Edsall is cleaning up a mess at UConn; let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, shall we? (DiMauro)

[gioff23]

I didn't miss the point, I simply disagree completely with it. We will agree to disagree.

As an aside, there is NO legal argument a kid could make as the "offer" is non-binding on either side until NLI day. Using your logic, we could sue Cummins because he made a verbal assurance he would join the team leading us to pass over making offers to other kids at same position, who have gone on to accept offers from other schools.

If it makes you feel better, perhaps we offer the kid an academic scholly and he can try and walk on.

 

[CTMike]

"Sir the captain has steered us in to an iceberg and has been relieved of his duties"

"Welp our hands our tied. Honor dictates we carry out his wishes and go down with the ship."

 

[Skiblets]

You miss the point. Third parties dealing with UConn are dealing with UConn. We are not talking internal employees. Your logic is if a contractor had a contract with UConn to build a building that was made before Hetbst took over then Herbst can cancel it because she want President. It doesn't work that way. The same applies with Fiasco. He respresents the University and people are entitled to rely on his representations as representations of the University.

Now, because commits are non-binding until signing day, there is not any contract like the contractor situation. So, many argue that RE's conduct on behalf of UConn is fine because there was no firm legal obligation. On this point, if RE really did make verbal assurances as HC in January, then there is possible liability for what is known as detrimental reliance - which means somebody with apparent authority to bind the University made representations that a reasonable would be believe and relying on their truth the person took action that resulted in harm or loss (i.e., rejecting other offers of scholarships for paid tuition).
Beyond the legal, there is a basic issue of ethics and institutional character. Many argue everybody does what RE did so no harm. The question is do we believe UConn is better? Do we believe UConn is not another run of the mill school or is it a flagship representative of our State reflecting the values and ethics of its people. UConn is more than a losing football team in dire need of rebuilding.
So, these things do matter. They matter beyond football. I choose to believe we can do better than what was done, and win precisely because UConn is special and better than other schlock state schools operating as football mills. If you want a top 20 education cometo UConn. If you want a tradition where we honor our word come to UConn. If you want a school that will invest in winning the right way come to UConn.

You're doing the kid no favors honoring the scholarship offer if he was a bad fit with the new regime. He'd be miserable here and would most likely transfer. AT a minimum his schollie would not be renewed after a year. So we should feel for the kid but with time and space, he'll recover. And he was given enough time for a backup plan. But enough with the holier then thou histrionics. There is no honor in extending an offer under false pretenses which is what you're advocating. Has the Nebraska offer arrived yet?

 

[Dizzy21]

OK here's what I don't get. According to the Rivals recruiting site- UConn now only has 10 commits for 2017. Their class doesn't even make the top 100. Signing day is in less than two weeks away. It would be one thing if we thought Edsall was going to bring in 8 or 9 new recruits between now and then to fill out the class and had no more room. But that doesn't look likely. So it is likely UConn will enter next season with less than the 85 maximum player limit on scholarship which puts them in a hole. Giving a player who really wanted to come here and seems to have some football skills based on his recruiting write up doesn't hurt. Maybe he never starts but provides valuable special teams play - but would not hurt the scholarship #s . So this whole mess doesn't make sense.

Remember, not only does the kid take away from scholarships of future athletes you could offer, but it's basically giving he kid $120,000 so you don't hurt his feelings.

 

[Husky68]

I didn't miss the point, I simply disagree completely with it. We will agree to disagree.

As an aside, there is NO legal argument a kid could make as the "offer" is non-binding on either side until NLI day. Using your logic, we could sue Cummins because he made a verbal assurance he would join the team leading us to pass over making offers to other kids at same position, who have gone on to accept offers from other schools.

If it makes you feel better, perhaps we offer the kid an academic scholly and he can try and walk on.

Per NCAA website re Verbal Commitment:

"This phrase is used to describe a college-bound student-athlete's commitment to a school before he or she signs (or is able to sign) a National Letter of Intent. A college-bound student-athlete can announce a verbal commitment at any time. While verbal commitments have become very popular for both college-bound student-athletes and coaches, this "commitment" is NOT binding on either the college-bound student-athlete or the college or university. Only the signing of the National Letter of Intent accompanied by a financial aid agreement is binding."

Seems pretty clear you have the right slant on this. By NCAA rules "it can not be binding on EITHER party".

 

[Kgun7]

You miss the point. Third parties dealing with UConn are dealing with UConn. We are not talking internal employees. Your logic is if a contractor had a contract with UConn to build a building that was made before Hetbst took over then Herbst can cancel it because she want President. It doesn't work that way. The same applies with Fiasco. He respresents the University and people are entitled to rely on his representations as representations of the University.

Now, because commits are non-binding until signing day, there is not any contract like the contractor situation. So, many argue that RE's conduct on behalf of UConn is fine because there was no firm legal obligation. On this point, if RE really did make verbal assurances as HC in January, then there is possible liability for what is known as detrimental reliance - which means somebody with apparent authority to bind the University made representations that a reasonable would be believe and relying on their truth the person took action that resulted in harm or loss (i.e., rejecting other offers of scholarships for paid tuition).
Beyond the legal, there is a basic issue of ethics and institutional character. Many argue everybody does what RE did so no harm. The question is do we believe UConn is better? Do we believe UConn is not another run of the mill school or is it a flagship representative of our State reflecting the values and ethics of its people. UConn is more than a losing football team in dire need of rebuilding.
So, these things do matter. They matter beyond football. I choose to believe we can do better than what was done, and win precisely because UConn is special and better than other schlock state schools operating as football mills. If you want a top 20 education cometo UConn. If you want a tradition where we honor our word come to UConn. If you want a school that will invest in winning the right way come to UConn.

If the contractor agreed to build the structure verbally ... Herbst would be wise to shut the project down ASAP!

 

[RSTuthill]

The advantage HCRE has coming back to UConn is he already has the relationships with the press established and can get background stuff out there effectively. A new guy woulda had trouble with that.