed a National Letter of Intent with Alabama in February.

LSU officials declined comment.

Financial aid agreements, instituted by the NCAA in the fall of 2013, allow high school seniors who plan to enroll early to sign with that school starting Aug. 1 of their senior years.

A financial aid agreement doesn’t bind the player to that particular school like a National Letter of Intent does, but it affords coaches of that school unlimited contact with the signee — contact that would normally be considered against NCAA rules.

The NCAA modified the financial aid agreement (FAA) in April. It continued to allow schools ā€œrelaxed recruiting rulesā€ for prospects who signed a financial aid agreement, but it also warned schools that they could be penalized for recruiting violations if that prospect did not eventually enroll in that school.

David Womack, Matt Womack’s father, told The Clarion-Ledger in the fall that LSU coaches were not planning to contact his son on an unlimited basis because Matt wasn’t completely firm on enrolling early or on his commitment to LSU.

ā€œLSU is not using (the FAA) because if Matt was to change his mind they would have to report it,ā€ David Womack told The Clarion-Ledger.

It’s unclear if any other recruit — outside of Matt Womack and the four early enrollees — signed financial aid agreements with LSU in the fall.

Either way, the Tigers are paying the price for a teenager’s decision.

LSU will lose 21 of 210 evaluation days in 2015 (17 in the spring and four in the fall). An evaluation day is defined by the NCAA as any off-campus activity designed to assess the academic qualifications or athletics ability of a recruit, including any visit to a recruit’s school or the observation of a recruit participating in any practice or competition.

What’s bigger than the loss of evaluation days? While prospects can still enroll early, LSU cannot issue financial aid agreements to them for two years, a serious disadvantage. During the same time, other schools can sign prospects to FAA, thus receiving unlimited contact with them.


For example, LSU’s four early enrollees in the 2015 recruiting class signed FAAs. Fullback David Ducre, quarterback Justin McMillan, tight end Hanner Shipley and cornerback Kevin Toliver II were able to take phone calls, home visits and other unlimited recruiting contact from LSU coaches this fall.

Over the same time period, coaches had to follow strict NCAA rules when contacting other recruits and eventual signees like Warren Easton receiver Tyron Johnson or Catholic running back Derrius Guice.

Follow Ross Dellenger on Twitter @DellengerAdv.
 
Last edited:
playing devil's advocate here.....

so a recruit signs a financial aid agreement, giving the school "unlimited" access to that recruit.

the school uses that unlimited access to continue to talk to and visit with the recruit.

the recruit then decides to enroll at another school.

the first school gets slapped with a penalty because the school had contact with the recruit that was deemed impermissible because the recruit changed their mind? that makes no sense at all!

the school is the one taking the chance and then it's like the ncaa goes back on it's word of "yeah, you can talk to them all you want. oh wait, they changed their mind? well, we have to penalize you for that."

maybe i'm reading it wrong (which definitely would NOT be the first time it's happened), but that just doesn't seem right at all.
 
I'm with sk33tr. This makes no sense at all. LSU should not be held responsible for something like this since the recruit essentially have them unlimited contact by signing those papers. I am an Alabama fan, but I am a realist and believe in fair treatment for every team. This is BS if in fact I have read this correctly.
 
If I read it correctly, LSU and any other school that participates in this Financial Aid Agreement deal will get screwed by the NCAA. It seems like the NCAA is trying to be the old "Indian giver" in this case.
 
Agree with you. LSU was perfectly legal talking with this kid until he changes his mind. This change of mind makes the past communication now illegal. This is the craziest BS I have ever heard. The SEC ought to know better than to punish this, irregardless of NCAA rules.
 
playing devil's advocate here.....

Then there's this:

When the NCAA reviewed, and subsequently changed, the rule in April they warned schools if the FAA was signed there might be repercussions if this happened. So, you can't say they were forewarned.

What really jumps out at me is his father telling the Clarion Ledger that LSU wasn't going to use the unlimited contact option because Matt's commitment wasn't firm.

So, in the end we have a school that knew this might be a problem, a school that had discussed the possibility of it being a problem, but went ahead and continued with their contact.

IMO, it was a bad rule to being with BEFORE the SEC appealed how the original was written...and with the revisions, it remained a bad rule.
 
Interesting 2 weeks for the NCAA.

WVU gets probation under Oliver Luck (who wasn't implicated in this and who has a new position in the NCAA).
Baylor RB Silas Nacita rulled ineligible reportedly by Baylor.
And now this, LSU's recruiting sanctions reportedly by the SEC
 
Article from April last year, http://espn.go.com/college-sports/r...oses-early-enrollee-loophole-questions-remain

Does the NCAA keep track of FAA's including the dates they are signed or are they leaving their member schools in limbo? Seems like that might be important right?

So, in December, the NCAA, in an attempt to close this loophole before it became a giant mess, ruled that only the program that first signs a prospect to a financial aid agreement is allowed to publicize the signing and text or call at free will. In theory, it should fix the problem. There's not much incentive to accept a recruit's second signature when only the first school reaps the reward.

Certainly seems there should be other schools in the same situation...
 
If this were a criminal matter, it would be ex post facto. LSU's action was legal at the time they took it, only became illegal when he signed with Alabama. No penalty to the recruit, no advantage for the school to offer a financial aid agreement. IMO a school should not offer one of these without being absolutely certain that the kid sticks to his commitment.

As TP said, bad rule.
 
LSU's action was legal at the time they took it, only became illegal when he signed with Alabama

It became "against the rules" when they continued to call him when he didn't enroll early.

Here's the catch with that. As soon as school started in Baton Rouge and he wasn't enrolled the unlimited contact should have stopped. Add to that in January schools are in a dead period for a portion of that month. So, now we have two things in the picture: more contact that should have been allowed and contact during a dead period. Add in after his verbal to Bama the LSU staff still contacting him—without restriction.

They took a chance they'd be able to flip him before signing day and they didn't. It backfired. In the end it's not that big of a deal. (Never mind Michael Carvell's headlines...they're bs)





0B0UGoQ_t3FS0eVNXay1YTGhWSzQ
 
It became "against the rules" when they continued to call him when he didn't enroll early.
That is not how it happened. The kid signed in August. Les Miles made a home visit in October, which was perfectly legal. There was very limited contact after that but in December, LSU realized that the kid was waffling and told Womack's family that there would be no further communication from LSU. After the kid failed to enroll in January, Les' visit became retroactively illegal.

LSU self-reported and is not appealing the ruling, but the rule is laughable and is getting widely panned. The sanctions are very light and will not affect recruiting. LSU does not use all of its allowed recruiting days anyway, so the 10% cut is no big deal and the 2-year ban on early FAA signing is probably good and will prevent further "retroactive violations" until this bad, bad rule is changed. They can sign an FAA when they enroll.
 
That is not how it happened. The kid signed in August. Les Miles made a home visit in October, which was perfectly legal. There was very limited contact after that but in December, LSU realized that the kid was waffling and told Womack's family that there would be no further communication from LSU. After the kid failed to enroll in January, Les' visit became retroactively illegal.

I knew about the retroactively portion of this, red.

The stories floating around the newsroom about this don't match this...not a big deal though. I don't see it having any bearing on anyone—including LSU.

No, let me change that. I do believe there is going to be some impact...just on the rules committee folks as they try to figure out what addendum's they can add to it (assuming they don't consider scraping the idea completely.)
 
I knew about the retroactively portion of this, red.

The stories floating around the newsroom about this don't match this
Well, what you stated was that LSU kept contacting the kid after he failed to enroll in January, when contact had been broken off earlier than that. Sometimes unattributed stories around "the newsroom" are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom