What makes me wonder about all this

[Vowelguy]

Not as good as it used to be but I'm a pest on defense.

Wow, you're younger than I thought.

 

[Icebear]

I understand what you are saying, Nan, but having spent lunch reading up on oral contract law I think there is an argument to be made. I understand all the aspects of what you note. None of that means oral contract can not be made.

#1 you understood "received" too literally. Obviously, with oral contract there is only speech and no material provided.
#2 many schools acknowledge verbal commitments on their websites. That makes a pretty good acknowledgement of an agreement between the two parties.
#3 there is no ability to accept an offer from a school to play ball if the offer of a scholarship was not made previously that is evidence of the intent of the institution to secure the services of the recruit, otherwise recruits could just announce they are making a commitment to play at where ever they choose. Clearly, the process does not happen that way. It is more than a kid simply saying they are interested in coming to your school. It is they willingness to come to your school with the expectation of a scholarship.
#4 so if the school has made an offer to a student to provide a scholarship to them in return for the recruit matriculating to their school to play basketball and the school acknowledges a verbal commitment of the student to do so and publishes such on their website the university may be hard pressed to say that a contract of oral agreement has not been created.

 

[HuskyNan]

#3 there is no ability to accept an offer from a school to play ball if the offer of a scholarship was not made previously that is evidence of the intent of the institution to secure the services of the recruit, otherwise recruits could just announce they are making a commitment to play at where ever they choose. Clearly, the process does not happen that way.

Years ago a girl made an oral commitment to a school. Problem is, the school hadn't offered her. Either she misunderstood the school's intent or she was trying to finesse a scholly offer from the school. Is there still a verbal contract?

#4 so if the school has made an offer to a student to provide a scholarship to them in return for the recruit matriculating to their school to play basketball and the school acknowledges a verbal commitment of the student to do so and publishes such on their website the university may be hard pressed to say that a contract of oral agreement has not been created.

One more time - Schools Can Pull Scholarship Offers. It's happened dozens of times and I am not aware of a single instance where a recruit has successfully sued a school because of it so the courts must have ruled at some point that there is no verbal contract. Why are you not understanding this?

And I am unsure about whether a school putting notice of a girl's oral commitment on its website violates NCAA rules although I suspect it may.

 

[easttexastrash]

I can't say that I have ever seen news of a verbal commitment on a school's website, but hat is not to say that it hasn't happened. I know that Baylor has never had an article in its site that discussed a player prior to the signing of the NLI.

 

[Vowelguy]

I understand what you are saying, Nan, but having spent lunch reading up on oral contract law I think there is an argument to be made. I understand all the aspects of what you note. None of that means oral contract can not be made.

#1 you understood "received" too literally. Obviously, with oral contract there is only speech and no material provided.
#2 many schools acknowledge verbal commitments on their websites. That makes a pretty good acknowledgement of an agreement between the two parties.
#3 there is no ability to accept an offer from a school to play ball if the offer of a scholarship was not made previously that is evidence of the intent of the institution to secure the services of the recruit, otherwise recruits could just announce they are making a commitment to play at where ever they choose. Clearly, the process does not happen that way. It is more than a kid simply saying they are interested in coming to your school. It is they willingness to come to your school with the expectation of a scholarship.
#4 so if the school has made an offer to a student to provide a scholarship to them in return for the recruit matriculating to their school to play basketball and the school acknowledges a verbal commitment of the student to do so and publishes such on their website the university may be hard pressed to say that a contract of oral agreement has not been created.

So if a player gives an oral commitment and announces it to the press, and then later changes her mind, should the school be allowed to sue the player?

And do you know the language in a scholarship offer?

For regular early admission to college there are always a story of kids getting admitted, and then getting their offers rescinded in the spring. The reason is that the kid partied & blew off the second semester of their senior year. Problem is that the early-admission offer had a caveat that said "you're admitted, subject to maintaining your standing in your last HS semester."

How do you know the school didnt say "assuming you make continued progress in your skills, we will offer you a scholarship in November of your senior year."

