Probable Scenario on Newbill !

[Murffieus]

Probably came down to the fact that Buzz sometime after Newbill signed decided he wanted Newbill to go to prep school for a year, keeping his LOI intact (an NCAA rule) as he saw a logjam developing at Newbill's position (#2 with DJO, Buycks, and Blue ahead of him). -----farm system concept.

No one in their right mind who had the options Newbill had last January (WV, GT, Temple, etc) would have opted for such a condition on his recruitment prior to signing.

That explains why Newbill didn't send in his application & transcripts, because the conditions of his agreement with MU changed and he balked. So Buzz informs him he is persona non grata and signs Wilson where there won't be a logjam at his position the following season.

[bilsu]

That does not make sense to me. Newbill would have asked out right away, if he wanted out. He would have sent in his paperwork right away if he wanted in. The real question is why he did not send in his paperwork:
1. Was he misled into not submitting his paperwork by the MU staff (bad MU)
2. Was he just irresponsible or lazy (bad Newbill)
That is assuming that the lack of completing the paperwork is the real issue.

[Pakuni]

That does not make sense to me. Newbill would have asked out right away, if he wanted out. He would have sent in his paperwork right away if he wanted in. The real question is why he did not send in his paperwork:
1. Was he misled into not submitting his paperwork by the MU staff (bad MU)
2. Was he just irresponsible or lazy (bad Newbill)
That is assuming that the lack of completing the paperwork is the real issue.

You might also want to consider:
3. He did not submit his paperwork because he knew there was at least a possibility that he wouldn't be coming to Marquette this year (bad everyone)

[Marquette84]

That does not make sense to me. Newbill would have asked out right away, if he wanted out. He would have sent in his paperwork right away if he wanted in. The real question is why he did not send in his paperwork:
1. Was he misled into not submitting his paperwork by the MU staff (bad MU)
2. Was he just irresponsible or lazy (bad Newbill)
That is assuming that the lack of completing the paperwork is the real issue.

Or, he and his coaches understand the LOI system better than the Marquette coaches.

His paperwork isn't due until September 1st.  MU can't deny his application until its submitted.  And the LOI is binding until his application is denied.

The question is why did the MU staff make such a big deal about the application when they know for a fact (or should have known) that it isn't required yet? 

[Pakuni]

Or, he and his coaches understand the LOI system better than the Marquette coaches.

His paperwork isn't due until September 1st.  MU can't deny his application until its submitted.  And the LOI is binding until his application is denied.

No. This is wrong. Read the NLI nad NCAA homepages.
It clearly states that the NLI is binding provided admission is granted, not until admission is denied.

"Pursuant to the terms of the National Letter of Intent program, participating institutions agree to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year to the student-athlete, provided he/she is admitted to the institution and is eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/About+the+NLI/


"Only the signing of the National Letter of Intent accompanied by a financial aid agreement is binding on both parties."


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation%20and%20Governance/Eligibility%20and%20Recruiting/Faqs/recruiting

"Currently, the letter of intent binds the college basketball student-athlete to an institution for one full academic year while also requiring the institution to provide an athletic scholarship to the student-athlete if he or she is admitted to the school. "

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/The_Student_Athlete_and_the_National_Letter_of_Intent_A_Commitment_to_Leadership_or_a_Leadership_Crisis_in_the_Making.shtml

As well all know, DJ Newbill has not been admitted into Marquette ... at least partially because he never applied. With no admission, the NLI is not binding.
Facts are stubborn things.

[westcoastwarrior]

If Newbill was suppose to participate in summer school wouldn't he have to have is paper work in before summer school begins?  How could he participate in summer school if the paper work was not due until Sept?  That does not make sense.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If Newbill was suppose to participate in summer school wouldn't he have to have is paper work in before summer school begins?  How could he participate in summer school if the paper work was not due until Sept?  That does not make sense.

Because you don't have to participate in Summer school.  They would like you to, but it's not iron clad.  We've had players in the past not participate in Summer school prior to the Fall semester.

[Marquette84]

If Newbill was suppose to participate in summer school wouldn't he have to have is paper work in before summer school begins?  How could he participate in summer school if the paper work was not due until Sept?  That does not make sense.

Summer school is not required by the NCAA. 

[brewcity77]

Honestly, I don't want to think about it any more. Could have been handled better, will hopefully serve as a learning experience in the future, and the more we discuss it/start new threads, the more it will push us apart as a fanbase, even the small little community on this site.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Summer school is not required by the NCAA. 

Yup, that's why Jae Crowder, MU recruit, is not attending right now.  I surmise that Vander isn't either since he's been playing in FIBA Americas tournament in San Antonio....or maybe he is, but since the sessions are so short and he's been away, tough to see how that would work.

I suspect he will participate in the second session.

[MUSF]

A MOMENT OF SPECULATION:

If I had to guess, this is how I likely see the scenario playing out.

1. Buzz and or Scott extended the offer to Newbill with the stipulation that they were still recruiting and would like DJ to be willing to go the prep school or JUCO route in the event they found someone else.

2. Newbill or someone affiliated with Newbill agreed to the above proposal and DJ signed.

3. Communication breakdown probably occurred because Buzz and/or Scott dealt primarily with one of Newbill's advisers / handlers who thought they were smarter than MU and the system.  This would explain Philly Coach's presence on this board and quotes about DJ not needing to know about claims that he would not be on the squad in the fall.  

4. By the time summer rolled around, someone had Newbill convinced that he was definitely in with MU.  When Scott contacted DJ to break the news that they wanted him to opt out of his NLI, he felt blindsided.

This is purely a guess based on many assumptions and some evidence.  Feel free to pick it apart or chastise me for speculating.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honestly, I don't want to think about it any more. Could have been handled better, will hopefully serve as a learning experience in the future, and the more we discuss it/start new threads, the more it will push us apart as a fanbase, even the small little community on this site.

My hope is that it does become a learning experience.  My bigger hope is long term damage hasn't been done.  It will certainly be used against us in recruiting, but he's a solid recruiter and I'm sure will be able to overcome it.

[MUSF]

My hope is that it does become a learning experience.  My bigger hope is long term damage hasn't been done.  It will certainly be used against us in recruiting, but he's a solid recruiter and I'm sure will be able to overcome it.

I agree with the first part of the post.  This does need to be a learning experience and MU/Buzz should proceed with caution in the future.

I don't think any long term damage has been done.  Will coaches use this against us?  Probably, but negative recruiting only works on a few and often backfires.  Now, if we start to develop a pattern of situations like this, then I will be concerned.

[hoops12]

Murf:

Why is this a probable scenario? Just because you came up with it? You have no idea what happened and either do I. I'm really tired of people (especially former players) spreading scenarios that reflect badly on the basketball program. Buzz doesn't owe you or anyone else the information you are seeking. It is between the recruit and the coaching staff.

For those that keep claiming this will hurt us in the future for recruiting purposes, I disagree. First, if someone tries to use negative tactics, it usually backfires. Secondly, Buzz has his players sell the program. The players meet with all the recruits and they determine if the recruit is a good fit for the Marquette environment. Also, Wesley, and Hayward can't say enough positive about Buzz. They love him. That is what is really going to matter. Also, I'm sure Wade, Diener, and Novak who are always back on campus are going to help out in the recruiting process.

Let the negative (mostly Wisconsin backers) posters say what they want, but it just isn't reality. More will eventually come out on this, but until it does..........TRY to stay classy Murf............I know it's tough, but try to actually support your former university. Save judgements/guesses/senarios for when the facts come out.

By the way, what do you do other than post on these boards. My gosh, the numbers (over 23,000 posts on both sites together) are staggering and a little ridiculous. Geez!

GO MU!

[Marquette84]

No. This is wrong. Read the NLI nad NCAA homepages.
It clearly states that the NLI is binding provided admission is granted, not until admission is denied.

"Pursuant to the terms of the National Letter of Intent program, participating institutions agree to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year to the student-athlete, provided he/she is admitted to the institution and is eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/About+the+NLI/


"Only the signing of the National Letter of Intent accompanied by a financial aid agreement is binding on both parties."


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation%20and%20Governance/Eligibility%20and%20Recruiting/Faqs/recruiting

"Currently, the letter of intent binds the college basketball student-athlete to an institution for one full academic year while also requiring the institution to provide an athletic scholarship to the student-athlete if he or she is admitted to the school. "

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/The_Student_Athlete_and_the_National_Letter_of_Intent_A_Commitment_to_Leadership_or_a_Leadership_Crisis_in_the_Making.shtml

As well all know, DJ Newbill has not been admitted into Marquette ... at least partially because he never applied. With no admission, the NLI is not binding.
Facts are stubborn things.

No, you're wrong.

You are using one selectively edited passage to manipulate meaning.  

There are at least a dozen other clauses or interpretations of the NLI that make absolutely no sense if the NLI isn't binding until the school formally admits a student.   Some are direct contradictions of your view.

The ONLY proper interpretation of the NLI is that it is binding on both sides as soon as it is signed.  

So, if you want to hold out hope that I'm wrong, please explain how you reconcile your view with the following dozen points that you conveniently excluded from your post.

1.  The NLI explicitly states 'A NLI transmitted to an institution by facsimile machine or electronically shall be considered
valid."  But you claim the NLI is not valid until the student is admitted--why would the NLI include a clause which states that it is considered valid when transmitted via fax or electronically?  

2.  In the "Null and Void" section, there is clause specifying that the NLI is void if admission is denied.  If it isn't valid until the student is admitted, why would the NLI need to specify that an NLI is void if admission is denied?

3.  In the NLI there is an explicitly stated presumption of admission.  Why would they include that statement if the NLI isn't binding until a player is formally admitted?

4.  According to the NCAA interpretations, the student must sign the NLI within 14 days of receipt from the institution, otherwise the NLI is invalid.  But, you claim the NLI isn't valid until until the student is admitted.  THerefore, how could failure to sign it within 14 days cause it to become invalid?  Isn't in invalid until the day the student is admitted.

5.  According to the NCAA interpretations for the 21 day deadline to turn in NLIs to the league, an "NLI that has been signed and returned to the institution in accordance with the NLI provisions remains valid until it is declared invalid by the conference office."    How can an NLI remain valid when it doesn't even become valid until the student is admitted.

6.  The NLI prohibits a player from signing multiple NLIs.  However, if the NLI is not binding until a player is admitted, the player could conceivably sign multiple NLIs with as many schools as he wants as long as no school has admitted him yet.

7.  The NLI states that other schools have to stop recruiting a player when signed.  However, if there is no binding NLI until a player is formally admitted, then it would be fair game for schools to continue to recruit players until such time as a school formally admits the player?

8.  Coaches are banned from commenting on a player until he's signed a valid NLI.  However, if the NLI isn't valid until the player is admitted, then those coaches who spoke about players prior to admission committed a violation?  Buzz talked about Vander Blue last November 11th--when he signed with MU.  Yet clearly he had not yet been admitted given that December 1 was the first day MU even looked at applications.  Did Buzz commit a violation?  

9. The NLI lists an Official Time for Validity. It does NOT include any discussion of the time the student is admitted, but instead claims that t NLI shall be considered to be officially signed on the final date of signature by student or parent (or guardian). If no time of day is listed, an 11:59 p.m. time is presumed.

10.  According to the NCAA interpretations, there must be documentation substantiating the denial of admission before an NLI is considered null and void.   Why would the documentation be required if the NLI isn't valid until a player is admitted?  

11.  If an institution fails to provide an admissions decision in writing by the opening day of classes for the fall term and the prospective student-athlete has submitted a complete admissions application, the NLI shall be declared null and void.  Yet you said the NLI isn't valid until the school has admitted the student.  

12.  The NLI signing institution must notify a prospective student-athlete in writing that his or her NLI is not valid or null and void within five business days from when the institution is made aware of the status of the NLI.   In your view, would that be the date it's first received by the school, since that would be the first point the institution is made aware of an invalid NLI?

[MUSF]

No, you're wrong.

You are using one selectively edited passage to manipulate meaning.  

There are at least a dozen other clauses or interpretations of the NLI that make absolutely no sense if the NLI isn't binding until the school formally admits a student.   Some are direct contradictions of your view.

The ONLY proper interpretation of the NLI is that it is binding on both sides as soon as it is signed.  

So, if you want to hold out hope that I'm wrong, please explain how you reconcile your view with the following dozen points that you conveniently excluded from your post.

1.  The NLI explicitly states 'A NLI transmitted to an institution by facsimile machine or electronically shall be considered
valid."  But you claim the NLI is not valid until the student is admitted--why would the NLI include a clause which states that it is considered valid when transmitted via fax or electronically?  

2.  In the "Null and Void" section, there is clause specifying that the NLI is void if admission is denied.  If it isn't valid until the student is admitted, why would the NLI need to specify that an NLI is void if admission is denied?

3.  In the NLI there is an explicitly stated presumption of admission.  Why would they include that statement if the NLI isn't binding until a player is formally admitted?

4.  According to the NCAA interpretations, the student must sign the NLI within 14 days of receipt from the institution, otherwise the NLI is invalid.  But, you claim the NLI isn't valid until until the student is admitted.  THerefore, how could failure to sign it within 14 days cause it to become invalid?  Isn't in invalid until the day the student is admitted.

5.  According to the NCAA interpretations for the 21 day deadline to turn in NLIs to the league, an "NLI that has been signed and returned to the institution in accordance with the NLI provisions remains valid until it is declared invalid by the conference office."    How can an NLI remain valid when it doesn't even become valid until the student is admitted.

6.  The NLI prohibits a player from signing multiple NLIs.  However, if the NLI is not binding until a player is admitted, the player could conceivably sign multiple NLIs with as many schools as he wants as long as no school has admitted him yet.

7.  The NLI states that other schools have to stop recruiting a player when signed.  However, if there is no binding NLI until a player is formally admitted, then it would be fair game for schools to continue to recruit players until such time as a school formally admits the player?

8.  Coaches are banned from commenting on a player until he's signed a valid NLI.  However, if the NLI isn't valid until the player is admitted, then those coaches who spoke about players prior to admission committed a violation?  Buzz talked about Vander Blue last November 11th--when he signed with MU.  Yet clearly he had not yet been admitted given that December 1 was the first day MU even looked at applications.  Did Buzz commit a violation?  

9. The NLI lists an Official Time for Validity. It does NOT include any discussion of the time the student is admitted, but instead claims that t NLI shall be considered to be officially signed on the final date of signature by student or parent (or guardian). If no time of day is listed, an 11:59 p.m. time is presumed.

10.  According to the NCAA interpretations, there must be documentation substantiating the denial of admission before an NLI is considered null and void.   Why would the documentation be required if the NLI isn't valid until a player is admitted?  

11.  If an institution fails to provide an admissions decision in writing by the opening day of classes for the fall term and the prospective student-athlete has submitted a complete admissions application, the NLI shall be declared null and void.  Yet you said the NLI isn't valid until the school has admitted the student.  

12.  The NLI signing institution must notify a prospective student-athlete in writing that his or her NLI is not valid or null and void within five business days from when the institution is made aware of the status of the NLI.   In your view, would that be the date it's first received by the school, since that would be the first point the institution is made aware of an invalid NLI?

Wow!

Do I get some sort of law degree for reading these threads?

Can I at least use this experience to help me get some sort of paralegal job?

[Marquette84]

A MOMENT OF SPECULATION:

If I had to guess, this is how I likely see the scenario playing out.

1. Buzz and or Scott extended the offer to Newbill with the stipulation that they were still recruiting and would like DJ to be willing to go the prep school or JUCO route in the event they found someone else.

2. Newbill or someone affiliated with Newbill agreed to the above proposal and DJ signed.

3. Communication breakdown probably occurred because Buzz and/or Scott dealt primarily with one of Newbill's advisers / handlers who thought they were smarter than MU and the system.  This would explain Philly Coach's presence on this board and quotes about DJ not needing to know about claims that he would not be on the squad in the fall.  

4. By the time summer rolled around, someone had Newbill convinced that he was definitely in with MU.  When Scott contacted DJ to break the news that they wanted him to opt out of his NLI, he felt blindsided.

This is purely a guess based on many assumptions and some evidence.  Feel free to pick it apart or chastise me for speculating.

Then its just rank stupidity on the part of MU.

The interpretations and guidelines document they received from the NCAA included these two clauses:
http://bit.ly/dl9b1i

NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ALLOWED TO NLI:  No additions or deletions shall be made to
the NLI or the Release Request form.
 
NULLIFICATION OF OTHER AGREEMENTS:  The student's signature on the NLI nullifies any
agreements, oral or otherwise, which would release him or her from the conditions stated within the NLI.
 
What you're saying is that MU actually tried to get a kid to agree to extra conditions--even though those conditions are explicitly forbidden under the NLI program.  There is no way that MU can send an NLI with the condition that the player will go to prep school if MU comes across a better player.

[Dr. Blackheart]

 

Here is how I simply look at it...the NCAA (university backed) and conference (university backed) allows for over-signing.  What is the endgame for the student-athletes?  The NLI obviously favors the the schools and allows them all sorts of outs to resolve the over signing.  The student gets a chance at a free ride at a school of his/her choosing.  Everything MU did is legal and allowed--if not encouraged--by the governing bodies.

Is it 100% one-sided as some are claiming?  I think not.  Looking how Noreen used the system to back out of BC, petition the ACC to waive the conference transfer clause, travel the world to wait on UNC and settle for WVU and the BE.  Brust did the same to a lesser extent.  

Was this situation handled the right way in terms of communication?  I think not for all we know--which is mostly one-sided.  But, is it a mortal sin?  No.  In fact, if you apply situation ethics, it may be better for the kid if he was cut loose now, rather than wasting a year to transfer.  

btw, this goes on in one way or the other in all NCAA sports...look at the number of freshman on some of these D1 non-revenue sports and look at the number of seniors.  Kids share scholarships or are promised future chances at one--if they cut it--which very few do.  This is why D3 (no athletic scholarships) are becoming very popular as the kids get academic aid--and they can also play.

[Murffieus]

That does not make sense to me. Newbill would have asked out right away, if he wanted out. He would have sent in his paperwork right away if he wanted in. The real question is why he did not send in his paperwork:
1. Was he misled into not submitting his paperwork by the MU staff (bad MU)
2. Was he just irresponsible or lazy (bad Newbill)
That is assuming that the lack of completing the paperwork is the real issue.

Well if SJS/Marquette 84 is correct and a conditional NLI is against NCAA rules----then Murf is correct that Buzz had to offer the prep school option after Newbill signed (IWB suggests Buzz wanted him to go to prep school ----keep his NLI and come to MU the next year). This in all likelyhood confused and probably upset Newbill as Buzz changed his route to MU and gave him second thoughts about MU and thus delayed his paperwork while sorting things out.

Meanwhile Buzz gets upset and recinds on Newbill and signs Wilson.

[MUSF]

Murf is correct...

Nice 3rd person drop.

Murf be Murf.

[TedBaxter]

Yup, that's why Jae Crowder, MU recruit, is not attending right now.  I surmise that Vander isn't either since he's been playing in FIBA Americas tournament in San Antonio....or maybe he is, but since the sessions are so short and he's been away, tough to see how that would work.

I suspect he will participate in the second session.

Jae Crowder is finishing up his junior college requirements this summer. 

The second summer school session at MU starts this week, so Vander, Gardner and Reggie Smith will join Jamail Jones on campus, probably today or tomorrow I'll guess.

[79Warrior]

Probably came down to the fact that Buzz sometime after Newbill signed decided he wanted Newbill to go to prep school for a year, keeping his LOI intact (an NCAA rule) as he saw a logjam developing at Newbill's position (#2 with DJO, Buycks, and Blue ahead of him). -----farm system concept.

No one in their right mind who had the options Newbill had last January (WV, GT, Temple, etc) would have opted for such a condition on his recruitment prior to signing.

That explains why Newbill didn't send in his application & transcripts, because the conditions of his agreement with MU changed and he balked. So Buzz informs him he is persona non grata and signs Wilson where there won't be a logjam at his position the following season.

and you PROBABLY are wrong.

[tower912]

No one in their right mind who had the options Newbill had last January (WV, GT, Temple, etc) would have opted for such a condition on his recruitment prior to signing.

 

Maybe he dreamed of being one of the 3 or 4 guys who just wanted to go to MU so that he could help the 7-8 man rotation get better.    Like the old days under Al.    Because according to you, lots of guys would be willing to do that. 

[MUSF]

No one in their right mind who had the options Newbill had last January (WV, GT, Temple, etc) would have opted for such a condition on his recruitment prior to signing.
 

That's assuming Newbill truly had those options in January.  Somehow, I doubt it.

[Murffieus]

Maybe he dreamed of being one of the 3 or 4 guys who just wanted to go to MU so that he could help the 7-8 man rotation get better.    Like the old days under Al.    Because according to you, lots of guys would be willing to do that. 

I never said "lots of guys would like to go to "prep school"-----besides Buzz looks like he wants a bigger rotation than 7-8----looks to me like he's shooting for 9-10 guy rotation next year and beyond------why i don't know as his 7 man rotation exceeded expectations big time last year.