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.
