What makes me wonder about all this

[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.

 

[easttexastrash]

So the real question is not whether or not the player gets to play basketball, it's whether or not the student gets her education paid for? If the lawsuit is filed over the education aspect I suspect that the university would provide an academic scholarship. However, most of these girls probably want to play basketball and would choose to go to another school.

 

[speedoo]

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.

Yeah, but UNC supposedly has a lot of recruits in its future.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Another technique that is used is giving partial scholarships. Instead of a kid getting a full ride they can be given a 50%, 30%, etc.

No. Not allowed in basketball.

 

[Icebear]

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, we have no idea how the situation came to be. We do know from the reporting of ESPN/Hoopgurlz that during the last two weeks that several of these kids worked out a plan to commit together to UNC. We do not know how they made the commitment. We don't know that they spoke to Sylvia or one of the assistants. For all we know they could have all left voice mail messages on the office phone and assumed that there was room for all of them. I doubt they understood the ins and outs of the numbers surrounding scholarships and graduation. It is likely that they are kids caught up in the passion and enthusiasm of the point and made an impulsive act. What we do know is that coaches are not allowed to make comments on issues regarding the recruitment of players other than yes or no they are being recruited and verbals exist. So Sylvia is in a difficult place regarding these events and what she can or cannot say. Simply put, at this point since we don't know how the specific events came about and were executed we have no ability to say it is or it not a "shady" situation or not.

At the same time, however, the simple issues of recruiting over top of players and beyond the limits of the available scholarships it is very easy to identify what is moral behavior. It is not dependent at all on what Sylvia has or has not done. It is dependent only on the issues of commitment and standing by one's promises. Only time will tell how it plays out, but my guess is that your suggestions were close to right. Again let me reiterate we have no idea what or how Sylvia contributed to or was blindsided by the events of the weekend. If there are statements by her or staff that are out there I have not seen them.

In other words there is a huge gulf between what we do not know about Sylvia's actions and how the events occurred and what we can know about moral people handle their obligations and commitments. If and when we know exactly what Sylvia Hatchell knew when and what she did or did not do there will be sufficient opportunity to afix blame far more clearly or complete absolution if that is appropriate.

 

[stamfordhusky]

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.

Under NCAA rules, I think that the extent of what a school can say is that they are recruiting a player. I don't think they can even confirm that an offer has been made. And definitely can't announce anything about a verbal. (I assume you mean an "announcement" made by the player or her coach etc.)

 

[Icebear]

Under NCAA rules, I think that the extent of what a school can say is that they are recruiting a player. I don't think they can even confirm that an offer has been made. And definitely can't announce anything about a verbal. (I assume you mean an "announcement" made by the player or her coach etc.)

My understanding is that it can go as far as confirming a player has made a verbal commitment. It is possible that I am thinking of media reports but I'm pretty sure there were reports about the players who decommitted from PSU in the fall following the breaking of the Sandusky situation. It may well be that I am confusing news in the PSU student newspaper with material from the team website. I know the information was directly related to the university.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

Wasn't it Sam Goldwyn who said that an oral contract isn't
worth the paper it's printed on?

 

[HuskyNan]

My understanding is that it can go as far as confirming a player has made a verbal commitment. It is possible that I am thinking of media reports but I'm pretty sure there were reports about the players who decommitted from PSU in the fall following the breaking of the Sandusky situation. It may well be that I am confusing news in the PSU student newspaper with material from the team website. I know the information was directly related to the university.

I honestly think that schools' posting info about an oral commitment on its web site isn't allowed. See this article: Michigan players commit NCAA violation by tweeting congrats.

The violation stems from this NCAA Rule 13.10.2:

“Comments Before signing. Before the signing of a prospective student-athlete to a National Letter of Intent or an institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid, a member institution may comment publicly only to the extent of confirming its recruitment of the prospective student-athlete. The institution may not comment generally about the prospective student-athlete’s ability or the contribution that the prospective student-athlete might make to the institution’s team; further, the institution is precluded from commenting in any manner as to the likelihood of the prospective student-athlete’s signing with that institution.” (NCAA)​

(text bolded by me) Schools canNOT make any sort of comment that a recruit will sign with them which would include posting statements that a recruit has made an oral commitment. The rule makes sense. After all, since the oral is non-binding, the player's status as an unsigned recruit remains unchanged.

BTW, the blog entry mentions the NCAA "allowing" oral commitments. The NCAA doesn't regulate them at all because they're not an official instrument, just an announcement, so it neither allows nor disallows them. It was a goofy comment.

 

[Vowelguy]

Vowelguy, we have no idea how the situation came to be. .

You're right; we don't. But that has not prevented you from making dozens of posts about how terrible this situation is, how unfair it is to the kids, etc etc. You have made all these comments about how shady it is, but at the same time have tried to claim that you're not criticizing Hatchell. If the situation is as you describe, then she had 5 scholarship offers out even though she had 0 (or maye 1) open slots, and then was "caught off guard" when everyone accepted at once. Yeah, that's believable.

You can't make all these allegations of unfairness and then claim you don't know what happened and that you're not condemning the coach.

 

[Icebear]

I honestly think that schools' posting info about an oral commitment on its web site isn't allowed. See this article: Michigan players commit NCAA violation by tweeting congrats.

