Probable Scenario on Newbill !

[mu_hilltopper]

Here is how I simply look at it...the NCAA (university backed) and conference (university backed) allows for over-signing.

That nonsense would end quickly if they allowed the reverse:  Let players sign "commitments" for more than one school, decide which one they wanted to go with closer to kick-off.

[Dr. Blackheart]

That nonsense would end quickly if they allowed the reverse:  Let players sign "commitments" for more than one school, decide which one they wanted to go with closer to kick-off.

Which it is for the regular academic student--except those schools that also have an early commitment option.  With that, if you commit by Jan. 1, you have higher odds to get in (with a $$ penalty if you back out, I might add) vs. those who have 3-5 schools they are deciding on in April/May.  May be something there based on all this with NLI to provide options on NLI with a drop end commitment date (say May 15 after all the coaching changes but before summer term).

[NersEllenson]

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.

It's about more than "exceeding expectations."  Here are a few reasons why he will and wants to go 9-10 deep:  Watching the Mizzou Tigers in the 2009 NCAA, the Flordia State game this past year, and the Georgetown game in the Big East tournament.  We ran out of gas against FSU and Georgetown.  My guess is he will play a consistent 9-10 players, and that we will play a full court pressing/trapping D..and will play with high energy and intensity...higher than we've seen the last 2 years.

[Murffieus]

Why change the pattern of last year? 7-8 man rotation works best. All the final 4 teams used a 7-8 man rotation.

The problem vs GT wasn't depth----it was a talent deficiency-----GT played a 7-8 man rotation as well. also the problem vs Mizzou wasn't depth-----it was lack of size/height. Buzz starts running people in and out and we lose synergy.

He might experiment with a 9-10 rotation in the cupcake season, but my bet is he settles into a 7-8 rotation during  the BE schedule.

[Pakuni]

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.

I'll pick this apart point by point, and then say no more because a) there's nothing more to be said and b) it's no use debating someone who is unwilling to accept the facts.

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?  

I don't think I've ever said the NLI is not valid. I've said the schoalrship portion of the NLI is not binding until admission. In fact, I've written that other provisions of the NLI - such as the recruiting ban on other schools - are valid upon signing. Go back and read it.
As much as you try, over and over again, to use the two phrases interchangeably because you think it helps your argument, they aren't the same and I've never phrased it that way.
Interestingly enough, the portion of the NLI which you quote above is listed under a subhead. And what does the subhead read - which you conveniently left out? It reads: "Coaching Contact Prohibited at Time of Signing."
Hmmm. Did you really think I wouldn't check?

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?

Again, because there is more to the NLI than simply the scholarship guarantee. Such as the recruiting ban. Such as what would happen if the student tries to back out. Such as what would happen if the kid has to sit out a year. Many of these go into effect upon signing. The scholarship guarantee goes into effect upon admission.
I realize you're not a lawyer, but how can anyone argue that it's a binding contract prior to admission? If that were the case, why did Damian Saunders not attend Marquette? After all, according to you he held a binding contract with Marquette University that guaranteed him a scholarship. And, according to you, that contract is unconditionally binding upon the university.

Except, it's not. The scholarship portion of the NLI is, for all intents, a contingency deal. It says to the player if you sign this letter, and the institution signs it as well, then you will receive a scholarship if you are "admitted to the institution and eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules." If. See it? It's right there in writing. "If."
Is this not simple enough? The scholarship guarantee is conditional, not unconditional.

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?

There is? Where? Show me where it's explicity stated.
Regardless, your point is moot. A presumption of admission - even if there is such a thing - in no way means the scholarship is binding.

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.

Again, I've said the scholarship guarantee is not binding until admission. As much as you want to use that and the phrase "the NLI (in its entirety) is invalid" interchangeably, they are not the same. If the NLI was an unconditional scholarship guarantee - which it is not - and only an unconditional scholarship guarantee, your point may be valid. But that's not the case.

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.

See above.
And stop misrepresenting my statements.

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.

This makes no sense.
Beyond that, once again, it's the scholarship guarantee that's not binding.

"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"

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?

Been through this already. You're boring me.

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?  

Been through this already above.

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.

