LOI Poison Pill

[BD80]

An interesting issue came to light amidst the Sampson / IU fallout. It appears that at least the 2 higher ranked of IU's four incoming recruits have provisions that require IU to release them from their Letter of Intent if Sampson isn't the coach:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/7831220/Sampson's-departure-just-the-start-of-tough-times

One, I was surprised that the NCAA didn't have one standard form, since there are NCAA regulations involving LOIs.

Two, who suggested that the provision be put in? Somebody like Sampson could suggest it to the recruits for their protection, but use it as a poison pill if a issue arises with his employment. If he is canned, the school loses the recruits.

It appears that it is not a standard clause, and recall there being discussions regarding releasing recruits after a coach leaves (voluntarily or not) and the comment being made that a recruit commits to a school, not a coach. Sounds like ADs better start reviewing what the recruits are being asked to sign.

I imagine that savvy recruits will be asking for such a release clause, would Coach K ever allow such a provision? How about ADs, should they allow such an escape clause?

[topps coach]

Which recruits have this clause

[BD80]

Which recruits have this clause

According to sources close to Indiana's top signee, Devin Ebanks, the talented wing will get a release from his letter-of-intent and will almost certainly go in another direction.

Ebanks, a consensus Top 15 national player, was expected to be the cornerstone of the Hoosiers program — someone who would take the reins from Gordon and make certain there wasn't much, if any, of a drop-off from this season.

"I did have something in place that allows me to be released if Coach Sampson wasn't there," Ebanks said. "I'm going to use that to explore other options and I still want to wait and see who Indiana hires full-time, but I am going to talk things over with my mother and my coaches and go from there."

Harmony Community School (Ohio) pass-first point guard Terrell Holloway also has a provision that allows him to get out of his letter-of-intent and a source close to Holloway indicated that "he is likely to go elsewhere."

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I think this is a great idea. It's been said a billion times, but I think it stinks that coaches are free to jump ship whenever they want, contract or no, while players are stuck at a school and penalized if they want to change their situation. Kids come to play for a coach, not a jersey. It's a radical idea, but, imo, a coach leaving/being fired should automatically free all players of their obligation to the school.

[Carlos]

I kind of like the symmetry of things if Ebanks gets out of his LOI and ends up at Illinois.

[BD80]

I kind of like the symmetry of things if Ebanks gets out of his LOI and ends up at Illinois.

Justice! Was Illinois on his list?

At the risk of rendering this off-topic, I would say such a turn of events would prove that God is a basketball fan, and has a hell of a sense of humour.

[mgtr]

It seems only fair that if the coach leaves, the new recruits should be automatically released from their LOIs.
Which raises the issue of Jim Valvano. Now, I am aware that some thought he walked on water (at a minimum). However he recruited a bunch of players to Iona, promising them that he would be then. NCState offers him a job, and in a heartbeat he took the job (and, in fairness, I probably would have also taken it). But what about the kids at Iona who signed up for one situation and found themselve in another. Not fair at all, though I don't know how you fix it easily (well, I do know. Make coaches live
up to their contracts, just as players have to fulfill their LOIs - not likely to happen, however).
In such circumstances, which happen every year, I think that it is only fair that new students are automatically released from their LOIs.

[Bob Green]

It will be interesting to see how the NCAA handles the Sampson situation. Indiana should be held accountable. They hired a known cheater and deserve to be held accountable, maybe the loss of a scholarship, etc...

[sagegrouse]

It seems only fair that if the coach leaves, the new recruits should be automatically released from their LOIs.
Which raises the issue of Jim Valvano. Now, I am aware that some thought he walked on water (at a minimum). However he recruited a bunch of players to Iona, promising them that he would be then. NCState offers him a job, and in a heartbeat he took the job (and, in fairness, I probably would have also taken it). But what about the kids at Iona who signed up for one situation and found themselve in another. Not fair at all, though I don't know how you fix it easily (well, I do know.

Don't you think that Jim Valvano was punished enough for these and other transgressions?

If a small college coach is offered a job at five times what he is earning, he is going to move and there is no power on earth to prevent it (nor should there be). Labor service contracts are unenforceable (correct me, Jim3K). The losing school could sue to prevent a coach from taking another job -- but won't -- which is why there are often buyout clauses where the losing school gets compensated. And, of course, many of the conditions for a coach leaving for a better job are covered in the initial contract.

The move to give recruits a release if a coach leaves is another salutary development, although I can't remember whether that is official NCAA policy or not. For reputable schools, if a recruit says he doesn't want to come after a coach leaves, they will release him from his commitment. Others can shed more light on this topic.

sagegrouse

[SilkyJ]

I think this is a great idea. It's been said a billion times, but I think it stinks that coaches are free to jump ship whenever they want, contract or no, while players are stuck at a school and penalized if they want to change their situation. Kids come to play for a coach, not a jersey. It's a radical idea, but, imo, a coach leaving/being fired should automatically free all players of their obligation to the school.

Agreed.

I am also surprised, as another poster mentioned, that there is not more standardization with these forms. I mean the fact that you can add in clauses or appendices or whatever to these forms is ridiculous! If you can add clauses or do any kind of editing frankly, I think that with the more "commercial" direction that high school/college hoops is heading, that allowing additions/deletions, or any kind of editing of these LOIs could be very dangerous. I mean are kids going to start hiring attorneys to negotiate the LOIs with schools? This just kinda worries me in general...


Justice! Was Illinois on his list?

A couple of those guys are pretty good ball players. I recall one of our resident recruiting gurus suggesting that there was still an outside shot of us adding someone to our 2008 recruiting class...any chance we will at least take a look at this Ebanks kid, or someone else maybe?

[Jim3k]

If a small college coach is offered a job at five times what he is earning, he is going to move and there is no power on earth to prevent it (nor should there be). Labor service contracts are unenforceable (correct me, Jim3K).

sagegrouse

Contracts for specific performance of a personal service are definitely not enforceable. Money damages might be available, depending on the circumstances.

[mgtr]

Don't you think that Jim Valvano was punished enough for these and other transgressions?


sagegrouse

What punishment? Do you mean that he got cancer and died? That is certainly a terrible punishment, the worst, really, but I don't know that anyone has ever tried to link that to his leaving Iona early. If there are other punishments that did result from his leaving early, I would be interested to know about them.

[Channing]

in my opinion this should be part of every LOI. Yes, general verbage is that someone commits to a school not a coach. But the coach is the person who built a relationship with the student, the player will probably spend a majority of their time in college with their coach/ coaching staff. If a player is going to be subject to a coach that didnt recruit them and that they possibly dont like it is only fair that they be able to go where they want.

[sagegrouse]

What punishment? Do you mean that he got cancer and died? That is certainly a terrible punishment, the worst, really, but I don't know that anyone has ever tried to link that to his leaving Iona early. If there are other punishments that did result from his leaving early, I would be interested to know about them.

Thanks, Jim, for this opportunity to revise and extend my remarks. MGTR criticized Valvano for leaving Iona for State. I should have phrased my point differently. As my sainted grandmother used to say, "Don't speak ill of the dead," which was my reaction to the post.

OTOH, every single coach of a small program would leave for a big-time program paying big dollars (see exceptions below). First, it's the money. Second, it's the chance, although remote, to end up as a legend like Iba, Rupp, Wooden, Deano, Knight, or K. Coaches are very competitive people, and you don't know the answer unless you try.

The exceptions would be McKillop (Davidson) and Larranaga (Geo. Mason), guys near 60 who have clearly chosen to finish their careers where they are, despite what I believe are attractive opportunities. I believe Larranaga got a terrific deal from GMU, a university on the make and willing to spend a bundle. OTOH, Fran Dunphy, who is in his late 50s, moved crosstown from Penn to Temple because the $500K-$1M at Temple was three times the money he earned at Penn, and IMHO he needed the money for financial security for himself and his family.

sagegrouse

[Dukie4Life]

Growing up in Big 10 country I've seen IU go through more trials and tribulations that I'd like. I was a little upset that the University took so long to come to a decision and that Kelvin "resigned" and was able to collect 750K as well.

However those who signed a LOI did sign a LOI to play for Samspon. I understand and think it is very smart for an 18 year old to have a clause written into that LOI that if the coach leaves he/she may re-open the recruiting process. Most top players as you all know have a top 3 or 5 list. Think back to the scary days that Coach K was "thinking" about heading west to the Lakers. Would Duke still have recieved those commitments that year? I do hold Duke to a higher standard than IU having the love for the program that I do. However most come to Duke to play for Coach K and his staff, learn everything Coach K and his staff can teach them and play in Cameron. A lot of kids go to IU to play under that coach and run out on the court in thos hideous warm-up pants that look like barbershop polls. Good for the kids to take a stand in their own life!

[mgtr]

Thanks, Jim, for this opportunity to revise and extend my remarks. MGTR criticized Valvano for leaving Iona for State. I should have phrased my point differently. As my sainted grandmother used to say, "Don't speak ill of the dead," which was my reaction to the post.