The violation stems from this NCAA Rule 13.10.2:

“Comments Before signing. Before the signing of a prospective student-athlete to a National Letter of Intent or an institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid, a member institution may comment publicly only to the extent of confirming its recruitment of the prospective student-athlete. The institution may not comment generally about the prospective student-athlete’s ability or the contribution that the prospective student-athlete might make to the institution’s team; further, the institution is precluded from commenting in any manner as to the likelihood of the prospective student-athlete’s signing with that institution.” (NCAA)​

(text bolded by me) Schools canNOT make any sort of comment that a recruit will sign with them which would include posting statements that a recruit has made an oral commitment. The rule makes sense. After all, since the oral is non-binding, the player's status as an unsigned recruit remains unchanged.

BTW, the blog entry mentions the NCAA "allowing" oral commitments. The NCAA doesn't regulate them at all because they're not an official instrument, just an announcement, so it neither allows nor disallows them. It was a goofy comment.

See my earlier post. "It is possible that I am thinking of media reports but I'm pretty sure there were reports about the players who decommitted from PSU in the fall following the breaking of the Sandusky situation." I realized I confused articles by the Penn State student paper with the team website. Plus there are team websites that are unaffiliated with the schools. It makes it very confusing. Thanks for sharing that further information.

 

[Icebear]

You're right; we don't. But that has not prevented you from making dozens of posts about how terrible this situation is, how unfair it is to the kids, etc etc. You have made all these comments about how shady it is, but at the same time have tried to claim that you're not criticizing Hatchell. If the situation is as you describe, then she had 5 scholarship offers out even though she had 0 (or maye 1) open slots, and then was "caught off guard" when everyone accepted at once. Yeah, that's believable.

You can't make all these allegations of unfairness and then claim you don't know what happened and that you're not condemning the coach.

Wake up, there were no allegations. I invite to list the dozens of posts where I have made attacks against Sylvia Hatchell. The situation is terrible and is unfair to the students already committed to and involved with the team. It is very easy to separate Sylvia Hatchell as a cause from this given the present information and the problem that must be resolved by her now and importance of handling the situation in an appropriate way. That you cannot do it is your problem.

 

[UCONNfan1]

i'm not sure i see what the HUGE deal is. sure they over recruited. it happens all the time in football. it happens sometimes in men's hoops. now it's happened on women's hoops.

do we villify kids like EDD or Gemelos or Harper who verbal to a school, then subsequently change their minds, even at apparenlty the very last minute which has the effect of preventing UCONN from recuiting anyone else? no.

now i realize the universities should be beld to a higher level of review, but let's face it. scholarships are technically only for 1 year. and verbals aren't worth the paper they are written on since either side can change their minds. Duke recruited OVER a kid who recently verbaled but she changed her mind after Williams committed (i believe that was the case).

i have no doubt that probably one or maybe 2 of the lower rated kids who already verbaled to UNC might change their minds. do i like it? no. will it hurt UNC in the future? maybe. but as long as they are doing it within the rules, then it's not "illegal".

Kids should be allowed to do what is in their best interest. and to a degree, i feel that universities should be allowed to do the same, provided they play within the rules.

If, as we suspect, UNC pulls back the offers to others in 2013 or "encourages" kids who are currently on the team to consider transferring, it's not THAT different from programs that recruit over the top of kids. don't you think Johnson would have stayed if we didn't have Tuck or Stewart coming in next year?

anyway, i'm sure i'm not going to convince anyone who feels one way or the other, but before we rush to judgment and crucify Hatchell, let's at least see how it plays out. and i'll be very curious to read the comments from the kids who do leave as to how it all comes about.

 

[Icebear]

As my mother and father used to say to me, "Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean it is right or good."

 

[Kibitzer]

Wasn't it Sam Goldwyn who said that an oral contract isn't
worth the paper it's printed on?

I think he (or some other wag) said that "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's NOT printed on."

I have a solution for UNC (that would surely please Maryland and Duke fans, at least). NCAA does the math, ignores oral commitments, counts only players and LOIs, sees more than 15 names on the roster, so then comes down hard on UNC: "Sylvia, your wcbb team is banned from NCAA tournaments from 2014 to 2017."

You can bet that there would be a stampede of Tarheel wcbb transfers.

 

[magical2]

WOW!!!! I happen to see this start on the internet as it became public! My ist reaction was oh s*** we didn't get DD!
There were threads and posts in recent weeks about not pressuring kids etal. I had felt that Taya was going to ND for sometime! As DD did not commit as time went by that the common belief of a lot of people in the know that she was
going to ultimately commit to U CONN begain to me to have increasing doubts. Maybe it was the "obcessive time" I spend
figuring out rosters,recruits,minutes/positions,from one minute to the next! LOL I meant one year to the next,but a "proverbial Freudian Slip" is appropriate since I do obcess and have note books filled with all of this! I admit that for a long time I figured it was going to work out as it has before! The U CONN system is special in so many ways! As has been said for many reasons it is not for everyone. The really GOOD players who are ready are going to get their minutes even w/o starting!
Most recently KML. I had thought for so many reasons it had come down to us!
As time went on and on I got to a point of questioning her committing to us! Bummer innitially I went through the 5 stages of Elizabeth Kubler Ross famous stages,process, and book! I was obcessing on having eliminated,DD,Taya,Macvunga, the early exploring of CD going out to Mercedes Russell school and over time realizing she was not interested in us!
I see now how/why GENO,CD etal were after McDaniel until the end. More to come!