 

[JS]

I understand what you are saying, Nan, but having spent lunch reading up on oral contract law I think there is an argument to be made. I understand all the aspects of what you note. None of that means oral contract can not be made.

Read up on promissory estoppel. That's the theory the plaintiff would likely have to advance to enforce an alleged "oral contract."

In brief it has four necessary elements:

• there was a promise
• that was reasonably relied upon
• resulting in a legal detriment to the promisee, and
• justice requires enforcement of the promise.

Exactly what words the school used to "promise" a scholarship could vary all over the lot. Difficulty of proof; probably hedged; known in the context to be nonbinding pending a written agreement (LOI) down the road.

In context, difficult to show reliance was reasonable. Difficult to show or quantify what legal detriment there was. Difficult to show "justice" in enforcing something that isn't binding on both parties (plaintiff couldn't be forced to come to the school and frequently changes her mind) and isn't considered binding in the recruitment context.

If you're saying there's an argument, ice, I suppose it's hard to make an argument that there isn't. Just hard to imagine a winning case, and if there were one it'd pretty well revolutionize the way NCAA recruiting is done.

 

[doggydaddy]

I'm more concerned with the players already on scholarship. There are 19 plyers involved. 7 are 2013 verbals leaving 12 scholarship players.

It appears that one fo the 7 verbals is already reopening, leaving 6. Still 3 over the limit.

Even if the original verbals (3, now 2) decide to look elsewhere, you still have 1 exisiting scholarship player that would have to leave to make this work. Add in Russell and it's 2 scholarship players.

And there will be 15 players on the roster. I can't imagine keeping them happy with playing time. Especially withe the architects if this being freshmen and expecting playing time from the beginning.

I will be real interesing to see how this all shakes out.

 

[doggydaddy]

Read up on promissory estoppel. That's the theory the plaintiff would likely have to advance to enforce an alleged "oral contract."

In brief it has four necessary elements:

• there was a promise
• that was reasonably relied upon
• resulting in a legal detriment to the promisee, and
• justice requires enforcement of the promise.

Exactly what words the school used to "promise" a scholarship could vary all over the lot. Difficulty of proof; probably hedged; known in the context to be nonbinding pending a written agreement (LOI) down the road.


In context, difficult to show reliance was reasonable. Difficult to show or quantify what legal detriment there was. Difficult to show "justice" in enforcing something that isn't binding on both parties (plaintiff couldn't be forced to come to the school and frequently changes her mind) and isn't considered binding in the recruitment context.

If you're saying there's an argument, ice, I suppose it's hard to make an argument that there isn't. Just hard to imagine a winning case, and if there were one it'd pretty well revolutionize the way NCAA recruiting is done.

How does this differ between them not honoring a verbal and not honoring or renewing a scholarship if the player did nothing to deserve not being renewed other than being not as talented as the incoming players?

 

[vtcwbuff]

Read up on promissory estoppel. That's the theory the plaintiff would likely have to advance to enforce an alleged "oral contract."

In brief it has four necessary elements:

• there was a promise
• that was reasonably relied upon
• resulting in a legal detriment to the promisee, and
• justice requires enforcement of the promise.

Exactly what words the school used to "promise" a scholarship could vary all over the lot. Difficulty of proof; probably hedged; known in the context to be nonbinding pending a written agreement (LOI) down the road.


In context, difficult to show reliance was reasonable. Difficult to show or quantify what legal detriment there was. Difficult to show "justice" in enforcing something that isn't binding on both parties (plaintiff couldn't be forced to come to the school and frequently changes her mind) and isn't considered binding in the recruitment context.


If you're saying there's an argument, ice, I suppose it's hard to make an argument that there isn't. Just hard to imagine a winning case, and if there were one it'd pretty well revolutionize the way NCAA recruiting is done.

Aren't these recruits minors when it comes to a legally binding contract, oral or otherwise? How can someone under 18 be held to an oral contract?

 

[Icebear]

Read up on promissory estoppel. That's the theory the plaintiff would likely have to advance to enforce an alleged "oral contract."

In brief it has four necessary elements:

• there was a promise
• that was reasonably relied upon
• resulting in a legal detriment to the promisee, and
• justice requires enforcement of the promise.

Exactly what words the school used to "promise" a scholarship could vary all over the lot. Difficulty of proof; probably hedged; known in the context to be nonbinding pending a written agreement (LOI) down the road.

In context, difficult to show reliance was reasonable. Difficult to show or quantify what legal detriment there was. Difficult to show "justice" in enforcing something that isn't binding on both parties (plaintiff couldn't be forced to come to the school and frequently changes her mind) and isn't considered binding in the recruitment context.

If you're saying there's an argument, ice, I suppose it's hard to make an argument that there isn't. Just hard to imagine a winning case, and if there were one it'd pretty well revolutionize the way NCAA recruiting is done.

Thank you, JS, I talked with one of my legal eagle friends/parishioners this afternoon and he suggested that on the surface there is probably enough to get to court but that prevailing there would likely be difficult but an interesting case. He quickly reeled off 3 of the four conditions you noted above. He thought the school would have a difficult time arguing that there is no promise of a scholarship since that is the whole premise of recruiting and basis for attracting a player vs a kid just enrolling at a university and trying to make it as a walk on. He noted that in this day and age all sorts of e-communication would be likely to be subpoenaed and potentialy highly relevant. He noted that if the athlete had turned down other scholarship offers that detriment might be determined to exist. He did not mention a response to 2 and 4 was the one he did not note at all.

 

[JS]

How does this differ between them not honoring a verbal and not honoring or renewing a scholarship if the player did nothing to deserve not being renewed other than being not as talented as the incoming players?

It doesn't. That's why scholarships are year to year and don't have to be renewed, whether for that reason or no reason. Might be bad PR, but a legal remedy for non-renewal would be tough to obtain.

If a scholarship was promised in writing for a particular year and then not delivered there'd be more of a case. Establishing damages could be a bit of a challenge, depending on timing, what the plaintiff did in reliance on the promise, how easily the damages could've been mitigated, etc.

 

[Icebear]

I can't say that I have ever seen news of a verbal commitment on a school's website, but hat is not to say that it hasn't happened. I know that Baylor has never had an article in its site that discussed a player prior to the signing of the NLI.

I see announcement of verbals frequently. It is not uncommon. Schools cannot comment on recruits prior than LOIs other than to confirm they are bing recruited or that offers are extended. If not none of us would ever know who is on a school's list except from the recruits. The horde usually is on top of these offers. Nor is decommitting unusual, as Nan, notes but the simple act of decommitting or the removal of an offer does not mean there may not be a contract created only that to date no one may have pursued legal remedy for any number of other reasons as simple as the bother of it. It is not a big thing, but the ins and outs of the law always has me interested and curious.

 

[JS]

Aren't these recruits minors when it comes to a legally binding contract, oral or otherwise? How can someone under 18 be held to an oral contract?

They can't. They may or may not be, but probably are minors prior to entering college.

In most states contracts with minors aren't automatically void and can be validated by adherence to them, but they're voidable by the minor or her guardian within a certain period of time.

Of course, aside from the school having that problem, and also the same legal obstacles to estoppel etc. in reverse, the idea of a college going after a student for not matriculating has an aura of absurdity about it.

 

[msf22b]

Nan
I think that Ice is on to something. Is this litigious age, a parent could certainly file a lawsuit along the lines that Ice has suggested. And if you have a good lawyer, like John Edwards was in his prime, you might even win thereby necessitating a change in current NCAA practice.

Just because it hasn't been successfully argued in the past means nothing.

 

[Icebear]

It doesn't. That's why scholarships are year to year and don't have to be renewed, whether for that reason or no reason. Might be bad PR, but a legal remedy for non-renewal would be tough to obtain.

If a scholarship was promised in writing for a particular year and then not delivered there'd be more of a case. Establishing damages could be a bit of a challenge, depending on timing, what the plaintiff did in reliance on the promise, how easily the damages could've been mitigated, etc.