OTOH, every single coach of a small program would leave for a big-time program paying big dollars (see exceptions below). First, it's the money. Second, it's the chance, although remote, to end up as a legend like Iba, Rupp, Wooden, Deano, Knight, or K. Coaches are very competitive people, and you don't know the answer unless you try.



sagegrouse

I was living in the New York area when Valvano left. The problem was not that he left, but that he had a bunch of freshmen coming in because of him. The New York press alleged that he had promised these guys he would be there. But of course he wasn't.
It is not a legal issue, in my mind, but an ethical issue. And if K had gone to the Lakers, I would feel the same way about him. One of the most impressive things he has done, in my view, is to walk away from the money. By the way, think how much better both Rick Pitino and UK would have been if he had walked away from the Celtics money.
I have not been privy to any contracts for D1 basketball coaches, but from what little I know about D1 football contracts, there are significant buyout clauses. That is half of it, the rest should be an immediate voiding of all LOIs, so that incoming players are free to "rechoose."
It shouldn't be all about how much money the coach can make, but what happens to the team and the players.

[BD80]

Contracts for specific performance of a personal service are definitely not enforceable.

Covenants not to compete can be enforced. While you can not force a coach to coach, you could prevent him from coaching elsewhere for a reasonable period. It could be argued that recruiting ties and effort are akin to customer information and can be protectible by a non-compete for a reasonable time (which the NCAA has stated is one year for transfer students). For example, Iowa paid over $10,000 in expenses plus salary for Kelvin Samson to shadow Deon Thompson. A cynic would say the Illinois spent even more on a house and SUV for Mrs. Thompson.

However, a non-compete would certainly be argued to be a restraint against trade, preventing a coach from using his skill and knowledge to make a living. I would love to argue the case either way.

It does sound like lawyers will be involved in the LOI process, but it sounds like there might also be tension between the coach and the school in negotiating the contract.

A disparity in language in various LOIs will work in the favor of a recruit, as LOIs will be interpreted against the school that draft the specific language. Any deviation from a "norm" would be more strictly scrutinized. Further, they would be interpreted against restraint of trade (playing basketball).

Crap. One of the best things about college bball was that I could get away from the complications of the legal world. It is our own (lawyers') damn fault.

[sagegrouse]

Covenants not to compete can be enforced. While you can not force a coach to coach, you could prevent him from coaching elsewhere for a reasonable period.

But as a practical matter, schools do not prevent coaches from coaching elsewhere. Something is worked out. If a coach is denied the opportunity for a huge increase in compensation, he will simply quit, making it all the worse for the losing school in terms of disruption of the program and hiring a successor. (I.e.: "We have a job for you -- but forget leaving for a much better job at higher pay -- we'll stop you, just as we did your predecessor.")

I think this began with a wistful plea by someone above for coaches to turn down big pay increases and honor their contracts. I like the sentiment, but it isn't going to happen.

sagegrouse

[mgtr]

I think this began with a wistful plea by someone above for coaches to turn down big pay increases and honor their contracts. I like the sentiment, but it isn't going to happen.

sagegrouse

I don't know that my words were a wistful plea, but I do think that coaches should honor their contracts (I think everybody should honor their contracts, even NBA players, silly as that sounds). However, I realize that contracts don't mean much anymore, just as a person's word doesn't seem to mean much any more. But my bottom line point is, and has been, that the players ought not to be left out in the cold. If a coach "moves on," the LOIs he left behind should be automatically voided, and let the players move on as well.
Just trying to be fair to the players, that is all.

[BD80]

But my bottom line point is, and has been, that the players ought not to be left out in the cold. If a coach "moves on," the LOIs he left behind should be automatically voided, and let the players move on as well.
Just trying to be fair to the players, that is all.

I agree, but the players should be precluded from going with the "moving on" coach. I think most schools have handled it that way; it prevents a school from buying recruits by buying a coach.

I think a schools character is revealed in such situations. At Wake, when Skip "moved on" they offered to release the signees. A testament to the character of the recruits, they all stayed. The key is that Wake didn't force them. I agree with you that Wake shouldn't have had the power to.

LOIs should only prevent the Eric Gordon type scenario. If a recruit is willing to sign the LOI, you can rely on that to hold a scholarship open. If and until he signs, you are at risk. Only scum like Calhoun and Sampson recruit kids that have committed to other schools, but until they sign, kids should be free to change their minds.

[GrayHare]

Just some background information on the National Letter of Intent (http://www.national-letter.org) program. The text (http://www.national-letter.org/guidelines/nli_text.php) of the letter explicitly addresses the possibility of a coaching change.

[BD80]

Just some background information on the National Letter of Intent (http://www.national-letter.org) program. The text (http://www.national-letter.org/guidelines/nli_text.php) of the letter explicitly addresses the possibility of a coaching change.

Interesting stuff. Looks like there is a standard form - one that would NOT release the recruit if the coach leaves. Thus, the LOI the Indiana recruits signed either was not a standard form or there was a codicil. How can they justify giving one or two recruits special consideration? It is one thing to say that it is the school's policy to release players from an LOI if a coach were to leave, but to make a specific "enforceable" promise to a recruit sounds like a "benefit".

This could get interesting, it seems improper for a school to offer an extra benefit.