Check out today's ESPN story - Kelly talks about accountability - asked about how he left UC and the team prior to Sugar Bowl, "I had to pay a million for buyout". Yeah that's accountability, when that was paid for by ND. I would've rather the reporter ask about his accountability to the players on that 12-0 team to be dumped like they were, lied to, etc. A million out of someone elses pocket to pay a buyout while destroying a perfect season and memory for those players is not what I would call being accountable.

Side note, it talks about Golsten also, but what is silly is that Kelly is taking claim to holding him accountable for that situation - yet it appears it is not a football related event that led to him not being enrolled in school. More than likely, kicked out for poor academics - moreso there's no accountability other than Golsten to himself for not getting it done, Kelly has no involvement in that.

As for the LOI, these kids and parents know the rules going in - it's not like they are secret. Coaches are playing by the rules, it's just in some cases, some coaches can be cool about a change of heart, others can be complete a-holes. Kelly happens to be one of the a-holes, this stuff happens all of the time. I find it kinda funny to see all of the ND transfers lately, makes you wonder what is going on up there.

(06-13-2013 08:53 AM)FLIP Wrote:  Check out today's ESPN story - Kelly talks about accountability - asked about how he left UC and the team prior to Sugar Bowl, "I had to pay a million for buyout". Yeah that's accountability, when that was paid for by ND. I would've rather the reporter ask about his accountability to the players on that 12-0 team to be dumped like they were, lied to, etc. A million out of someone elses pocket to pay a buyout while destroying a perfect season and memory for those players is not what I would call being accountable.

Side note, it talks about Golsten also, but what is silly is that Kelly is taking claim to holding him accountable for that situation - yet it appears it is not a football related event that led to him not being enrolled in school. More than likely, kicked out for poor academics - moreso there's no accountability other than Golsten to himself for not getting it done, Kelly has no involvement in that.

As for the LOI, these kids and parents know the rules going in - it's not like they are secret. Coaches are playing by the rules, it's just in some cases, some coaches can be cool about a change of heart, others can be complete a-holes. Kelly happens to be one of the a-holes, this stuff happens all of the time. I find it kinda funny to see all of the ND transfers lately, makes you wonder what is going on up there.

Resident Life used to be responsible for the discipline of student athletes at ND. Soon after BK was hired, the Resident Life director was fired, and BK now has more responsibility over this. Check out this article to read an interesting take on this.

Well that explains allot, wow, can't believe ND would allow Kelly to be mostly in charge of discipline of football players - yet says allot about their desire to win at all costs regardless of the black eyes ND has recently been hit with. Whatever Golsten did, it must have been pretty bad to get kicked out for a year.

I find that article and what ND did very disturbing, especially considering the case with the girl that committed suicide after being raped by a player - and the ensuing coverup by campus police, and said player being allowed to play entire season. Add all of the other off the field stuff under Kelly's reign, sure looks like a trainwreck up there. No wonder there is grumbling among the high dollar donors to get rid of him.

(06-11-2013 12:31 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  It's clear this rule is not in the best interest of the player.

Non-compete agreements aren't in the best interest of the employee.

Courts are often reluctant to enforce non-compete clauses if they impose an unreasonable hardship on the employee. They are judged based on their reasonableness in light of the circumstances of each case.

http://www.kkrlaw.com/articles/noncomp.htm

Point is, a coach can lie through his teeth to a recruit and leave in a heartbeat, but an 18 year old recruit can't take these realities into consideration and change his mind?

Maybe this recruit came to his senses and realized Kelly is a douche. Staying around Kelly is unreasonable hardship.

I rest my case.

Kelly's no better or worse than every other college football coach who'd have done the same thing. What if a chunk of recruits from most programs across the country decided in late July they wanted out of their LOI's because of (insert invalid reason here)? It would be chaos for everyone involved.

I don't consider it unreasonable, especially when transfers are required to sit out a year anyway. Once again, recruits can change their mind up until the point they sign an LOI, which doesn't even have to be signed in the first place. Oh, and at the end of the day, they're signing with the school.

(06-13-2013 05:14 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  Kelly's no better or worse than every other college football coach who'd have done the same thing. What if a chunk of recruits from most programs across the country decided in late July they wanted out of their LOI's because of (insert invalid reason here)? It would be chaos for everyone involved.

I don't consider it unreasonable, especially when transfers are required to sit out a year anyway. Once again, recruits can change their mind up until the point they sign an LOI, which doesn't even have to be signed in the first place. Oh, and at the end of the day, they're signing with the school.

No worse than the chaos of losing your head coach before the sugar bowl or walking out with a police escort at banquet or trying to salvage a recruit class and losing recruits in January.

No one feels sympathy for 48 year old millionaires who have their new school pay the buyout....and are doubling or tripling salaries.

Notre dame hasn't given this kid anything of value, and frankly ND isn't damaged here. They over recruit for positions every year anyway. They have 85 scholarship players. And can add 25 more the following year.

In a perfect world, coaching changes wouldn't occur until after a team's bowl game. With that said, I'm sure most schools would rather know sooner than later if they're going to lose a coach so they can quickly address the opening. If a coach leaves late, then you've got fans whining that he screwed them over by waiting until just before signing day.

The difference is that those are still recruits, whereas the ones in question are signed to the school. Oh, and schools that have a change in coaching staff come January still have time to recruit, often times poaching recruits from their list of commits from their previous school.

I'm sure he already had the playbook. And yes, they could have used a recruit of equal talent level had he decided against signing his LOI. Now that it's mid-June, they have no way to address the issue until next year's class. Like I said, imagine if that were the case for a chunk of recruits at most schools. Pure hell.

As others said, don't sign a letter of intent. As soon as it becaomes the cause of the day the top players will stop signing them. Only a matter of time.

(06-13-2013 04:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:31 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  It's clear this rule is not in the best interest of the player.

Non-compete agreements aren't in the best interest of the employee.

Courts are often reluctant to enforce non-compete clauses if they impose an unreasonable hardship on the employee. They are judged based on their reasonableness in light of the circumstances of each case.

http://www.kkrlaw.com/articles/noncomp.htm

Point is, a coach can lie through his teeth to a recruit and leave in a heartbeat, but an 18 year old recruit can't take these realities into consideration and change his mind?

Maybe this recruit came to his senses and realized Kelly is a douche. Staying around Kelly is unreasonable hardship.

I rest my case.

This is the only part that bothers me. Everything else, I think is actually a good system.

Coaches must pay a penalty if they break their contract. It's usually several hundred thousand dollars, and for big-time coaches it's over a million. Similarly, there is a penalty for kids who want to break their LOI. It can't be monetary (because that would raise all sorts of hell), so it has to be a penalty in the form of a non-compete clause.

Kids benefit from the LOI because it guarantees them funding. While I think it should be a 4-year guarantee with more "outs" for coaches who lie, it's still an ironclad guarantee for 1 year of compensation worth over $60,000 at ND (and more when you consider they pay for health insurance and a ridiculous amount of clothing).

It's important to note that if the kid breaks the LOI, he still gets free tuition at UCLA. He just gives up 1 year of football. Because he's supposed to be a student first, that's not that big of a penalty compared to what he gets in return. It's ironic that we bemoan how student-athletes play by different rules than other students, but complain when we actually try to treat them as students who play an extracurricular.


The key here is that there MUST be a penalty (and it must be enforced) or else an LOI is worthless. If you want an LOI to mean more than a verbal commitment, you have to be in favor of the non-compete clause. If you've got a better idea for a penalty, I'd love to hear it.

Making BK out to be the bad guy here is just a bleeding heart response to a system that provides enormous benefits for the student-athlete.

(06-18-2013 09:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 04:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:31 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  It's clear this rule is not in the best interest of the player.

Non-compete agreements aren't in the best interest of the employee.

Courts are often reluctant to enforce non-compete clauses if they impose an unreasonable hardship on the employee. They are judged based on their reasonableness in light of the circumstances of each case.

http://www.kkrlaw.com/articles/noncomp.htm

Point is, a coach can lie through his teeth to a recruit and leave in a heartbeat, but an 18 year old recruit can't take these realities into consideration and change his mind?

Maybe this recruit came to his senses and realized Kelly is a douche. Staying around Kelly is unreasonable hardship.

I rest my case.

This is the only part that bothers me. Everything else, I think is actually a good system.

Coaches must pay a penalty if they break their contract. It's usually several hundred thousand dollars, and for big-time coaches it's over a million. Similarly, there is a penalty for kids who want to break their LOI. It can't be monetary (because that would raise all sorts of hell), so it has to be a penalty in the form of a non-compete clause.

Kids benefit from the LOI because it guarantees them funding. While I think it should be a 4-year guarantee with more "outs" for coaches who lie, it's still an ironclad guarantee for 1 year of compensation worth over $60,000 at ND (and more when you consider they pay for health insurance and a ridiculous amount of clothing).

It's important to note that if the kid breaks the LOI, he still gets free tuition at UCLA. He just gives up 1 year of football. Because he's supposed to be a student first, that's not that big of a penalty compared to what he gets in return. It's ironic that we bemoan how student-athletes play by different rules than other students, but complain when we actually try to treat them as students who play an extracurricular.


The key here is that there MUST be a penalty (and it must be enforced) or else an LOI is worthless. If you want an LOI to mean more than a verbal commitment, you have to be in favor of the non-compete clause. If you've got a better idea for a penalty, I'd love to hear it.

Making BK out to be the bad guy here is just a bleeding heart response to a system that provides enormous benefits for the student-athlete.

I like your well-thought response. I guess the only part I would argue is that while the coach pays a monetary penalty, in the grand scheme of things the big money involved makes it a wash.

Is it really a "penalty" when a coach pays off the contract for $1M, then heads off to another job at double the salary?

If the system were remotely honest I'd agree with you, but since it is so corrupt, I see no reason to honor these "agreements."

A number of schools already give 4-year scholarships.

Allow me to preface this with the understanding that I am not an attorney and no one in their right mind would ever think of taking legal advice from me.

So......

Coaches negotiate contracts. There are penalties for both sides for violating the terms of the agreement. Both sides have a fair and equitable chance to negotiate. If the terms are too one sided or are perceived to be too onerous, both parties have an opportunity to not sign the agreement and to simply move on with life.

Now, let us look at the contract signed between a school and an athlete. Neither side has an opportunity to negotiate anything. The NCAA prescribes the standard “Letter of Intent” and allows no changes to it whatsoever. Make no mistake about it; the terms of these contracts are clearly and severely one-sided. If an athlete does not like the terms, their only option is to choose not play sports for any NCAA school. There is no option to negotiate with another school.

I would think that a fairly competent attorney should be able to present this argument in a court of competent jurisdiction and have the courts make null and void the terms of the agreement. The hitch is that many courts that would otherwise be deemed to have competent jurisdiction have shied away from any ruling involving NCAA agreements under the guidance that a quid pro quo exists in the form of an education. The fact is that the so-called "big time" schools do not allow athletes to sign up for a major that would truly bring value to the student. Therefore, a quid pro quo fails to exist.

Enough of my armchair barrister thoughts. Any real attorneys care to comment on whether courts should consider letters of intent to be non-binding, one-sided contracts?

Really shocked at how many people don't think LOI's should be binding or firm. IMO they help students.

This kid leaving ND free and clear would take away an opportunity for a kid that did want to play at Notre Dame, they have a limited # of scholarships available. If he leaves, then Notre Dame would be free to recruit anyone they want, maybe a UC player, that would put UC in a bind, and once again a player that wanted to go to UC may be out that was lower down the totem pole.

Doesn't there need to be some commitment from the kid? The later that commitment day is... the more other kids have to worry about their status, the longer everyone else has plans up in the air.

(06-18-2013 12:50 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Allow me to preface this with the understanding that I am not an attorney and no one in their right mind would ever think of taking legal advice from me.

So......

Coaches negotiate contracts. There are penalties for both sides for violating the terms of the agreement. Both sides have a fair and equitable chance to negotiate. If the terms are too one sided or are perceived to be too onerous, both parties have an opportunity to not sign the agreement and to simply move on with life.

Now, let us look at the contract signed between a school and an athlete. Neither side has an opportunity to negotiate anything. The NCAA prescribes the standard “Letter of Intent” and allows no changes to it whatsoever. Make no mistake about it; the terms of these contracts are clearly and severely one-sided. If an athlete does not like the terms, their only option is to choose not play sports for any NCAA school. There is no option to negotiate with another school.

I would think that a fairly competent attorney should be able to present this argument in a court of competent jurisdiction and have the courts make null and void the terms of the agreement. The hitch is that many courts that would otherwise be deemed to have competent jurisdiction have shied away from any ruling involving NCAA agreements under the guidance that a quid pro quo exists in the form of an education. The fact is that the so-called "big time" schools do not allow athletes to sign up for a major that would truly bring value to the student. Therefore, a quid pro quo fails to exist.

Enough of my armchair barrister thoughts. Any real attorneys care to comment on whether courts should consider letters of intent to be non-binding, one-sided contracts?

Contracts in which one side has substantially all the bargaining power are called adhesion contracts. Adhesion contracts are sometimes found to be non-binding on the non-drafting party. However, in this case the athlete is not really forced to sign an LOI with a particular university, and the LOI doesn't force the student to attend the university in question (e.g., he can just decide not to play). So, I don't know if this argument would carry the day in court with regard to getting out of an LOI for one university just so that the student could go play football for another university.

back2vinyl, thanks for the input. As you can tell, no one should take legal advice from me!

If the COACH had to sit out an unpaid year, I'd agree about enforcing the players' letters of intent. I also think this would stop a lot of the turmoil we see with the coaching carousel and reduce the pain of lying coaches who recruit players then take the next plane out of town.

That's completely unreasonable and unrealistic. As has been repeated numerous times, prospects are committing to the University they sign with, not the coaching staff. If they choose to sign a LOI, they're expected to fulfill their contractual obligations to the school if they violate it, just as a coach has to do. Just because one is a financial penalty doesn't change things.

Coaches will always have to break a contract when taking a new position because of how recruiting works.

(06-19-2013 11:38 AM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  That's completely unreasonable and unrealistic. As has been repeated numerous times, prospects are committing to the University they sign with, not the coaching staff. If they choose to sign a LOI, they're expected to fulfill their contractual obligations to the school if they violate it, just as a coach has to do. Just because one is a financial penalty doesn't change things.

Coaches will always have to break a contract when taking a new position because of how recruiting works.

And when the new coach comes in he doesn't have to honor the agreements with the players. And that is reasonable and realistic?

(06-18-2013 04:01 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:50 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Allow me to preface this with the understanding that I am not an attorney and no one in their right mind would ever think of taking legal advice from me.

So......

Coaches negotiate contracts. There are penalties for both sides for violating the terms of the agreement. Both sides have a fair and equitable chance to negotiate. If the terms are too one sided or are perceived to be too onerous, both parties have an opportunity to not sign the agreement and to simply move on with life.

Now, let us look at the contract signed between a school and an athlete. Neither side has an opportunity to negotiate anything. The NCAA prescribes the standard “Letter of Intent” and allows no changes to it whatsoever. Make no mistake about it; the terms of these contracts are clearly and severely one-sided. If an athlete does not like the terms, their only option is to choose not play sports for any NCAA school. There is no option to negotiate with another school.

I would think that a fairly competent attorney should be able to present this argument in a court of competent jurisdiction and have the courts make null and void the terms of the agreement. The hitch is that many courts that would otherwise be deemed to have competent jurisdiction have shied away from any ruling involving NCAA agreements under the guidance that a quid pro quo exists in the form of an education. The fact is that the so-called "big time" schools do not allow athletes to sign up for a major that would truly bring value to the student. Therefore, a quid pro quo fails to exist.

Enough of my armchair barrister thoughts. Any real attorneys care to comment on whether courts should consider letters of intent to be non-binding, one-sided contracts?

Contracts in which one side has substantially all the bargaining power are called adhesion contracts. Adhesion contracts are sometimes found to be non-binding on the non-drafting party. However, in this case the athlete is not really forced to sign an LOI with a particular university, and the LOI doesn't force the student to attend the university in question (e.g., he can just decide not to play). So, I don't know if this argument would carry the day in court with regard to getting out of an LOI for one university just so that the student could go play football for another university.

Maybe they also get away with not having LOI's considered adhesion contracts because an athlete doesn't have to sign an LOI at all. If they elect not to sign an NLI/LOI they aren't bound to any decision until they actually enroll and then the usual NCAA rules regarding transfers apply.

I have no idea why people agree to sign NLI/LOI's. I can't see there is anything gained for them to do so. And what is the consideration given? The promise of a scholarship? That scholarship promise is revokable by the school, without any penalty. Revoking the commitment to attend the school carries a huge penalty for the athlete.

Anything can happen - a key assistant that you wanted to work with can leave. Players you wanted to play with could get thrown off the team or leave early for the pros. The program could recruit and bring in several more people at your position without telling you AFTER you sign.

Makes no sense to agree to that at all.

As others said, don't sign a letter of intent. As soon as it becomes the cause of the day the top players will stop signing them. Only a matter of time.