OT-Contract and LOI Commitments

[RoyDodger]

I've never posted an OT before, but the situation in New Mexico with Steve Alford and his son Bryce raises some interesting questions about the meaning of contracts and commitment in college basketball. As I'm sure most of you know, Alford, who had been the UNM men's coach for several years, had just signed a 10 year contract to continue coaching the Lobos. His son Bryce, who played at LaCueva HS in Albuquerque, had signed a letter of intent to play for the Lobos. A few days later, Alford reneged on his deal with UNM and signed to coach UCLA. UNM officials released Bryce from his signed letter of intent commitment and are allowing him to recommit to UCLA.

I certainly can understand Alford's desire to coach at a school with one of the greatest men's basketball reputations and history. And I certainly understand Bryce Alford's desire to follow his father. But what does all this say about the meaning of commitment in college basketball? Well, obviously, if you can buy yourself out of a contract (Alford--or UCLA-- will have to pay between $200,000 and $1 million to UNM), the contract means little or nothing from the coach's point of view. And the son's situation is even more interesting. Normally, if one reneges on a letter of intent, one has to sit out a year. But apparently not if the boy is the son of the coach.

I'd be interested in any thoughts on this.

And although this situation interests me regardless of my personal circumstances, I should mention that after living in Connecticut since 1981, I retired late last year and my wife and I are moving in early May to New Mexico (where much of my family has lived since the early 1970s). But I plan to get Direct TV in the Albuquerque area which includes a sports package with SNY and thus the UConn Huskies.

 

[pinotbear]

First, I have to express a bit of envy: I've only been to New Mexico twice, but I've dreamily pondered retiring out there. Best of luck!
Second, for UNM to be so gracious, either they really like Alford and understand his situation or there was language in the contract negotiation that anticipated something like this - or, both.
On your larger questions, unfortunately, too often, coaches & loyalty is a one-way street. Coaches want their institution, players, students, and alumi to be faithful, and believe, but don't hold themselves to the same standard. Certainly, the NCAA and various conference transfer rules hold players to a much tougher standard. That's kinda ironic: the players are presumed to be too immature to make an intelligent, well-thought-out decision regarding changing institutions - and, it's important to protect the institutions' investment in that recruit - yet, the lynchpin between the program, the players, and the institution can just boogie out of town on no notice, harming all of the other parties involved.

 

[Husky68]

Don't agree. Ask Holland from UCLA what happens when school has you under contract and then doesn't want you, they follow the contract when they fire you. Girls coach at OSU, same thing. That's why have no USA laws that "require" employee to stay at position wants to leave or employer keep employee wants to can (barring discrimination issues) - it's always pay the contracted money and abide by any legal delay in the contract before taking new job.
So what's the big deal in deciding to take a new job and then getting out of the contract per its terms. Have more of an issue with DickRod of WVU who wanted to leave for Michigan and yet not pay his contract breaking fee.
Lots of schools allow players to cancel LOI if coach leaves. Would be doubly dumb if don't let ex-coaches son cancel. Look how dumb fhcRE looked at Maryland when he tried to block his QB from transferring.

 

[stamfordhusky]

IAnd the son's situation is even more interesting. Normally, if one reneges on a letter of intent, one has to sit out a year. But apparently not if the boy is the son of the coach.

Over 99% of the time, if a H.S. player request a release from his letter of intent, the release is granted. Sometimes they make the player wait until a new coach is hired and has a chance to "re-recruit" the player, but ultimately it is virtually always granted. This has happened many times in recent years in situations where the player is not the son of a coach. Just happened the other day with Northwestern's top recruit, Sina.

If the school grants a release, then the player does not have to sit out a year.

 

[Vowelguy]

But what does all this say about the meaning of commitment in college basketball? Well, obviously, if you can buy yourself out of a contract (Alford--or UCLA-- will have to pay between $200,000 and $1 million to UNM), the contract means little or nothing from the coach's point of view.

And the son's situation is even more interesting. Normally, if one reneges on a letter of intent, one has to sit out a year. But apparently not if the boy is the son of the coach.
.

Disagree on both points. First, ANY contract can be broken, you just have to pay a penalty. Alford's buyout is the penalty.

Second, as already noted, a school can choose to release a player from his/ her loi. It would make New Mexico look petty and vindictive if they didn't grant Alford's son a release.