Here's some interesting news. I have a feeling this isn't the last ruling on how colleges do business in athletics...

CBS sports Wrote:Marist-JMU case may alter handling of coaching deals
By Gary Parrish
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
July 20, 2010

The decision was made public Monday with zero national headlines.

Nothing over at ESPN.com.

Nothing in USA Today.

Nothing here.

And yet a quote from an attorney representing the plaintiff, Marist College, suggested the ruling handed down by New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood might lead to many national headlines. "This case could well set a precedent for college and university athletics," Marist attorney Paul O. Sullivan said in a released statement. "Coaches have to abide by contracts, and other institutions have to respect those agreements. If that contract is breached, damages will be assessed. It's a simple lesson in fiduciary responsibility and contractual obligation.”

The first sentence from that quote -- This case could well set a precedent for college and university athletics -- makes the 11-page ruling involving Marist, James Madison and the coach (Matt Brady) who left the former for the latter worth addressing here. It's a ruling that should be a warning to all college coaches and schools pursuing college coaches that almost every contract has fine print, and that the days of violating the fine print without repercussions are over if the school being left opts to pursue damages.

Which is exactly what Marist did here.

The background is that Brady signed a new contract with Marist in 2008 shortly before engaging in talks with and eventually accepting the same job at James Madison. Marist contended Brady's contract required him to receive written consent before negotiating with another school and forbade him from offering "a scholarship to current Marist basketball players or to any persons that he or his staff recruited to play at Marist" if he ever took another job.

Brady clearly negotiated with James Madison without "written" consent, and Marist compiled a list of 19 prospects Brady once recruited on behalf of Marist that it believed he should've been unable to recruit to James Madison per the details of his contract. (Four players on that list -- Julius Wells, Trevon Flores, Andrey Semenov and Devon Moore -- ultimately signed with James Madison.) Long story shortened, Marist filed a lawsuit against James Madison and the Commonwealth of Virginia in July 2009. On Monday, it was announced that Judge Wood has ruled in favor of Marist's claims that Brady had an enforceable contract when he discussed leaving Marist with James Madison, that James Madison knew of the contract's existence, that James Madison intentionally induced Brady to violate his fiduciary obligations under the contract, and that Marist suffered damages as a result of the breach of those obligations.

Brady has yet to offer comment on the ruling.

Marist has a separate civil suit against him still pending.

So let this be a lesson for all coaches and every school that will spend next March and April pursuing other schools' coaches. Sports contracts have details about what can and cannot be done that are ignored annually, but, turns out, those details do not have to be ignored. What Marist has shown is that if a strong president and athletic director want to seek damages for a breach of contract by a coach, they can seek damages for a breach of contract by a coach. What Marist has also shown is that the case can be won.

Damages are expected to be assessed next week.

For more from Gary Parrish, check him out on Twitter: @GaryParrishCBS

I have always been puzzled why you don't see the blatant coach poaching in the professional ranks as you see in college athletics. For example, in the NFL the Tampa Bay Bucs had to trade two first round and second round draft picks to be able to negotiate terms with Jon Gruden. Similar situation occurred with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to obtain the "rights" to Lou Pinella.

I doubt this will stop the coaching carousel but it will definitely impact contract negotiations as coaches on the rise may demand less money for more flexibility or some schools may pay more in order to secure coaching services. In situations like the Lane Kiffin's where he split after less than one season, I could see a powerful school like Tennessee holding the poaching school accountable based on this ruling. Dirro for Coach Kelly leaving damaged UC's chances in the Sugar Bowl last year.

It will certainly be interesting to see the impact.

That it will, Cyber. That it will...

(07-21-2010 09:51 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  I have always been puzzled why you don't see the blatant coach poaching in the professional ranks as you see in college athletics. For example, in the NFL the Tampa Bay Bucs had to trade two first round and second round draft picks to be able to negotiate terms with Jon Gruden. Similar situation occurred with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to obtain the "rights" to Lou Pinella.

The NFL, NBA, and MLB are for most intents and purposes one entity, and can enforce rules as such. They have rules that you are not allowed to talk with contracted head coaches without penalty. I beleive Bill Parcels had some clause in his assistants' contract that forbade them from being interviewed while under contract, and had somethingn to do with why Bill Belechick had to wait so long to be a head coach, and why Belechick's assistants had to wait so long (I am unsure of the exact details of why).

In college, no one cares about screwing over another team.

(07-21-2010 09:58 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That it will, Cyber. That it will...

Too bad, this ruling didn't happen two years ago. DickRod would be paying you guys alimony. LOL!

He is paying us, although Michigan paid a big chunk of it. The first half-million has already been received, and the 2nd half million is due shortly...