Great points. I'm not suggesting it would be any kind of great case but sometimes the simple possibility of leveraging it might be helpful. I doubt UNC would like to have themselves even called to appear as a defendent.

 

[doggydaddy]

It doesn't. That's why scholarships are year to year and don't have to be renewed, whether for that reason or no reason. Might be bad PR, but a legal remedy for non-renewal would be tough to obtain.

If a scholarship was promised in writing for a particular year and then not delivered there'd be more of a case. Establishing damages could be a bit of a challenge, depending on timing, what the plaintiff did in reliance on the promise, how easily the damages could've been mitigated, etc.

So basically, Hatchell can do what she wants if she is willing to deal with the bad press and possible future issues with recruits not trusting her.

 

[Vowelguy]

The most likely scenario seems to me:

- NC sorta hopes a few kids re-open their recruiting, but they don't renege their scholarship offers.
- NC reassesses at the end of November to see how many scholarship offers it has in hand.
- After this season, several players are implicitly or explicitly encouraged to leave. With a full roster this season, some players wont get much playing time, and that will get no better in the future.
- If that fails to get the number to 15, then NC doesn't renew some scholarships for next year.

 

[Icebear]

The most likely scenario seems to me:

- NC sorta hopes a few kids re-open their recruiting, but they don't renege their scholarship offers.
- NC reassesses at the end of November to see how many scholarship offers it has in hand.
- After this season, several players are implicitly or explicitly encouraged to leave. With a full roster this season, some players wont get much playing time, and that will get no better in the future.
- If that fails to get the number to 15, then NC doesn't renew some scholarships for next year.

That is exactly how it will play out in some reasonably close form but far less than moral action.

 

[Vowelguy]

Also, something that hasn't been pointed out...

By my count, UNC will have
4 seniors
1 junior
6 soph
5 frosh
this coming season. That's 16. And that suggests someone has already left or isn't on scholarship.

If that person isn't a senior, then UNC has 4 offers for 2013.

HG lists 7, but one has reopened her recruiting. And other's status is questionable since she committed, decommited, and then may or may not have recommitted. Thus, they could be down to 5 offers for 4 spots.

 

[JS]

So basically, Hatchell can do what she wants if she is willing to deal with the bad press and possible future issues with recruits not trusting her.

Yes. It's a wicked old world out there, doggydaddy. Be glad you've led a sheltered life.

 

[Vowelguy]

That is exactly how it will play out in some reasonably close form but far less than moral action.

And whose fault is that?

I love how you continue to make these damning comments but then claim you're not condemning Hatchell.

I don't care if you do, but let's call a spade a spade. It's her program. If you believe something shady is occurring then at least call her out directly. There's no way she didn't approve every action here. And if you believe she didn't, then you're saying she has no control over her own program, which isn't a compliment either.

 

[Vowelguy]

So basically, Hatchell can do what she wants if she is willing to deal with the bad press and possible future issues with recruits not trusting her.

As game theory tells us, reputation only matters if there are future periods.
She's 60. There are not too many recruits in her future.

 

[doggydaddy]

And whose fault is that?

I love how you continue to make these damning comments but then claim you're not condemning Hatchell.

I don't care if you do, but let's call a spade a spade. It's her program. If you believe something shady is occurring then at least call her out directly. There's no way she didn't approve every action here. And if you believe she didn't, then you're saying she has no control over her own program, which isn't a compliment either.

I'll do it. Hatchell sold her soul to the devil to get a National Championship contender.

I don't like it. And I won't condone it.

 

[doggydaddy]

As game theory tells us, reputation only matters if there are future periods.
She's 60. There are not too many recruits in her future.

Well, go no further than the class of '14 and what they will think about it. It's ugly and unfortunate.

 

[doggydaddy]

Yes. It's a wicked old world out there, doggydaddy. Be glad you've led a sheltered life.

No, not a sheltered life. I've had plenty of crap thrown my way.

I just don't like this. Not one bit.