What does this have to do with the contract guarantee?

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?  

Cite?
Regardless, once again you're confusing the validity of the NLI with the guarantee of a scholarship.

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.  

For the umpteeth time, I've said the scholarship guarantee is not binding, not all provisions of the NLI. Stop misrepresenting my statements.

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?

We've been through this, oh, about 12 times now.

Have your last say.

[ecompt]

+1,000. Njce work, Pakuni.

[GGGG]

+1,000. Njce work, Pakuni.

Not only did Pakuni do nice work, but left unsaid in all of this is that Cottingham is a lawyer and very likely signed off on all of this well beforehand.

[bilsu]

An NLI is valid and binding on the athletic department. It is not binding on the admissions department. The athletic department cannot tell the admissions department to bend their standards and the admissions department cannot put students on the basketball team. The presumption of admission comes from the fact that coaches should not waste their time recruiting players they do not think will be admitted and will help the player legally do what is necessary to obtain admissions. Admissions standards vary by school. There are minimum admissions standards set by the NCAA. Each school can set their standard above that and generally the admission standards for non-athletes is higher than the athletes admission standards. So compared to the general student body, it is easy to suddenly say an athlete is not qualified. As far as we know, with the exception of basketball ability and filing of paperwork there was nothing else perventing Newbill from being admitted. Now, if Newbill did not have the ability he should not have been given the chance to sign an NLI. That is not Newbill's fault it is the basketball staff's fault. To me the failure to submit paperwork falls on both parties. I would expect the athletic department to do everything possible to make sure a recruit is doing the necessary paperwork and a recruit needs to make a good faith effort to get the paperwork in. Of course you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. The problem I have is Newbill saying he was told to take his time. That can actually be taken two ways. MU staff was trying to keep him from being admitted, so they were setting Newbill up to fail. However, the second scenario is just as likely or may even more likely. Newbill was having trouble completing the paperwork and Monarch was just trying to work with him by giving him more time. Time ran out, when Buzz had a better player fall into his lap.

[Marquette84]

I'll pick this apart point by point, and then say no more because a) there's nothing more to be said and b) it's no use debating someone who is unwilling to accept the facts.

I don't think I've ever said the NLI is not valid. I've said the schoalrship portion of the NLI is not binding until admission. In fact, I've written that other provisions of the NLI - such as the recruiting ban on other schools - are valid upon signing. Go back and read it.
As much as you try, over and over again, to use the two phrases interchangeably because you think it helps your argument, they aren't the same and I've never phrased it that way.
Interestingly enough, the portion of the NLI which you quote above is listed under a subhead. And what does the subhead read - which you conveniently left out? It reads: "Coaching Contact Prohibited at Time of Signing."
Hmmm. Did you really think I wouldn't check?

Again, because there is more to the NLI than simply the scholarship guarantee. Such as the recruiting ban. Such as what would happen if the student tries to back out. Such as what would happen if the kid has to sit out a year. Many of these go into effect upon signing. The scholarship guarantee goes into effect upon admission.
I realize you're not a lawyer, but how can anyone argue that it's a binding contract prior to admission? If that were the case, why did Damian Saunders not attend Marquette? After all, according to you he held a binding contract with Marquette University that guaranteed him a scholarship. And, according to you, that contract is unconditionally binding upon the university.

Except, it's not. The scholarship portion of the NLI is, for all intents, a contingency deal. It says to the player if you sign this letter, and the institution signs it as well, then you will receive a scholarship if you are "admitted to the institution and eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules." If. See it? It's right there in writing. "If."
Is this not simple enough? The scholarship guarantee is conditional, not unconditional.

There is? Where? Show me where it's explicity stated.
Regardless, your point is moot. A presumption of admission - even if there is such a thing - in no way means the scholarship is binding.

Again, I've said the scholarship guarantee is not binding until admission. As much as you want to use that and the phrase "the NLI (in its entirety) is invalid" interchangeably, they are not the same. If the NLI was an unconditional scholarship guarantee - which it is not - and only an unconditional scholarship guarantee, your point may be valid. But that's not the case.


See above.
And stop misrepresenting my statements.

This makes no sense.
Beyond that, once again, it's the scholarship guarantee that's not binding.

"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"

Been through this already. You're boring me.

Been through this already above.


What does this have to do with the contract guarantee?

Cite?
Regardless, once again you're confusing the validity of the NLI with the guarantee of a scholarship.


For the umpteeth time, I've said the scholarship guarantee is not binding, not all provisions of the NLI. Stop misrepresenting my statements.

We've been through this, oh, about 12 times now.

Have your last say.

Its obvious to me that you didn't read the actual NLI--only the FAQ and interpretations documents.

1.  The NLI document does guarantees a scholarship, and it must be provided to the student at the time of signing. The offer is not conditional, but it can later be nullified if the terms aren't met.
"At the time I sign this NLI, I must receive a written offer of athletics financial aid for the entire 2009-2010
academic year from the institution named in this document. The offer must list the terms and conditions of the athletics aid award, including the amount and duration of the financial aid. (A midyear football junior college transfer must receive a written offer of athletics financial aid for the remainder of the 2008-2009 academic year.) In order for this NLI to be valid, my parent/legal guardian and I must sign the NLI and I must also sign the offer of athletics aid (see institutional policy for parent/legal guardian signature) prior to submission to the institution named in this document, and any other stated conditions must also be met. If the conditions stated on the financial aid offer are
not met, this NLI shall be declared null and void. "


2.  The scholarship offer is valid until the student has been denied admission--it is not contingent on being accepted:
"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 the fall 2009 has failed to provide me with written notice of admission, provided I have submitted a complete admission application. "

3.  There is a presumption that the student is eligible for admission:
"It is presumed that I am eligible for admission and financial aid until information is submitted to the contrary. Thus, it is mandatory for me, upon request, to provide all necessary academic records and an application for admission to the institution named in this document."

No matter how many times you use the FAQ language to say that the offer doesn't exist until admission is granted, the NLI itself states exactly the opposite--the offer is made when the NLI is signed, and the student is presumed admitted until proven otherwise.   

In Newbill's case, the deadline for "submission of necessary academic records and application and application for admission" had clearly not yet occurred.  Therefore, he was to be presumed eligible for admission, and the written offer of athletics financial aid provided to him still in force.   

[MUSF]

It seems that some people are confusing what they think with what is legal and allowable by the NCAA.  I'm pretty sure that MU would have checked all of this stuff out through their lawyers before proceeding.  It would be pretty embarrassing to announce that Wilson is transfering in and Newbill is out, only to be forced by the NCAA or the courts to admit Newbill.

I think Pakuni has put to bed the notion that MU can't keep Newbill out. 

[Marquette84]

It seems that some people are confusing what they think with what is legal and allowable by the NCAA.  I'm pretty sure that MU would have checked all of this stuff out through their lawyers before proceeding.  It would be pretty embarrassing to announce that Wilson is transfering in and Newbill is out, only to be forced by the NCAA or the courts to admit Newbill.

I think Pakuni has put to bed the notion that MU can't keep Newbill out. 

You mean like the way our lawyers checked out how we would rescind Jodi O'Brien's job offer before proceeding?  I think you give them too much credit.

Its already pretty embarrassing for Marquette--we pulled a scholarship from a kid at the 11th hour simply because a better player came along.

[Pakuni]

You mean like the way our lawyers checked out how we would rescind Jodi O'Brien's job offer before proceeding?  I think you give them too much credit.

Its already pretty embarrassing for Marquette--we pulled a scholarship from a kid at the 11th hour simply because a better player came along.

OK, I said I wouldn't do this, but sometimes I just can't help myself ...

How could MU pull a scholarship from a kid at the 11th hour if - as you continue to maintain - the university was contractually obligated to provide him a scholarship?
Is Marquette guilty of breaching a legally binding agreement?

[GGGG]

Marquette84....

Admission to the university is just like any condition in a contract.  Marquette has no obligations under the contract until admission.  The player's obligations under the contract exist until admission is denied.

You are just arguing a semantic detail that in the end is irrelevant.

[Lennys Tap]

OK, I said I wouldn't do this, but sometimes I just can't help myself ...

How could MU pull a scholarship from a kid at the 11th hour if - as you continue to maintain - the university was contractually obligated to provide him a scholarship?
Is Marquette guilty of breaching a legally binding agreement?

Exactly. If 84's right MU owes DJ a scholarship or a tidy settlement for breach of contract. If he's wrong he's entitled to neither. I'm willing to bet on the latter, but I won't hold my breath waiting for 84 to put up.

[avid1010]

Anyone find it odd that DJ's coach, Stan Laws (philly coach), was fired from what sounds like a volunteered coaching position and then DJ doesn't show up at MU?

[Marquette84]

OK, I said I wouldn't do this, but sometimes I just can't help myself ...

How could MU pull a scholarship from a kid at the 11th hour if - as you continue to maintain - the university was contractually obligated to provide him a scholarship?

Easy.  They got Newbill to sign the form requesting a release from the NLI.

5) Scott tells Stan that Buzz has decided to go another direction and he needs DJ to sign a form requesting his release from Marquette.  (Remember, DJ had already signed on the dotted line)

To which Rosiak reported Buzz Williams as saying:  "Through a culmination of several things, we have decided to give D.J. Newbill his release."

Which begs the question:  If Marquette was NOT under any obligation to provide a scholarship to Newbill, why did they need Newbill to request a waiver of his NLI?   Why not just let Newbill submit his application and then reject him?  

The only plausible explanation is that MU's admission office might accept Newbill's application.  

It certainly wasn't out of concern for Newbill so he could pursue another school like Nick WIlliams or Tyshawn Taylor--Newbill didn't want OUT of Marquette--he wanted to come here.  

And it wasn't to give him the chance to pursue a backup school after he was rejected--his NLI would have been voided at that point, so he he would have been free to pursue any other school.

Is Marquette guilty of breaching a legally binding agreement?

No.  They got Newbill to sign a release.  Its a moot point.

But the fact the needed him to sign the release suggests the agreement was binding.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Has anyone been able to come up with the numerous examples where this has happened elsewhere?  I asked the other day and to my knowledge, have not been presented with them yet.

I kept reading here and elsewhere that this "happens all the time at other schools" but I haven't seen any evidence that it happens "all the time".  I would think if it does, there must be dozens of examples.

[Pakuni]

Easy.  They got Newbill to sign the form requesting a release from the NLI.
To which Rosiak reported Buzz Williams as saying:  "Through a culmination of several things, we have decided to give D.J. Newbill his release."

Which begs the question:  If Marquette was NOT under any obligation to provide a scholarship to Newbill, why did they need Newbill to request a waiver of his NLI?   Why not just let Newbill submit his application and then reject him?  

The only plausible explanation is that MU's admission office might accept Newbill's application.  

It certainly wasn't out of concern for Newbill so he could pursue another school like Nick WIlliams or Tyshawn Taylor--Newbill didn't want OUT of Marquette--he wanted to come here.  

And it wasn't to give him the chance to pursue a backup school after he was rejected--his NLI would have been voided at that point, so he he would have been free to pursue any other school.


No.  They got Newbill to sign a release.  Its a moot point.

But the fact the needed him to sign the release suggests the agreement was binding.

You're right.
DJ Newbill was given a release by Marquette University. A release that allows him to reopen his recruitment, have contact with other schools, field offers and eventually choose one.

On the other hand, Marquette University was not given a release from DJ Newbill. Because there's nothing for the university to be released from.

See also the language from the Yahoo/Rivals story:

"so coach Buzz Williams revealed Wednesday that the school will release Newbill from his letter of intent."

Again, it's the school releasing the prospective student, not the other way around and not mutual.

Have you noticed that your frequent partner in crime - and before you get offended, I don't mean that literally -hasn't defended you once on this. A guy with experience working in college athletic departments, and yet he hasn't chimed in to say SJS is correct?
Maybe he's just sitting this one out. If so, he's a wiser man than I (on this count, at least)
Or maybe he knows what the deal is.

OK. That's it. I will try my darndest to not broach this subject again. It's played out.

[GGGG]

Easy.  They got Newbill to sign the form requesting a release from the NLI.
To which Rosiak reported Buzz Williams as saying:  "Through a culmination of several things, we have decided to give D.J. Newbill his release."

Exactly.  He was under contract with MU to cease being recruiting elsewhere.  MU gave him back his rights.  Newbill didn't have to grant MU its release from the NLI since they were under no obligations.

[avid1010]

Has anyone been able to come up with the numerous examples where this has happened elsewhere?  I asked the other day and to my knowledge, have not been presented with them yet.

I kept reading here and elsewhere that this "happens all the time at other schools" but I haven't seen any evidence that it happens "all the time".  I would think if it does, there must be dozens of examples.

It seems to me that we don't fully know what went on here, so it would be impossible to know if this type of thing has played out before.  I could give you numerous examples of people jumping to conclusions when not knowing the real facts and making a bad situation worse though.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It seems to me that we don't fully know what went on here, so it would be impossible to know if this type of thing has played out before.  I could give you numerous examples of people jumping to conclusions when not knowing the real facts and making a bad situation worse though.

Fair statement Avid....so would it be your conclusion then that when people say this happens "all the time" or "many schools do this", there might be just a bit of hyperbole, or even flat out incorrect statement when they use these lines to justify our actions?

[avid1010]

Fair statement Avid....so would it be your conclusion then that when people say this happens "all the time" or "many schools do this", there might be just a bit of hyperbole, or even flat out incorrect statement when they use these lines to justify our actions?

Absolutely...we have one side that feels Buzz can do no wrong, and is willing to stick up for him no matter his actions.  Example being, if MU really shafted this kid, they'd be fine with it.

We have another side that wants to come to the conclusion that Buzz did shaft this kid, yet we don't know the full set of facts.  My common sense, and from the articles I've read, leads me to believe that Buzz is probably at fault to a pretty high degree, but that's a gut feeling, and I have nothing concrete.

All I'm saying, is wait and see if we ever hear more.  PhillyCoach was on this acting a bit odd, he's been fired from what I'm reading was a volunteer position (according to him because the principal was jealous of his success), he's followed DJ around for many years, and DJ didn't get his paperwork in.  Just as it seems odd that IWB's story could be true if DJ had offers from other BEAST schools, not everything is perfectly normal on DJ's side.  About all any of us can really have to say on this manner is that we hope Buzz acted ethically.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Fair statement Avid....so would it be your conclusion then that when people say this happens "all the time" or "many schools do this", there might be just a bit of hyperbole, or even flat out incorrect statement when they use these lines to justify our actions?

I think it's also fair to say that this statement applies to those arguing the other side, don't you think?

[Marquette84]

You're right.
DJ Newbill was given a release by Marquette University. A release that allows him to reopen his recruitment, have contact with other schools, field offers and eventually choose one.

On the other hand, Marquette University was not given a release from DJ Newbill. Because there's nothing for the university to be released from.

See also the language from the Yahoo/Rivals story:

"so coach Buzz Williams revealed Wednesday that the school will release Newbill from his letter of intent."

Again, it's the school releasing the prospective student, not the other way around and not mutual.

Have you noticed that your frequent partner in crime - and before you get offended, I don't mean that literally -hasn't defended you once on this. A guy with experience working in college athletic departments, and yet he hasn't chimed in to say SJS is correct?
Maybe he's just sitting this one out. If so, he's a wiser man than I (on this count, at least)
Or maybe he knows what the deal is.

OK. That's it. I will try my darndest to not broach this subject again. It's played out.

I don't think you answered the question.

If Marquette was NOT under any obligation to provide a scholarship to Newbill, why did they need Newbill to request a waiver of his NLI?   Why not just let Newbill submit his application and then reject him? 

[MUSF]

I don't think you answered the question.

If Marquette was NOT under any obligation to provide a scholarship to Newbill, why did they need Newbill to request a waiver of his NLI?   Why not just let Newbill submit his application and then reject him? 

Did they NEED to do it or did they do it so DJ could open up his recruitment again?  Also, it would prevent potential negative fallout for MU from actually having to reject him.  It seems to me that having DJ opt out is best for both parties.  Okay, maybe not BEST.  Best for DJ would be to attend MU in th fall, but you get my point.