What makes me wonder about all this | Page 4 | The Boneyard

What makes me wonder about all this

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good for UNC and best of luck to the recruits. I hope Hatchell knows what to do with all that talent. It would be nice to see UNC back in the spotlight. UCONN will be fine! I still think UNC has a long way to go get to UCONN's level.

GO UCONN!!!
 
Kibitzer said:
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.
Expand ...


Works for me :cool:
 
vowelguy said:
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.
Expand ...

Dozens? You must have added up all the posts critisizing the situation and attributed them all to Icebear.

It IS a terrible situation for the 12 players that will be on the roster in 2013. If more of the verbals in 2013 prior to the "big 4" don't open their recruitment then some of the current players will not have their scholarships renewed. That sucks.

And you can have many offers out. But you don't have to accept them if it puts you over the limit.

It's a valid opinion to think this stinks. Not sure why you can't accept that without insulting posters for having that opinion.
 
All the conjecture on liability is missing one big factor: The correspondence between the recruit and the school. If a player commits orally, I believe the school will respond in writing telling the player, thanks for your interest, but we can't make any commitment because the NCAA rules state, etc. Once an LOI is signed, in fact I'll bet the LOI includes wording that tells the recruit exactly what the legal ramifications are when the recruit signs, including what the school can do to get out of the contract.

So, there is no possibility of the player winning a lawsuit because they have already signed away their rights to sue. No school would leave themselves open to legal peril.

Now, whether it is ethical to invoke the contact terms that allow letting a player go, that is a different problem, a Public Relations problem, not a legal one. That's my opinion, and if you don't like it, sue me. ;)
 
magical2 said:
I see now how/why GENO,CD etal were after McDaniel until the end. More to come!
Expand ...
No they weren't. Geno pulled the scholly offer when it was clear Xylina was unsure she wanted to come to UConn.
 
doggydaddy said:
If more of the verbals in 2013 prior to the "big 4" don't open their recruitment then some of the current players will not have their scholarships renewed. That sucks..
Expand ...

I agree.

It's a valid opinion to think this stinks.
Expand ...

Show me where I say it isnt.

As I said in the other post, if you think it sucks then agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the head coach. To simulatenously rant and rave about how unfair this is but then claim "oh but I'm not criticizing the coach" is disingenuous.
 
.-.
HuskyNan said:
No they weren't. Geno pulled the scholly offer when it was clear Xylina was unsure she wanted to come to UConn.
Expand ...
Nan I know that it! The limit on time cut out the second half of my post! The point I was making is that we were willing to take a 4th recruit X,until it became apparent to him that she was unsure she wanted to be a HUSKIE! At that point he was clear the game was over for him with her.
I will retype the 2nd half of my post tomorrow! I will comment that amongst that group of players that decided to verbal along with the coaches some one knew in this day in age that it was going to put them over the 15 limit,not by 1,but by at least 4!!!! Actually I had thought it was 5! I was watching the internet as it came down ist DD,with more to come! LOL I was able to count to 15;) I had hoped in the past that DD would be a catalyst for recruiting for this class and next years! Of course that would not have have created the #s issue they have at NC! They loaded up it will be interesting how it plays out and the future fallout if any! My feelings are bring them on:)
Of course you recruit more than you will get because you do not know what will happen! But everyone knows the limit of 15.
It will get worked out in the various ways that have been documented here! What it has created I think is the potential for some backlash! What is an impressive hall of kids is a potential public nightmare!
Ira
 
UCONNfan1 said:
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.
Expand ...

You convinced me...oh wait...I was already convinced.
 
"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."


In the world of my mind's eye, Universities have a far greater responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the student. When we send our “kids” off the college, this expectation should me fundamental, and met.
 
The selling her soul hypothesis has an interesting, plausable, variation noted by vowelguy: That Sylvia did not orchestrate the events, that the entire matter was to paraphrase the title of a wonderful book; The Girl(s) Who Fell From The Sky.
If that reading is correct than the entire nature of the program at UNC may change with the student athletes participating in administering practices, substitution patterns, game strategy. Can you imagine?

On the matter of Sylvia's age...folks, wake up. Lots of seniors are returning to key positions or never retiring. I've been hearing that 70 is the new 55. With her style of coaching, she could go on forever.
 
msf22b said:
The selling her soul hypothesis has an interesting, plausable, variation noted by vowelguy: That Sylvia did not orchestrate the events, that the entire matter was to paraphrase the title of a wonderful book; The Girl(s) Who Fell From The Sky.
If that reading is correct than the entire nature of the program at UNC may change with the student athletes participating in administering practices, substitution patterns, game strategy. Can you imagine?

On the matter of Sylvia's age...folks, wake up. Lots of seniors are returning to key positions or never retiring. I've been hearing that 70 is the new 55. With her style of coaching, she could go on forever.
Expand ...

Hatchell might not have orchestrate the events. I can buy that. But how she handles the newly found riches of talent and impacts young women's lives will tell a lot about her and how important winning is as opposed to being "ethical".

There will be players that she recruited, told them she wanted them, spent time with their families and now will be telling them that because someone can play better, you will have to leave. It's different than recruiting over someone and putting them on the bench.

We shall see how it shakes out.
 
There will be players that she recruited, told them she wanted them, spent time with their families and now will be telling them that because someone can play better, you will have to leave. It's different than recruiting over someone and putting them on the bench.

Excellent point.

 
.-.
I've seen several references to Hatchell's age. She and Geno are not that far apart in age so I am wondering if some think that it is an issue for Hatchell when will it become an issue for Geno? I see no reason that Hatchell, or Geno, cannot coach another 10 years if they wants. Does anyone think that Pat would not have coached until 70 if not for her diagnosis?
 
easttexastrash said:
I've seen several references to Hatchell's age. She and Geno are not that far apart in age so I am wondering if some think that it is an issue for Hatchell when will it become an issue for Geno?
Expand ...
No, it's pure snark.
 
I have mentioned Hatchell's age in the context of recruiting reputation.

Some of have argued that over-recruiting (if that is indeed what happened) is career suicide since it kills your reputation with future recruits.

I replied that's only relevant if you have a lot of years of recruiting left. When DeShields et al graduate Hatchell will be 65. It certainly is conceivable that this could be her last hurrah, and then she retires.

She certainly could stay longer. I was merely pointing out that any coach - indeed any employee really - cares less about the long-term ramifications of their actions as s/he approach retirement.
 
vowelguy said:
I have mentioned Hatchell's age in the context of recruiting reputation.

Some of have argued that over-recruiting (if that is indeed what happened) is career suicide since it kills your reputation with future recruits.

I replied that's only relevant if you have a lot of years of recruiting left. When DeShields et al graduate Hatchell will be 65. It certainly is conceivable that this could be her last hurrah, and then she retires.

She certainly could stay longer. I was merely pointing out that any coach - indeed any employee really - cares less about the long-term ramifications of their actions as s/he approach retirement.
Expand ...
What you said was:

vowelguy said:
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.
Expand ...
​
That implies she's nearing the end of her career. At least that was what I read.​
 
.-.
Bestiarius said:
All the conjecture on liability is missing one big factor: The correspondence between the recruit and the school. If a player commits orally, I believe the school will respond in writing telling the player, thanks for your interest, but we can't make any commitment because the NCAA rules state, etc. Once an LOI is signed, in fact I'll bet the LOI includes wording that tells the recruit exactly what the legal ramifications are when the recruit signs, including what the school can do to get out of the contract.

So, there is no possibility of the player winning a lawsuit because they have already signed away their rights to sue. No school would leave themselves open to legal peril.
Expand ...


1. Schools rarely, if ever, respond in writing and say they can't make any commitment due to NCAA rules etc. That might happen once in ten thousand cases, but that would almost certainly chase the player away from their commitment immediately. If the school responds in writing it might be to simply talk about the NLI process and the contract that both parties will be signing. The great majority of schools will not walk away from a verbal commitment that they have accepted - other than for the type of reasons that are in the NLI (see below).

2. The NLI is a standard form used by all schools. It lists the reasons that the LOI may become null and void. The complete list:

A. Athlete is denied admission. (But the athlete has recourse if he/she clearly meets the school's normal admission standards for athletes but was rejected because it didn't want to honor the NLI.)
B. Athlete doesn't meet NCAA, conference, or school requirements.
C. Athlete does not enroll in any two or four-year school for at least one full academic year.
D. Athlete opts to serve on a church mission or in the U.S. Armed Forces.
E. The school discontinues the sport.
F. A major recruiting violation involving the athlete is discovered.


If a school voided a NLI for some reason other than the six listed above, they definitely could be sued.
 
doggydaddy said:
I totally agree. Heck, she is basically my age and I'm no where near ready to retire. She seems to have plenty of energy.
Expand ...


I didnt realize there were so many senior citizens on this board.. perhaps I should change to a bigger font:p
 
HuskyNan said:
What you said was:

​
That implies she's nearing the end of her career. At least that was what I read.​
Expand ...

She _is_ nearing the end of her career. Pretty much every 60 year old is.
When DD graduates, she'll have coached 41 years.
If you thought I was saying more, I apologize for the misunderstanding, because I wasnt.
 
HuskyNan you put a mecifulend to the other DD thread, maybe it's time to put this one to bed as well. Just sayin'
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,329
Messages
4,564,364
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom