UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[iam416]

Awful.

[hack]

Its that hard for you to just be clear about things?

[hack]

I guess so. I mean, look -- we're in a sports forum, not a court. We're just a group of fans talking, so you can drop the litigator approach and there's no consequence to being honest. You won't face sanctions or some other real-world penalty. Nobody's gonna come after your football program or anything. The most you'd face is some razzing here, but you do that anyways.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I disagree that the LOI is an equivalent of a non compete. There's not a jurisdiction in the US that I am aware of that would find a non compete that prevented a person from working for a year in their profession to be enforceable.

It's also potentially fraudulent inducement of sorts given that a player is induced to sign the LOI based on the promises that a certain coach would be coaching them at the college. And then that coach leaves immediately. That seems a little bit of a lie.

That said, I'm speaking more widely than Weber. What about ND's RB recruits? They just lost thier coach too. Personally, I think NLI's should be voided for any player whose position coach, coordinator or head coach leaves the school between Signing day and enrolling.

[hack]

between Signing day and enrolling

Sounds extreme, but, then again, there's a hiring season for coaches, and maybe signing day should come after that. It's not ideal to move signing day back, but maybe have an early one and a late one, so guys can lock in if they want, and a second one closer to spring practice, so you can put a stop to most of the deceitful practices. Or just put clauses in the existing LOI. Seems like there's an easy solution here if one is wanted by the powers that be.

[Jeff Buchanan]

This was just getting good.

Have to admit Hack, I'm not sure how you were defining leverage but, to me that leverage involves transparency or the lack of it on the part of the program pursuing a recruit with regard to implied or written stipulations.

For example, if a program has knowledge of a coach seeking employment elsewhere and they do not disclose this to the recruit during a defined period of the signing process of the LOI, the LOI is void if a coach leaves during a defined period after the LOI is signed. If the program informs the recruit of a possible job change for a coach and the attendant risks to the recruit are explained and understood, and the recruit signs anyway, too bad so sad, the LOI has to be honored.

I think talent is right. A lot of this problem goes away with a well executed early signing period for football where performance stipulations for both sides in a contract are clear. You can call it similar to an employment contract in its intent - i.e, binding both parties to stipulated performance. I also think SLF is right in identifying the current LOI as unfairly one sided in this regard.

[iam416]

There's not a jurisdiction in the US that I am aware of that would find a non compete that prevented a person from working for a year in their profession to be enforceable.

The states in which I've enforced non-competes allow up to 2 years (Georgia, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan off the top of my head). Depends on the circumstances. 1 year is eminently reasonable -- all day long. Except in California. Heh. The 1-yr sit down is actually very similar to a non-compete. Including the ability of the player to do a similar job at a non-competing level (FCS).

It's also potentially fraudulent inducement of sorts given that a player is induced to sign the LOI based on the promises that a certain coach would be coaching them at the college.

You would need an affirmative statement with a specific intent to deceive. Even in the Weber situation you could lawyer that up (it was possible he may leave, but he didn't interview until Thursday and didn't receive an offer until after he interviewed). If you lower the standard to something less that fraud -- something on the order of misleading -- then the question is -- why stop with coaching changes? "We're only going to sign one TE." "You will not redshirt." "I'm going to play you at QB." Think of all the affirmative representations recruiters make. If they're later found untrue and made with an intent to deceive, does that void a LOI? What about negative recruiting?

Personally, I think NLI's should be voided for any player whose position coach, coordinator or head coach leaves the school between Signing day and enrolling.

Why just position coach? Ohio State recruits by region. So will JH. Coaches will be tasked with developing relationships for a given region. It may be that a recruit is actually closest with that coach. Demetrius Knox, a kid from Texas, loved Coach Herman and eventually got to know Coach Warriner, his position coach. But it was Herman who got him to Columbus.

Also, why just until enrolling? Is there a principled reason for that date? Probably not. Is a kid any less put out if the coach leaves 1 day after the kid enrolled than 1 day before the kid enrolled. For me it's not a problem. I want a date certain. NLOID is perfectly fine in that regard.

Finally does a failure to satisfy expectations not contracted for justify breaking a contract? If I'm a University and that's your position then I say fine, if you're not as good as we thought you were, we can cut you. If you don't show up with the right attitude, we can cut you. If you're anything short of what we thought we were getting, we can cut you.

Here's a starting point:

The University is holding one of its limited scholarship spots for you and guaranteeing a financial package worth well over $100,000 in most cases. What is sufficient consideration flowing back to the University to justify that? As a University, I would want some sort of reciprocity. If I'm giving you a 4-year commitment, I want one back. If you have lots of loopholes to break your commitment, I want the same.

[The Oracle]

Exactly. Position coaches should be nowhere near included in that. Coordinators too, IMO. Commit to the HC and/or the school, not guys who are constantly looking to upgrade their resume.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks talent .... yeah, it gets complicated and the rule of unintended consequences is going to be a troublesome player.

[iam416]

I also think the absolute best way to do it for athletes is to: (a) remove all restrictions on the types of consideration a University can provide an athlete; (b) remove all scholarship limits: and (c) allow each individual player to contract with the University.

5* athletes would command a huge price. With no restrictions on scholarships, schools like OSU and M could bid on tons of 3* kids. Money would flow to the athletes. In exchange, the University would contract with the kids on a negotiated basis. If you get a 2-yr sitdown maybe you get an extra $20,000. Standard negotiation.

[Jeff Buchanan]

....... Here's a starting point:

The University is holding one of its limited scholarship spots for you and guaranteeing a financial package worth well over $100,000 in most cases. What is sufficient consideration flowing back to the University to justify that? As a University, I would want some sort of reciprocity. If I'm giving you a 4-year commitment, I want one back. If you have lots of loopholes to break your commitment, I want the same.

This makes a very clear point, namely there needs to be reciprocity in the agreement between program and recruit.

If you take that position, would you be willing to more broadly but with limits define the performance of each party? I understand the "why stop here" argument but I can see some leeway in further stipulating more precisely what both the school and the recruit have to do..... like in an employment contract, which in my experience is very precise with regards to performance of both parties.

[SeattleLionsFan]

But players have much more contact with the position coach than the head coach. And the coordinator sets the system the player will play in.

And talent I am shocked that Michigan would enforce a non compete that prevents an employee from earning a living in their profession anywhere in the country for two years. Maybe two years in a specific area but nationwide?

[Da Geezer]

"I also think the absolute best way to do it for athletes is to: (a) remove all restrictions on the types of consideration a University can provide an athlete; (b) remove all scholarship limits: and (c) allow each individual player to contract with the University."

I was reading the whole discussion and was about to write just about the same thing that Talent just said. I AGREE. It bears mentioning that most of the problems that we are talking about arise from the (1) crazy limitations placed on the number of scholarships. (2) the propaganda that this is amateur and no significant money changes hands (3) that most colleges lose money on their football programs

When Mike Weber signs at OSU, the athletic dept is debited say $ 40,000, full boat for out of state student tuition and books, the the college general fund is credited that amount. That is not real and is a big lie. The marginal cost of adding one more student to a college the size of OSU is very close to zero. There is equipment, coaching, and maybe better food, but that is minimal compared to what Mike produces.

Keep the money that football produces segregated, and go hire your team.

Another advantage of employing football players is that it gets everyone out from under Title IX. I think it is great that women's sports other than cheer leading are now available, but there are few Class C boys HS basketball teams in Michigan that would lose to the UM women's team. There are NO Class A teams that would lose, even with the smaller ball the women use.

[hack]

Either way, clearly it's not hard to find a system in which 100% of leverage flips in one day.

[iam416]

And talent I am shocked that Michigan would enforce a non compete that prevents an employee from earning a living in their profession anywhere in the country for two years. Maybe two years in a specific area but nationwide?

SLF, the two that I did in Michigan were regional and we settled for 12 and 18 months. If the company is regional, then yes, a nationwide non-compete won't fly. Also, 2 years is typically the max a court will enforce in most states. Personally, I found it to be a really unappealing area -- enforcing silly non-competes against employees with marginal resources. Blah. I can recall one legit, serious case. And roughly a dozen "message" cases.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate your point of view. My simple take on the whole thing would be that it's not a big enough issue to prompt change; kids are resilient, get over it and move on; and implementation could be really dicey.