Re: UNH Recruits: 2012-2016
Re: UNH Recruits: 2012-2016
"Clarification: Update on UNH Recruits and National Letter of Intent"
Clarification
Two days ago, I sought clarification from the National Letter of Intent Program on the question of deferring an NLI. I just received a return call from Susan Peal, the Director of the National Letter of Intent. She explained that the prospective student-athlete who has signed an NLI either during the November, 2014 early signing period or the current signing period, has the option to delay enrollment until Fall 2016.
This is up to the discretion of the prospective student-athlete and can not be imposed by the college/university. This clarification appears to contradict one aspect of the "NLI Primer" article from the College Hockey News. A delay, if initiated by the prospective student-athlete, is for one year.
Hahaha, yeah sure...
As you stated, NLI provision 7(c) states the following -
"an NLI shall be declared null and void if the prospect has not attended any institution for at least one academic year."
NLI provision 7(c) says NOTHING about, and was written in NO PART to allow prospects to defer NLI's. It was written to protect schools from prospects who wanted to get out of NLI's so badly they were willing to forgo enrollment and wait a year in an effort to attend another institution. Essentially making the NLI binding to that student-athlete and force them to sit out a second year of residence (along with equipping the NLI institution with the ability to block transfers - per transfer rules) if a player wanted to go that route.
Creative compliance officers at hockey schools have read between the lines and used the NCAA's vague, legalese verbiage to manipulate the system and protect their recruited prospects from being poached by other schools while they keep them tucked away in junior hockey. It was an institutional serving rule in the first place and has become more so within NCAA hockey...
Certainly, the school can 'convince' the player that it is 'his choice' - they can also pull the aid offer after a year, making the NLI null and void and cut the kid loose. Do you really think that all of those players who signed to Notre Dame a year early (Watcher's post) signed their NLI and THEN decided themselves they wanted to spend an extra year in juniors? Nope, with the gentlemen's agreement dissolved, Notre Dame told those players they would sign (to protect ND from poachings) but not matriculate for another year...
As I stated earlier in this thread - if this type of NLI manipulation was occuring, it was simply a creative interpretation of the rules by coaches and compliance officers that I was not aware of. I'm more convinced than ever that that is all it is. One coach/compliance department at a hockey school interprets the provision in this fashion - because the provision is not specific enough to prevent them from doing so, UNH begins to interpret the rule in the same way to keep up with the Jones-es. This is how NCAA compliance and coach manipulation works - where the spirit of the rule is often trampled by the interpretation and loop holes the rule creates. So nothing in my point of view has changed, except that I am now aware of a new and unique way for coaches to manipulate a rule in sports where prospects don't matriculate directly to college at 18.
I understand you've quoted two direct sources and done the research in an attempt to simply educate posters on the board. I've worked in NCAA recruiting world for 12 years - I know how things actually work. Bonner is simply regurgitating the interpretation that UNH has adopted because other programs have adopted it. The NCAA source is just responding based on the interpretation that was brought to them - which they are unable to do anything about because of the vague way the rule was written in the first place - except she adds the piece about the decision must be the student-athletes. That makes it sound like the student-athlete has a choice, which I promise you they truly do not...
Fortunately, UNH is blessed with a coach with the ethical make-up not to abuse the rule. Umile doesn't strike me as one who would pull the offer and stick it to Blackburn if he has a bad year.
Unfortunately, UNH is stuck with an old dog coach who even when he tries to learn a new trick applies it incorrectly. In my opinion, deferring Blackburn to 2016-17 is a HUGE mistake. One that will effect UNH this season and in the years to come. If you want to apply this rule, you apply it to someone like Nazarian - a young, slight prospect who has a lot of ability, but has not quite put it all together. Nazarian's first season in the USHL was a lot like Poturalski's, meaning HE is likely the type of player who benefits from a second season.
Blackburn, meanwhile, dominated in the BCHL last season - he gains very little by going back there and putting up 85-90 points instead of 70. Blackburn is good enough to play a regular shift and an important role THIS FALL. So why is he not coming? Its easy to assume its because Umile doesn't want to bring in another player who might put him in the position of sitting upper-classmen. Especially upper-classmen with letters.
Kalinowski, Cefalu & Miller are hardly threats to surpass anyone - since Nazarian is coming, he should play, but he's a huge candidate to get the Umile treatment (5-8, 180, -10 in the USHL last year) that all small, young, 'not ready defensively' players get. Which would leave us with a forward class of one, in Marcus Vela, joining last year's team minus Downing & Willows...
I hear so many excuses about why UNH can't compete for talent - poor facilities, location, admissions, blah blah blah. That's all they are - excuses. This coaching staff is what keeps UNH from bringing top talent to Durham with poor evaluations, poor handling of committed recruits and a history of deferring and sitting talented young players on the bench in lieu of older, ' more experienced' and 'safer' recruiting misses...
