Can't we just get to the heart of the matter. What is the RIGHT THING TO DO?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Look, this is pretty simple.  People can spin this all over the place and say he was told about Prep school, or other schools do it, or basketball is big time business, etc, etc.


Let's get to the heart of the matter.

If you sign a kid to a NLI, it is a CONTRACT...a COMMITMENT.

What is the RIGHT THING TO DO....knowing he was academically qualified and hadn't broken any laws (like Saunders which Pakuni skipped over in his comparison). 


Now, some of you might say the right thing to do is honor the commitment but we got better so you don't care about Newbill.  Fine, just admit it.

Some of you might say we should honor the commitment no matter what.  It's part of what MU should be all about.  Fine.

Some of you might say a commitment never existed, in which case I'd love to ask you what the hell a NLI is.


This is pretty simple. What was the RIGHT THING TO DO?

[CrazyEcho]

It must be nice to see the world in black/white terms. 

[Clam Crowder]

Why do you hate everything Buzz does?

[ChicosBailBonds]

It must be nice to see the world in black/white terms. 

So when a kid signs a NLI, MU should not honor it....assuming he hasn't broken any laws and is academically eligible?  Is that what you're saying?  Forget about the nonsense of a prep school, I'm asking a straight, fundamental question.  Should we honor our commitments?

As for the prep school, it makes no damn sense.  Why on earth would someone sign a NLI if he were going to prep school?  Why?  On what planet does that provide any type of advantage at all for the student athlete?  I'd love to hear the non black and white answer on that.

Thanks 

[avid1010]

Look, this is pretty simple.  People can spin this all over the place and say he was told about Prep school, or other schools do it, or basketball is big time business, etc, etc.


Let's get to the heart of the matter.

If you sign a kid to a NLI, it is a CONTRACT...a COMMITMENT.

What is the RIGHT THING TO DO....knowing he was academically qualified and hadn't broken any laws (like Saunders which Pakuni skipped over in his comparison). 


Now, some of you might say the right thing to do is honor the commitment but we got better so you don't care about Newbill.  Fine, just admit it.

Some of you might say we should honor the commitment no matter what.  It's part of what MU should be all about.  Fine.

Some of you might say a commitment never existed, in which case I'd love to ask you what the hell a NLI is.


This is pretty simple. What was the RIGHT THING TO DO?

Last time you went with the bold, your foot was planted firmly in your mouth.  

Does a NLI have to be upheld, but a man's word to another man doesn't?  

If contracts should not be broken, should TC still be at MU and Buzz in Orleans?

[tower912]

So we should have honored the commitment and hired the dean from Seattle.       Actually, in this case, I lean in your direction.   Even though it was technically allowable, it feels icky.

[TallTitan34]

Buzz's job is to make Marquette basketball the best it can be.  He told DJ what would happen if someone better came yet DJ still chose to sign it. Someone better came and what Buzz told him would happen did. 

Buzz made the right move and made Marquette basketball better.

As for NLIs, they are pretty worthless in my opinion. A player can ask out of a NLI for any BS reason they can think of. 

[g0lden3agle]

Apparently the right thing to do is to have as many threads as possible actively talking about this subject.

Wasn't there some concept going around that MU was only able to do this because DJ had yet to submit his application to the school?  If that's the case, the right thing to do was to recognize that the kid has yet to even apply to the school and a better option became available, so we replaced the kid that seemingly was already dilly dallying around his his commitment to MU.

It's a two way street. After reading one of the other threads I was under the assumption that DJ had yet to fulfill his part of the commitment, allowing MU to back out of their end.  If that assumption is correct, then I believe MU did the right thing.

[CrazyEcho]

So when a kid signs a NLI, MU should not honor it....assuming he hasn't broken any laws and is academically eligible?  Is that what you're saying?  Forget about the nonsense of a prep school, I'm asking a straight, fundamental question.  Should we honor our commitments?

As for the prep school, it makes no damn sense.  Why on earth would someone sign a NLI if he were going to prep school?  Why?  On what planet does that provide any type of advantage at all for the student athlete?  I'd love to hear the non black and white answer on that.

Thanks 

In your world, there is only one type of NLI . . . an absolute, binding, black/white NLI.  If IWB's story is to be believed, there are shades of NLIs (some absolute, binding, black/white and some that are contingent on other factors beyond the student's control).  

You're trying to take what happened and jam it into your world where there are only absolute, binding, black/white NLIs.  That's not reality.  

2nd paragraph: There are plausible explanations.  He hoped against hope that Buzz wouldn't find anyone for "his" scholarship and he'd get to come here.  He was able to walk around for months and say he had a BE offer.  The recruiting process is a difficult time for athletes (being pressured) and signing an NLI ends that.    

[mu_hilltopper]

I tend to agree with this analysis.   Admittedly, I don't pay close attention to recruiting, but "wait listing" someone who you've given an offer to, and they've accepted it via NLI, seems irregular.   I mean, it works out great for the school, as they can dump the ugly girl for a prettier one.  But the recruit gets hosed.  

One would expect future border line / hidden gem type recruits would heed this story before ending their recruitment process and selecting MU.

This whole episode seems so .. Un-Buzz like.  

[TallTitan34]

As for the prep school, it makes no damn sense.  Why on earth would someone sign a NLI if he were going to prep school?  Why?  On what planet does that provide any type of advantage at all for the student athlete?  I'd love to hear the non black and white answer on that.
 

Looks like Echo beat me to it. Apparently MU was his "dream school" so why not sign the NLI and hope no one better comes along?

[muarmy81]

So when a kid signs a NLI, MU should not honor it....assuming he hasn't broken any laws and is academically eligible?  Is that what you're saying?  Forget about the nonsense of a prep school, I'm asking a straight, fundamental question.  Should we honor our commitments?

As for the prep school, it makes no damn sense.  Why on earth would someone sign a NLI if he were going to prep school?  Why?  On what planet does that provide any type of advantage at all for the student athlete?  I'd love to hear the non black and white answer on that.

Thanks 

Why shouldn't head coaches honor their contracts...it's a commitment.  Why do players transfer or opt out of their commitments? (Trevor Mbwake, Tyshawn Taylor, etc)  There are so many more issues in play now a days that you can't live in black in white especially in a "what have you done for me lately" world.  If Buzz doesn't win he looses his job...and why don't we wait 3-5 years to see if this happens again...we seem to have to wait to justify his early success but not his early mistakes.

[TJ]

You're trying to take what happened and jam it into your world where there are only absolute, binding, black/white NLIs.  That's not reality.  

That is reality.  The NLI is 100% binding on the player's side of the agreement.  The player can ask out all he wants, but the school is under no obligation to actually grant the release.  Apparently the same cannot be said of the school's side of the agreement.

[CrazyEcho]

That is reality.  The NLI is 100% binding on the player's side of the agreement.  The player can ask out all he wants, but the school is under no obligation to actually grant the release.  Apparently the same cannot be said of the school's side of the agreement.

You said it yourself, it's not binding on the school and the school can put caveats on it (we'll honor this IF . . .)  So, as I said previously, 100% binding (100% meaning both sides) NLI do not exist, contrary to what CBB and apparently you think.

[Norm]

The right thing to do was honor the commitment. If a coach and university extends a LOI to a recruit and then accepts it when the athlete sends it back in, then the school should honor the commitment. If the coach tells the recruit that they will take the kid as long as they can't find someone else at another position or someone better, then the scholarship should not be offered until the coach is satisfied that is the case. Once the coach accepts the LOI then the player should not be given a release just because a better player is available.

[StillAWarrior]

You said it yourself, it's not binding on the school and the school can put caveats on it (we'll honor this IF . . .)  So, as I said previously, 100% binding (100% meaning both sides) NLI do not exist, contrary to what CBB and apparently you think.

Not to start trouble here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read Newbill's NLI.  Neither have I.  None of us knows what the letter said, so I think it's kind of silly for any of us to base our argument on what was in that letter.  I won't dispute that the letter might have had caveats, but I have no idea.

If I'm wrong, and you have seen the letter, my apologies.

[TJ]

You said it yourself, it's not binding on the school and the school can put caveats on it (we'll honor this IF . . .)  So, as I said previously, 100% binding (100% meaning both sides) NLI do not exist, contrary to what CBB and apparently you think.

I was being sarcastic with my last statement, because if that's true then the whole concept of a NLI is a horrible, horrible thing that needs to be done away with entirely.  A contract that exists solely to protect giant institutions from the big, bad 18 year old amateur student-athletes?  

[MUfan12]

Unfortunately, Newbill's rampant lesbianism got in the way. Buzz should have known better.

[Hamostradamus]

The right thing to do? If you are Newbill, and you expect a 4-year irrevocable schollie regardless of talent progression, then go to Wisconsin.

If you are Buzz, and people expect (and you are paid) to field the best team possible, then you tell DJ that the contingency on his offer has gone into effect, and he will have to go prep or go elsewhere.

[CrazyEcho]

Not to start trouble here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read Newbill's NLI.  Neither have I.  None of us knows what the letter said, so I think it's kind of silly for any of us to base our argument on what was in that letter.  I won't dispute that the letter might have had caveats, but I have no idea.

If I'm wrong, and you have seen the letter, my apologies.

I don't know what the letter said.  I was basing my statement off of IWB's post on the other message board . . . which Newbill's disappointed/surprised reactions don't seem to contradict.

[StillAWarrior]

Unfortunately, Newbill's rampant lesbianism got in the way. Buzz should have known better.

I'll admit it...I laughed.  Out loud.  Somebody should come up with an easier way for me to express my amusement...

[dwaderoy2004]

I was being sarcastic with my last statement, because if that's true then the whole concept of a NLI is a horrible, horrible thing that needs to be done away with entirely.  A contract that exists solely to protect giant institutions from the big, bad 18 year old amateur student-athletes?  

Yeah, that's basically how an NLI works.  Total protection for the schools, none for the student athletes.  It should also be stated that student-athletes are not required to sign a NLI by the NCAA.  Why they choose to do so, I have no idea.

[CrazyEcho]

The right thing to do was honor the commitment. If a coach and university extends a LOI to a recruit and then accepts it when the athlete sends it back in, then the school should honor the commitment. If the coach tells the recruit that they will take the kid as long as they can't find someone else at another position or someone better, then the scholarship should not be offered until the coach is satisfied that is the case. Once the coach accepts the LOI then the player should not be given a release just because a better player is available.

OK, that's your opinion.  It can be done that way and was done that way (according to the IWB post on the other message board).  

If a 17 year-old-kid + a gaggle of advisers agree to a situation where the kid gets a scholarship if the team doesn't find anyone better and gets released if they do . . . I don't have a problem with that.  Apparently you do.  

[CrazyEcho]

Yeah, that's basically how an NLI works.  Total protection for the schools, none for the student athletes.  It should also be stated that student-athletes are not required to sign a NLI by the NCAA.  Why they choose to do so, I have no idea.

If DJ would have:

1. Submitted his application

2. Been accepted to MU

3. Sign a NLI to MU

Could MU have backed out after that point?

[mu-rara]

So we should have honored the commitment and hired the dean from Seattle.       Actually, in this case, I lean in your direction.   Even though it was technically allowable, it feels icky.

Chicos,  If I remember correctly, you were OK withdrawing the offer to Jodi O'Brien.  How do you square that with your post on this topic?