What makes me wonder about all this | Page 2 | The Boneyard

What makes me wonder about all this

Status
Not open for further replies.
HuskyNan said:
I'm normally a patient person but even I have limits. And if something around me becomes too high maintenance, I get rid of it. I'm a terror in my household when it's Closet Cleaning Day.
Expand ...


...Mom? (need angel smiley here)
 
justML said:
You're close to taking out the "Trash"; so to speak.

:)
Expand ...
Oh, great idea! Trash has been taken out. It was starting to smell bad, even to my now completely absent sense of smell.
 
RadyLady said:
I gotta tell you, I find I like the regular season much, much, better...
:cool:
Expand ...

I do too.... but at least in the off season I can do fun things like.... go on dates :)
 
It's not about UNC signing the best players. It's about NUMBERS...IF nobody is forced to leave, they will have 19 players on their roster...What is so hard to understand about that? If they force 4 players to transfer, then hatchell is dirty. Maybe not in the eyes of the NCAA, technically, but dirty nonetheless.

easttexastrash said:
Remind me what it is that another university is going to be pissed about? That they weren't able to get the top talent in the nation like UNC did? Are teams pissed at UCONN for having KML, Stewart, Jefferson and Tuck to the point that they won't schedule UCONN? All of the coaches should be pissed at Geno for continuing to recruit the top talent when he already has many of the best players in the nation?

This is becoming more and more laughable as the shock sets in. If this group of girls had all joined together to commit to UCONN on the same day everyone would be applauding them for having the common sense to want to play for Geno and go to a university where they knew that they could win a championship.
Expand ...
 
.-.
Shenandoah said:
It's not about UNC signing the best players. It's about NUMBERS...IF nobody is forced to leave, they will have 19 players on their roster...What is so hard to understand about that? If they force 4 players to transfer, then hatchell is dirty. Maybe not in the eyes of the NCAA, technically, but dirty nonetheless.
Expand ...
Apparently, he'd rather argue a straw man.
 
easttexastrash said:
I like the idea of drawing straws to see who gets a scholarship and who doesn't.
Expand ...

If you had a son or daughter who played, or were a recruit yourself, you might not be so cavalier. Sticking with the one you brought to the dance is far different than going home with someone new.

 
I will add another consideration. If my child has made a commitment and received affirmation of the school of that commitment and I then begin making plans on the basis of that oral contract that leads to incurring expenses I consider suing the school for breech of oral contract and recovery of my expenses.

Barristers and thoughts. Others.
 
Icebear said:
I will add another consideration. If my child has made a commitment and received affirmation of the school of that commitment and I then begin making plans on the basis of that oral contract that leads to incurring expenses I consider suing the school for breech of oral contract and recovery of my expenses.

Barristers and thoughts. Others.
Expand ...

I can see something really ugly happening. Especially since there are 3-5 different families that will be effected.
 
Icebear said:
I will add another consideration. If my child has made a commitment and received affirmation of the school of that commitment and I then begin making plans on the basis of that oral contract that leads to incurring expenses I consider suing the school for breech of oral contract and recovery of my expenses.

Barristers and thoughts. Others.
Expand ...
School: We're sorry this happened and of course would love to pick up all of your expenses, but our lawyers tell us those uncaring people at NCAA will not allow it!
 
.-.
Can a university agree to continue providing an academic scholarship if a player is cut from the team? Is it possible that the university can say "we will honor our commitment to provide you with a scholarship to attend our university but you will not be on the basketball team"? If the university were to do that would they be viewed as meeting their commitment since athletic scholarships are a year-by-year commitment?

Is this a solution that UNC may be considering? I assume that this has happened in the case of injuries.
 
Icebear said:
I will add another consideration. If my child has made a commitment and received affirmation of the school of that commitment and I then begin making plans on the basis of that oral contract that leads to incurring expenses I consider suing the school for breech of oral contract and recovery of my expenses.

Barristers and thoughts. Others.
Expand ...
Once again, oral commitments are non-binding on either party. If a family incurs some kind of large expense based on the announcement of a 17 year old that she wants to attend a certain college, I don't see any way the college is responsible for that expense. Even with the scholarship offer. It is only an offer; the school can decide not to honor that offer which sucks big time for the kid but, unfortunately, it's allowable. College football is rife with examples of schools pulling scholly offers years after a kid makes an oral commitment. It's nasty but it breaks no rules.

Iowa rescinds scholarship offer (offer rescinded January 28; football signing day began February 1)
Here's a men's basketball example
A football player loses his scholly offer because the school didn't like his Tweets
 
I understand that, Nan, but presumably that would need to be made clear to the recruit at the time of the commitment being "received." NCAA rules are vastly different than legal possibilities. If a school specifically accepts my commitment without informing me that it is completely non-binding and by the way we may turnaround and yank it on you then I would think there may be some legal basis. That's why I asked for lawyers' thoughts. NCAA rules define what they will not interfere with not contract law.
 
Icebear said:
I understand that, Nan, but presumably that would need to be made clear to the recruit at the time of the commitment being "received." NCAA rules are vastly different than legal possibilities. If a school specifically accepts my commitment without informing me that it is completely non-binding and by the way we may turnaround and yank it on you then I would think there may be some legal basis. That's why I asked for lawyers' thoughts. NCAA rules define what they will not interfere with not contract law.
Expand ...
Commitments aren't "received". They're nothing. They're teenagers telling someone they want to go to a school. The oral commitment has no weight, no meaning. I could make an oral commitment to UConn today - it would be as as meaningful as the announcement made by the kids over the weekend.

The school has no responsibility to honor that oral commitment, the same way the kid has no responsibility. If a girl committed to, say, UConn today then signed her LOI for Rutgers in November without telling anyone she was going to do so, there is no penalty. That's because an oral commitment is non-binding.
 
JS said:
How's your vertical leap?
Expand ...
Not as good as it used to be but I'm a pest on defense.

Two-old-ladies-playing-basketball.jpg
 
.-.
HuskyNan said:
Not as good as it used to be but I'm a pest on defense.
Expand ...
Then I hereby issue an equally nonbinding commitment um . . . promise . . . conditional intimation that there will . . . could possibly would be a scholarship for you if you should . . . we allow you to it should come to pass that you sign a National Letter of Intent.

Welcome to UConn Congratulations on your good taste in choosing approaching a school.

JS, for the Athletic Department
 
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.
 
Icebear said:
#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.
Expand ...
 
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.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
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.
Expand ...

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."
 
Icebear said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
JS said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
JS said:
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.
Expand ...


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?
 
JS said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,329
Messages
4,564,374
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom