Calipari and the LOI: a discussion of recruiting ethics

[Wheat/"/"/"]

When reading this article the other day that had a little Wall info, I noticed the following little diddy and meant to bring it up here....

"...both Henry and Nolan Dennis, the 10th-rated shooting guard in the class, had signed National Letters of Intent with the Tigers that conveniently contained clauses allowing them to be released if Calipari took another job. "I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us."

Now, if I was the AD at Memphis, paying Calipari millions to look out for his employer, ya think I'd be a little PO'd?

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

[jipops]

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Seriously, like there haven't been some already.

[FerryFor50]

When reading this article the other day that had a little Wall info, I noticed the following little diddy and meant to bring it up here....

"...both Henry and Nolan Dennis, the 10th-rated shooting guard in the class, had signed National Letters of Intent with the Tigers that conveniently contained clauses allowing them to be released if Calipari took another job. "I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us."

Now, if I was the AD at Memphis, paying Calipari millions to look out for his employer, ya think I'd be a little PO'd?

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Integrity and Calipari are never supposed to be in the same sentence.

[roywhite]

When reading this article the other day that had a little Wall info, I noticed the following little diddy and meant to bring it up here....

"...both Henry and Nolan Dennis, the 10th-rated shooting guard in the class, had signed National Letters of Intent with the Tigers that conveniently contained clauses allowing them to be released if Calipari took another job. "I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us."

Now, if I was the AD at Memphis, paying Calipari millions to look out for his employer, ya think I'd be a little PO'd?

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Well, Calipari has certainly been accused of being slippery, but apparently this has been a practice at Memphis for a while as far as a pre-executed release from the LOI.

I heard a reporter on Dan Patrick's radio show talk about it, during the time Calipari's name was coming up for the UK job. When kids signed their LOI, they also would sign another document saying Memphis would release them from the commitment in the event of the coach leaving. The document was not a part of the national LOI itself, which apparently is pretty standard. But Memphis agreed to using a pre-authorized release document for Calipari's recruits. According to the reporter, the practice had gone on for several years.

It's not an asset for Memphis or another University to have such an agreement, but I'm sympathetic to kids who go to a school mainly because of the coach, and the coach leaves. Perhaps just having the mechanism was a feature that recruits liked when considering Calipari and Memphis.

Whether there'll be such a practice at Kentucky, don't know.

[superdave]

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Or might Calipari have said you never what might happen - I have options, so should you.

I'm not so sure this is sinister or shady. Seems to be good for the kids. But that's never stopped people from attacking Calipari with little evidence before. I'm not saying he's a great guy, it's just that everyone assigns the worst possible motives to everything he does and that is completely unrealistic.

If I was a propsect, I'd never ever sign an LOI.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Never followed Calipari that close. What else has he done like that?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Or might Calipari have said you never what might happen - I have options, so should you.

If I was a propsect, I'd never ever sign an LOI.

I agree. I wouldn't sign one either.

But he works for the school, and doing that was not in the schools best interest.

Tough call here. Players want a coach that looks out for them, and a school expects a coach to look out for the school .

[FerryFor50]

Never followed Calipari that close. What else has he done like that?

There was the violation at UMass where Marcus Camby got 28-40k from an agent, and Calipari plead ignorance. Then he bolted immediately for the NBA.

At Memphis, there was an issue with a booster... also plead ignorance there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...3&sportCat=ncb

[Wheat/"/"/"]

There was the violation at UMass where Marcus Camby got 28-40k from an agent, and Calipari plead ignorance. Then he bolted immediately for the NBA.

At Memphis, there was an issue with a booster... also plead ignorance there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...3&sportCat=ncb

Thanks, forgot about the Camby deal.

[Chicago 1995]

When reading this article the other day that had a little Wall info, I noticed the following little diddy and meant to bring it up here....

"...both Henry and Nolan Dennis, the 10th-rated shooting guard in the class, had signed National Letters of Intent with the Tigers that conveniently contained clauses allowing them to be released if Calipari took another job. "I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us."

Now, if I was the AD at Memphis, paying Calipari millions to look out for his employer, ya think I'd be a little PO'd?

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Both of those kids signed in the fall, and while I think a lot of us thought Gillispie and UK were a marriage doomed to a quick failure, I can't imagine one in twenty even thought that UK would be looking for a new coach so soon.

Did Cal think he might be a candidate at some other, bigger stage? Hard to say. What other programs might he have been interested in had they come calling? Given what he had going at Memphis, I think the list would have been pretty short, and thus, the idea that Cal was planning his exit and an attempt (ultimately unsuccessful with Dennis to Baylor and Henry to KU) to take his recruits with him is pretty unlikely.

More than anything, it's a player-friendly gesture that builds good will in the high school and AAU community. It's why Cal has such a great thing going recruiting right now.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

More than anything, it's a player-friendly gesture that builds good will in the high school and AAU community. It's why Cal has such a great thing going recruiting right now.

This may very well have been the case, but it still raises the question about who does he owe his loyalty? The institution that pays his contract, or the player in this particular situation. He evidently decided on the players side, and Oh, got a little bit of benefit for himself too.

I'm a player kind of guy, and glad those kids kept some options. The LOI is bull anyway for many reasons we have discussed in the past.

One thing I've learned tho over my many years is that people of power have access to information long before the rest of us. The old saying of "information is power" is correct. The backdoor channels of college basketball would be no different. You will have a hard time convincing me that Kentucky and Calipari weren't "touching base" about "possibilities" long before the mainstream knew.

[Saratoga2]

The NCAA could fix this potential breach of faith by ruling that in such a case where the student bolts to another school, when a coach leaves, he may go to any school but the one where the leaving coach winds up. In the case of Calipari, no sudent could recruited by him for the Memphis program could then transfer to Kentucky. That would solve the appearance of impropriety.

[calltheobvious]

The NCAA could fix this potential breach of faith by ruling that in such a case where the student bolts to another school, when a coach leaves, he may go to any school but the one where the leaving coach winds up. In the case of Calipari, no sudent could recruited by him for the Memphis program could then transfer to Kentucky. That would solve the appearance of impropriety.

This was suggested by Vitale the day Calipari left for bluer pastures.

A reasonable case could be made that the AD played it just right by allowing this practice to go on. It's word-of-mouth marketing, really: after you start doing this, and you're the only major program doing it for every kid (if I'm wrong on that, scratch it), it actually becomes a recruiting asset on at least two levels. 1) The release itself, and 2) The signal that the head coach wants to do right by all his players, not just by his employer.

How many of Cal's recruits came because of this practice? It's hard to know, but it's also hard to complain given that the Tigers came within a hair's breadth of a national title doing business that way.

[Underdog5]

Was only a walk-on but any docs I had to sign once on scholarship were done with the athletics departments (ADs) full approval. Don't know how the LOI process works but would imagine somebody in the AD looked at those docs. Maybe I'm wrong and these docs just sit in a coaches secret file cabinet or the schools just blindly trust the coaches and who ever drafts the doc (clearly not the coach). Personally don't think LOIs should be so "legally" binding anyway.

[BD80]

I still snicker when I read the thread title and see Calipari and ethics in the same sentence. Another reason? How about:

CALIPARI SIGNS ANOTHER EX-MEMPHIS PLEDGE

A few weeks after former Memphis commit DeMarcus Cousins decided to sign with John Calipari at Kentucky, another guy who was set to go to Memphis has also opted to play for Calipari in Lexington.

Darnell Dodson, a highly touted junior college standout at Miami-Dade, signed with Kentucky.

Calipari also went hard after Xavier Henry, who signed with Kansas on Thursday.

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs..._TO_IOWA_STATE

I thought Cal wanted these guys to stay at Memphis?

[bluepenguin]

"I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us."

He obviously had an idea that Kentucky might come calling when he recruited those kids. If they had asked for the clause, it would have been one thing. But for him to suggest it and put it in raises some integrity questions.

Now, we all know that newspapers print what sells, and not necessarily the whole story. Quotes are always taken out of context if it makes good fodder for the writer's argument.

What if the rest of the interview went like this:
Reporter: "Why did Coach Cal suggest the clause"
Henry: "Because I said 'Coach, I want to play for you. What happens if I sign this LOI and then you leave? I don't want to play for another coach' "

Changes the whole tone of the original quote, doesn't it? In fact, Calipari, I would suggest, was not doing anything wrong and not breaching any fiduciary duty to his employer. He was being a good and honest person.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not defending Calipari. It just seems to me like the posters in this thread are trigger happy in challenging his integrity, before all the facts are out. We sure hated that when others jumped to conclusions in the LAX case.

[dukeimac]

bluepenguin has it right, we really need to know what was ALL said before we should pass judgment.

Having said that, if the quotes are correct "I didn't have the idea to put the [clause] in there," Henry said. "Coach Cal did it for us." Then I would have an issue with Cali. If Henry didn't know it was in there but Cali had it added then I believe Cali was up to something; maybe knew something might be up. That sounds like Cali made it a point to get an out for them and to be able to recruit them to his new school.

If the kid made the comment about wanting to play only for Cali and Cali then suggesting such language should be added then I have no problem with it.

The deal is we don't really know what was said thus it gets very difficult to pass judgment. I know what my feelings are under both situations but the question is do we really know how it went down.

Everyone on this board should know that we should not be too quick to pass judgment without knowing all the facts first.

[cruxer]

The bottom line is I don't really have a problem with this regardless of how the clause got into the LOI. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to void an LOI (without restriction) should be part of the NCAA rules. When a player commits to a program, they commit to the coach every bit as much as to the program. If the coach leaves, the player should be allowed to re-open their evaluation.

When I chose a college, part of my decision was how the specific academic program that I wanted to pursue (in my case, computer science) fared at the different schools I was choosing from. If something materially changed in the CS department after I'd decided, no one would begrudge me the option to change my mind. The same should apply here. After all, this could be the first of many decisions that have an impact on what is potentially a crazy lucrative career. Just like for me. Except for the crazy lucrative career part...

-c

[BD80]

... I am not defending Calipari. It just seems to me like the posters in this thread are trigger happy in challenging his integrity, before all the facts are out. We sure hated that when others jumped to conclusions in the LAX case.

What set of innocent circumstances would put the clause in EACH of the LOI's for his recruits?

I seriously doubt it was a practice at Memphis before Cal arrived.

Any AD that didn't notice it happening would be incompetent (or have incompetent staff or counsel). I doubt it is something Cal snuck by the school, so there is no breach of duty. Cal simply sold it as an advantage to the kids, and thus an advantage to recruiting and to the school. It is still slimy, because the real beneficiary was intended to be Calipari. The school viewed it as the cost of dealing with the devil.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not defending Calipari. It just seems to me like the posters in this thread are trigger happy in challenging his integrity, before all the facts are out. We sure hated that when others jumped to conclusions in the LAX case.

I certainly don't want to be viewed as a trigger happy kind of guy But, please note I said it "raises some integrity questions". I don't think I "challenged" his integrity, but I guess you could look at it that way.

That quote just caught my eye. I readily admit to not knowing the facts, any facts.

And I really have no set opinion on Calipari, one way or the other. But I question the circumstance when a player says, "I had no idea", and a coach takes care of the "clause" for him...and then just happens to take off, and signs, or attempts to sign, that player at his new school and employer, leaving his previous school and employer with a program in shambles.

Isn't it the whole point of a LOI to keep this sort of thing from happening?

Calipari may be on the right side of this and it just looks bad. The AD could have known everything, signed off on all this for all I know and is now dealing with the consequences. If so, he didn't do a very good job protecting the interest of Memphis.