Roquan Smith, a highly rated linebacker prospect out of Montezuma, Georgia, caused quite a bit of a stir when he reopened his recruitment after committing to UCLA on Signing Day, and subsequently saying that he would not sign a letter of intent with the school he ultimately will select. This is an unusual, but not unprecedented decision, in that Smith only intends to sign financial aid papers, but without a letter of intent binding him to a particular institution for four years. (Should he, or any athlete not signing a letter of intent chose to transfer, they would still be subject to the rule of having to sit out one year.)

The driving force behind Smith's stance is his apparent disillusionment that the assistant coach who spearheaded his recruitment to UCLA, former Bruin defensive coordinator Jeff Ulbrich, had accepted an offer from the NFL's Atlanta Falcons after allegedly indicating to Smith that he had declined that job. The announcement of Ulbrich's hiring by Atlanta was not made until after the early portion of Signing Day, when most recruits sign and fax in their letters of intent. However, since Smith did not sign a letter of intent, he was free to reopen his recruitment and has reportedly (at the time of this writing) chosen Georgia over Texas A&M, Michigan, and UCLA.

This article will not attempt to determine the truth of what actually happened between Ulbrich and Smith. Certainly, it could have been a misunderstanding or Smith could have been misled or Ulbrich may, in fact, have never promised or indicated to Smith that he would definitely be at UCLA for the forseeable future. Any of it is possible in the mind of this writer, but the interesting point is that almost no one will criticize Ulbrich for leaving UCLA, where he was presumably committed, but many will criticize Smith for not honoring his verbal “commitment” to UCLA on Signing Day. Now, why is that?

Certainly, school/fan pride and/or loyalty comes into play. But, it seems there is a disturbing assumption that it is perfectly fine for coaches to jump ship at the first whiff of a better offer, but that somehow the foundation of the game will be shaken if - Heaven forbid - an eighteen year old recruit changes his mind.

What makes Smith's situation even more interesting is his aforementioned refusal to sign a letter of intent. That one sided agreement (They type referred to as an adhesion contract in law and often set aside by courts when challenged) effectively binds the player to a particular school to the extent that, should he desire to transfer, he often needs the approval of that institution to be let out of his commitment.

There are numerous examples in recent years of schools refusing to allow players out of their agreements, or done so with the caveat that they not transfer to a particular school or schools. Can you imagine? A student wanting to transfer needing the okay of the administration, who might not allow him or her to transfer to a particular school of his or her choice. We as a society wouldn't stand for it for a nanosecond, which begs the question of why so many find it acceptable when it comes to scholarship athletes.

This assumption and the routine way of doing this is what makes what Smith did noteworthy. Again, taking him at his word that he was misled in his recruitment, it is certainly not unusual for high level prospects to be told that a certain coach will be there when he enrolls, only to have that mysteriously change right after Signing Day, when most recruits have already inked the dotted line and are locked into a particular school.

It's easy to opine that the athlete should chose a school, not a coach or coaching staff. Undoubtedly, some athletes do that, but it is extremely judgmental to assert that an athlete should make his decision irrespective of his relationship with the coaches. How many of us, if we hade a choice, would chose a job based on a positive relationship with a supervisor/boss?

This is especially true when a player has multiple attractive options, such as Smith and other top flight recruits. And, as they say, therein lies the rub. Most recruits do not have the leverage that Smith had, at least among the elite programs. He knew that he could afford to wait until after Signing Day, as the schools he was considering would all still have a place for him. Additionally, he knew that his refusal to sign a letter of intent would not scare off all potential suitors.

Indeed, even highly touted recruits can be left in the lurch come Signing Day, even if he has already committed to a program, such as a highly rated prospect who had pledged to Louisville, only to be asked at the eleventh hour to “grayshirt”. That's the industry term for offering a player a scholarship with the intention that he commit and start school in the fall, then effectively yanking it away with the premise being that he can enroll later, without regard to what he might want to do or if that was his intention. Might need to make room for someone better, or perhaps a position of higher need.

Of course, the respected coaches and institutions of higher learning who pull this bait and switch are often the loudest shouters about “commitment” when a teenager changes his mind. Fortunately, the player referenced in this paragraph had a scholarship offered to him by Wake Forest, where he will enroll in the fall.

So, a tip of the cap from this college football fan to Mr. Smith for doing whatever he can to ensure that his stay in college is as enjoyable for him as possible. Simply put, most college football fans - apart from the teams we love and/or our alma maters - spend little to no time worrying about the college experience for the athletes we watch on Saturdays in the fall. If refusing to sign a one sided agreement, which anyone with equal bargaining standing would do, helps give Smith or some other athlete the peace of mind that he will have that much more control over his educational and athletic future, more power to him.

Here's hoping that more athletes follow his lead in next year's Signing Day feeding frenzy.

VAVEL Logo
About the author