Is this a fireable offense?

[tower912]

Not a violation.    At worst, Newbill's version is 100% true, no rules were broken but in this case Buzz made a decision to cut/recruit over a kid.   In this scenario, Buzz is a ruthless a-hole hypocrite who made a cold-blooded decision to do what he thought would make his team better, hurt feelings be damned.     Or, IWB's could be pretty close to the truth and we have a failure to make sure that all parties involved understood what was being said.     Not a firing offense.
     If this turns into a pattern, then many more are going to have issues, just as many came to have issues with Crean, but were willing to hold their tongues while he was our coach and winning.      But in the end, not a firing offense. 

[Marquette84]

Not necessarily. At least no by my reading of thje NLI provisions:

Admissions Requirement. This NLI shall be declared null and void if the institution named in this document notifies me in writing that I have been denied admission or, by the opening day of classes in fall 2010, has failed to provide me with written notice of admission, provided I have submitted a complete admission application.  It is my obligation to provide, by request, my academic records and an application for admission to the signing institution.  If I fail to submit the necessary academic credentials and/or application to determine an admission decision prior to September 1, the NLI shall be declared null and void.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/NLI+Provisions/Letter+Becomes+Null+and+Void

So, by my reading at least, if MU sends Newbill a letter denying him admission - as the school is entitled to do at any time - the NLI would be declared null and void.

Are you seriously making the argument that no school is obligated to their end of the NLI because at any time they can simply send a letter denying admission?

Seriously--under what circumstances would a school be compelled to honor the NLI?  If they can void it simply by sending a letter saying that admission is denied, the obligation effectively doesn't exist.

Under the NLI guidelines, the system is supposed to protect both sides. The kid has a guaranteed scholarship, and the school doesn't have to worry that a committed recruit will go elsewhere.

Of course that assumes that schools have a reasonably objective admission criteria.   

But since you claim a school can deny admission at any time for any reason, there would never be a situation in which they have to honor their end of the NLI!! They can always send a letter denying admission, which discharges any and all obligations they have under the NLI program.

I'm sorry, but I give Marquette more credit than that.  I don't believe the admissions office takes their marching orders from the the AD or the basketball coach.

But if this does turn out to be true, then the NCAA is going to act to tighten the loophole.  There is no way that they are going to continue to let 17 and 18 year olds sign a letter that implies that there is a guaranteed scholarship, but in reality obligates a school to provide nothing.

[MUSF]

Not a violation.    At worst, Newbill's version is 100% true, no rules were broken but in this case Buzz made a decision to cut/recruit over a kid.   In this scenario, Buzz is a ruthless a-hole hypocrite who made a cold-blooded decision to do what he thought would make his team better, hurt feelings be damned.     Or, IWB's could be pretty close to the truth and we have a failure to make sure that all parties involved understood what was being said.     Not a firing offense.
     If this turns into a pattern, then many more are going to have issues, just as many came to have issues with Crean, but were willing to hold their tongues while he was our coach and winning.      But in the end, not a firing offense. 

I agree with all of this but MU could make it clear to Buzz that from now on he must honor NLIs except in cases of academic or character/legal issues.  If they choose not to make that stipulation then the next time this happens, the people that are now outraged at Buzz should be ready/willing to turn their anger toward MU.

[tower912]

I don't have a problem if MU tells Buzz to not do this in the future.   We will have to see if the next president takes that stance.

[Pakuni]

Are you seriously making the argument that no school is obligated to their end of the NLI because at any time they can simply send a letter denying admission?

Seriously--under what circumstances would a school be compelled to honor the NLI?  If they can void it simply by sending a letter saying that admission is denied, the obligation effectively doesn't exist.

Under the NLI guidelines, the system is supposed to protect both sides. The kid has a guaranteed scholarship, and the school doesn't have to worry that a committed recruit will go elsewhere.

Of course that assumes that schools have a reasonably objective admission criteria.   

But since you claim a school can deny admission at any time for any reason, there would never be a situation in which they have to honor their end of the NLI!! They can always send a letter denying admission, which discharges any and all obligations they have under the NLI program.

I'm sorry, but I give Marquette more credit than that.  I don't believe the admissions office takes their marching orders from the the AD or the basketball coach.

But if this does turn out to be true, then the NCAA is going to act to tighten the loophole.  There is no way that they are going to continue to let 17 and 18 year olds sign a letter that implies that there is a guaranteed scholarship, but in reality obligates a school to provide nothing.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. Nowhere in the NLI guidelines does it guarantee a player a scholarship unless and until that player is admitted. If that were the case, how the heck did Damian Saunders get the boot from Marquette?

But here's a crazy thought ... instead of ranting and tossing out a bunch of straw men (I, in fact, never said a school could deny admission "at any time for any reason"), why do not your best to educate yourself (you obviously have not), acquaint yourself with the facts, then get back to me on where I'm wrong.

I'll start you off, then you can put your Marquette education to good use do the rest yourself. From the official National Letter of Intent home page:

"By signing a National Letter of Intent, a prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the designated college or university for one academic year. 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/

While you're at it, please provide some legal citations supporting your apparent belief that American universities and colleges are legally bound to admit certain students, namely those who have been offered an athletic scholarship.

Put your big brain to work.

[2TimeWarrior]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[bilsu]

His admission is supposedly being denied because he did not submit paperwork. There is no other indication that he is not qualified except for that problem. The question is did MU basketball staff tell him to take his time or is Newbill making that up. Besides that, I believe MU would have been hot on Vander's case, if he was missing something and it is hippocritical not to treat the recruits the same. We also do not know if admissions said he was denied or if basketball staff told him you will not be accepted, because he did not complete the paper work. I wonder if Wilson even has his paper work in yet, given that he just got his release. That is why I believe it is a correctable error and this is just a flimsy excuse to get a better player. It really is bending the intent of the qualifying admissions rule, which should not happen at a Jesuit University.

[TomW1365]

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who started this thread is an attorney or a writer for a local paper.  Certainly blowing this out of proportion.  Yeah, this doesn't look good... but fire Williams?!?  Over reaction at it's best. 

[Pakuni]

His admission is supposedly being denied because he did not submit paperwork. There is no other indication that he is not qualified except for that problem. The question is did MU basketball staff tell him to take his time or is Newbill making that up. Besides that, I believe MU would have been hot on Vander's case, if he was missing something and it is hippocritical not to treat the recruits the same. We also do not know if admissions said he was denied or if basketball staff told him you will not be accepted, because he did not complete the paper work. I wonder if Wilson even has his paper work in yet, given that he just got his release. That is why I believe it is a correctable error and this is just a flimsy excuse to get a better player. It really is bending the intent of the qualifying admissions rule, which should not happen at a Jesuit University.

Nobody, at least not anybody official or close to the situation, has said his admission is being denied because he did not do his paperwork, nor would MU need that as an excuse to deny him. In fact, they don't need any reason to deny him. As long as the denial isn't based on a specifically prohibited act of discrimination, they can deny him or anyone else.
People seem to be grappling with this. Marquette is under no obligation to admit DJ Newbill simply because he was offered a scholarship and signed a LOI. He could be as qualified as they come, and have his paperwork in at the soonest possible moment, and it still wouldn't obligate Marquette to admit him.

[Litehouse]

IMO, the importance of the application isn't that it somehow gets MU out on a technicality, although it does.  The real importance to me is that it indicates DJ may have known there was a good chance he wasn't going to end up at MU this year, so why bother filling out that pesky application.

[Pakuni]

IMO, the importance of the application isn't that it somehow gets MU out on a technicality, although it does.  The real importance to me is that it indicates DJ may have known there was a good chance he wasn't going to end up at MU this year, so why bother filling out that pesky application.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I wish someone could/would explain how a kid who has the opportunity to attend a dream school would sit on his application for weeks, if not months, if there really werne't anything more to the situation.

[madtownwarrior]

congrats - one of the longest thought out, stupid posts I have ever read on this message board....

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ben Brust was allowed to get out of his NLI to Iowa and go to Wisconsin. I know it's a different situation, but the bar has been set for DJ to appeal to be allowed to "transfer" within the Big East (assuming there actually are Big East offers out there).

There aren't any now, that's the problem.  If this happened months ago the kid has a chance.  But according to Rosiak, he was offered by West Virginia....unless Rosiak is wrong or lying.

[Marquette84]

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. Nowhere in the NLI guidelines does it guarantee a player a scholarship unless and until that player is admitted. If that were the case, how the heck did Damian Saunders get the boot from Marquette?

I ask a question, and you respond by telling me I'm wrong.  Nice.

Why don't you answer the question?

Let me repeat it for you:  Are you seriously making the argument that no school is obligated to their end of the NLI because at any time they can simply send a letter denying admission?

You seem fixated on the fact that the NLI is only valid if the school admits a student.  Yet you also claim the school has an "absolute right to admit or deny anyone admission for whatever reason it chooses."

Denying admission by definition voids the LOI.

Which means the university has an absolute right to void the LOI for any reason it chooses.

Is THAT your view?

(I, in fact, never said a school could deny admission "at any time for any reason"),

Let me refresh your memory:
"Marquette University has the absolute right to admit or deny anyone admission for whatever reason it chooses, so long as there is not discrimination on the basis of a that person being in a protected class"

Are you really going to be such a weasel as to hide behind the fact I left off your disclaimer of "member of a protected class"?  Or that you said "deny admission for whatever reason it chooses" rather than "at any time for any reason"

That would be pathetic even by your normal standards.  

I'll start you off, then you can put your Marquette education to good use do the rest yourself. From the official National Letter of Intent home page:

"By signing a National Letter of Intent, a prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the designated college or university for one academic year. 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/

Good--you found the NLI.  How about YOU put YOUR brain to work and READ it, please.

Then do me the courtesy of answering my question:

Under what circumstances (if any) would a school be compelled to honor this NLI if the condition that voids the NLI is at the whim of the school?

While you're at it, please provide some legal citations supporting your apparent belief that American universities and colleges are legally bound to admit certain students, namely those who have been offered an athletic scholarship.

For what end?

The intent of the NLI is to protect both the school and the student.  Student gets a scholarship, the school gets assurances that the student won't attend another school.

If you're right, then the NLI provides the student with a false sense of security that he will recieve a scholarship.  The school can deny admission right up until the first day of classes.  The school can legally void the NLI simply by denying admission for any reason--legitimate or not.

If you're right, then the document is inappropriate for its purpose and needs to be revised.

Somehow, I think you're wrong--I don't think schools can deny admission in order to get out their NLI obligations.  I think they are obilgated to use some reasonably objective criteria.  

But if you're right, then the NCAA needs to investigate and make changes because even if it is legally permissible, its not what they want.



 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not a violation.    At worst, Newbill's version is 100% true, no rules were broken but in this case Buzz made a decision to cut/recruit over a kid.   In this scenario, Buzz is a ruthless a-hole hypocrite who made a cold-blooded decision to do what he thought would make his team better, hurt feelings be damned.     Or, IWB's could be pretty close to the truth and we have a failure to make sure that all parties involved understood what was being said.     Not a firing offense.
     If this turns into a pattern, then many more are going to have issues, just as many came to have issues with Crean, but were willing to hold their tongues while he was our coach and winning.      But in the end, not a firing offense. 

Well said

[ChicosBailBonds]

IMO, the importance of the application isn't that it somehow gets MU out on a technicality, although it does.  The real importance to me is that it indicates DJ may have known there was a good chance he wasn't going to end up at MU this year, so why bother filling out that pesky application.

Not if you believe what his coach said....take your time on the essay, make sure you do it right.  Etc, etc.

Besides, that sound like one of the lamest excuses out there.  If the coaches still wanted him, they would be all over him to get his paperwork in.  Sure as hell looks obvious that they wanted him to take as long as he needed and then some.

[Pakuni]

I ask a question, and you respond by telling me I'm wrong.  Nice.

Why don't you answer the question?

Let me repeat it for you:  Are you seriously making the argument that no school is obligated to their end of the NLI because at any time they can simply send a letter denying admission?

You seem fixated on the fact that the NLI is only valid if the school admits a student.  Yet you also claim the school has an "absolute right to admit or deny anyone admission for whatever reason it chooses."

Denying admission by definition voids the LOI.

Which means the university has an absolute right to void the LOI for any reason it chooses.

This is a silly, fallacious argument.
My position is simple, factual and has been stated, repeatedly. You can read it in several other places on this board.

Let me refresh your memory:
"Marquette University has the absolute right to admit or deny anyone admission for whatever reason it chooses, so long as there is not discrimination on the basis of a that person being in a protected class"

Are you really going to be such a weasel as to hide behind the fact I left off your disclaimer of "member of a protected class"?  Or that you said "deny admission for whatever reason it chooses" rather than "at any time for any reason"

Sigh ... as always, when Marquette84's positions are being ripped to shreds, he brings out the personal insults.
Though I think it is amusing that you would call another a "weasel" for pointing out your habit of manipulating, misrepresenting and editing other's posts to suit your argument.
The sad part is, I know you know I'm right. You've provided not one scintilla of evidence disputing anything I've said. So, instead, you call names and make insults.

Under what circumstances (if any) would a school be compelled to honor this NLI if the condition that voids the NLI is at the whim of the school?

A school is compelled to honor the NLI once it grants a student-athlete admission. Says so, right there in writing. I thought that was obvious by now.
I'm sorry you, even after reading all about the NLI, are not able come to grips with the fact the NLI offers a student very little protection.

The intent of the NLI is to protect both the school and the student.  Student gets a scholarship, the school gets assurances that the student won't attend another school.

You can say it all you want, but this is not how it works. Read the NLI. Nowhere does it state this. I don't know what else I can say here. I've provided absolute proof that an NLI does not provide any assurances of a scholarship until after a student-athlete receives admission. If you cannot or will not accept that, that's your problem.

If you're right, then the NLI provides the student with a false sense of security that he will recieve a scholarship.  The school can deny admission right up until the first day of classes.

Only those students who don't read the NLI will have a false sense of security.  
Or those who, like you, read it, but refuse to believe it.
Though, historically speaking, a student should feel comfortable that once he signs an NLI and meets NCAA qualifications, he's getting that scholie. Exceptions happen, but they're fortunately very rare.
Didn't Marquette deny Damian Saunders admission almost right up to the first day of classes? Even though he had a signed NLI?

The school can legally void the NLI simply by denying admission for any reason--legitimate or not.

Whether a reason is legitimate or not is up to the individual school. Some schools would reject a student with a marijuana arrest. Many others would not. Is a legitimate reason? Who gets to decide? Should someone else get to determine what's right for Marquette or Wisconsin or any other school when it comes to who is and who is not admitted? Is there some guidebook out there that lists legitimate and illegitimate reasons to deny a student admission? Is there a special federal panel that determines the legitimacy of denials?

If you're right, then the document is inappropriate for its purpose and needs to be revised.

It's only inappropriate in your mind because you thought (think?)it is something that it very clearly is not, nor was it intended to be. You misunderstand the purpose. It's purpose is not, nor was it intended to be, an unconditional guarantee that a student-athlete would receive a scholarship the moment he signs the letter.

Somehow, I think you're wrong--I don't think schools can deny admission in order to get out their NLI obligations.  I think they are obilgated to use some reasonably objective criteria.  

So, you're not going to offer any factual support for your argument. Just what you "somehow think."
Fine.
Then I'm sure the NCAA will step in soon, reinstate DJ Newbill's scholarship to Marquette and send Jamil Wilson packing.
Until that time, why not get to work finding this set of objective criteria?

Look at the Saunders case.
By the NCAA's objective criteria, he should have receivbed his scholarship from Marquette.
But Marquette instead chose to deny him admission, and therefore a scholarship, by the purely arbitrary measure of its own academic standars - standards that were different for others.

But if you're right, then the NCAA needs to investigate and make changes because even if it is legally permissible, its not what they want.

It is exactly what they want. It gives a great deal of protection to the schools and very little to the athlete.

[Avenue Commons]

I am a huge Marquette basketball fan. I am also a voracious reader and reasonably plugged into the Marquette athletic department. Until reading about this situation on this board I had no idea what was going on. Trust me, this is not a big deal and the university isn't the least concerned about it or Buzz.

Everyone else has turned the page. You should too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am a huge Marquette basketball fan. I am also a voracious reader and reasonably plugged into the Marquette athletic department. Until reading about this situation on this board I had no idea what was going on. Trust me, this is not a big deal and the university isn't the least concerned about it or Buzz.

Everyone else has turned the page. You should too.

That's what scares some people, the fact they are least concerned about it.  As if the personal, human impact side is a non issue.  "Just business"

[SacWarrior]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Marquette84]

This is a silly, fallacious argument.
My position is simple, factual and has been stated, repeatedly. You can read it in several other places on this board.

Sigh ... as always, when Marquette84's positions are being ripped to shreds, he brings out the personal insults.
Though I think it is amusing that you would call another a "weasel" for pointing out your habit of manipulating, misrepresenting and editing other's posts to suit your argument.
The sad part is, I know you know I'm right. You've provided not one scintilla of evidence disputing anything I've said. So, instead, you call names and make insults.

A school is compelled to honor the NLI once it grants a student-athlete admission. Says so, right there in writing. I thought that was obvious by now.
I'm sorry you, even after reading all about the NLI, are not able come to grips with the fact the NLI offers a student very little protection.

You can say it all you want, but this is not how it works. Read the NLI. Nowhere does it state this. I don't know what else I can say here. I've provided absolute proof that an NLI does not provide any assurances of a scholarship until after a student-athlete receives admission. If you cannot or will not accept that, that's your problem.


Only those students who don't read the NLI will have a false sense of security.  
Or those who, like you, read it, but refuse to believe it.
Though, historically speaking, a student should feel comfortable that once he signs an NLI and meets NCAA qualifications, he's getting that scholie. Exceptions happen, but they're fortunately very rare.
Didn't Marquette deny Damian Saunders admission almost right up to the first day of classes? Even though he had a signed NLI?

Whether a reason is legitimate or not is up to the individual school. Some schools would reject a student with a marijuana arrest. Many others would not. Is a legitimate reason? Who gets to decide? Should someone else get to determine what's right for Marquette or Wisconsin or any other school when it comes to who is and who is not admitted? Is there some guidebook out there that lists legitimate and illegitimate reasons to deny a student admission? Is there a special federal panel that determines the legitimacy of denials?

It's only inappropriate in your mind because you thought (think?)it is something that it very clearly is not, nor was it intended to be. You misunderstand the purpose. It's purpose is not, nor was it intended to be, an unconditional guarantee that a student-athlete would receive a scholarship the moment he signs the letter.

So, you're not going to offer any factual support for your argument. Just what you "somehow think."
Fine.
Then I'm sure the NCAA will step in soon, reinstate DJ Newbill's scholarship to Marquette and send Jamil Wilson packing.
Until that time, why not get to work finding this set of objective criteria?

Look at the Saunders case.
By the NCAA's objective criteria, he should have receivbed his scholarship from Marquette.
But Marquette instead chose to deny him admission, and therefore a scholarship, by the purely arbitrary measure of its own academic standars - standards that were different for others.

It is exactly what they want. It gives a great deal of protection to the schools and very little to the athlete.

All that seems to matter to you is that little clause that says a player must be admitted for the NLI to be valid. 

When you couple that with your statement that the school has absolute right to deny admission for any reason, it means that a coach has absolute right to ignore any signed NLI he doesn't want to honor.  You may not want to say it in those words, but you've made it amply clear that's what you believe the NLI says, period, end of story, no room for discussion.

I think that's ethically wrong and borderline immoral even if it IS the letter of the law.  You think it's the kids fault for not reading the fine print of the NLI closely enough. 

I'll simply go back to my initial position.  If every school in D1 used the same loophole that Buzz did with Newbill, it would create an unsustainable situation, and the NCAA would act and close the loophole.

I don't believe for a second that the intent of the NLI is to give schools an absolute right to get out from any NLI for whatever reason they want simply by withholding admission.   

Contrary to your statement that this happens and had gone on for a long time, it doesn't.  You couldn't cite a single comparable situation where a school over-signed then dumped a player in the absence of of any transfers, injuries or non-qualifiers (and, no, Saunders isn't comparable).

And regardless of whether you think MU has the legal right to do so or not, It would sadden me tremendously if MU's admissions office took orders from the athletic department and denied admission to a student athlete for the sole purpose of reneging on their commitment to a young man in the event a better player comes along.

So in the end, you win the legal argument.  You believe that MU (and every other D1 school) has the legal right to screw incoming recruits out of what they thought was a commitment for a scholarship.

While might be technically correct, you'll never be right.

[marquette99]

Wow, can KipsBay be fired from posting for the worst post ever?  Sorry, as stupid a suggestion as the first one.

[brewcity77]

This is absolutely not a fireable offense. If we are discussing the same thing about TJ Oldpaper next year, and Brad Tulipboro the year after, and the pending NCAA sanctions the year after that, it's a different story.

I would be very upset if Marquette fired Buzz over this, but I would be equally upset if Buzz didn't learn from this and amend his own behavior in the future.

[Blackhat]

Yea, let us fire Buzz for this and kill any chance we have to be a good basketball program.


Maybe MU can hire Chico's to run around NIKE Coache's Clinics during the summer with a sign saying, "Coach at MU.  We'll fire you for non-violations."