And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..

[ATWizJr]

+1 googol.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oversigning is allowed. We did it and Newbill was the odd man out. What more is there to say? Time to move on.

A lot of things are allowed, the question is whether we should do them.

We could go hire a recruit's AAU coach or high school coach....should we? 

That's what this discussion has always been about.

[ATL MU Warrior]

A lot of things are allowed, the question is whether we should do them.
We could go hire a recruit's AAU coach or high school coach....should we? 
That's what this discussion has always been about.

Buzz and the athletic department should do everything that's allowed to put the best possible team on the floor that:
1) wins games
2) represents the university well
3) wins more games
4) helps these young men become better all-around people
5) wins more games

As fans, that's all we can ask for and expect.  All of this "we're better than that" BS isn't based in any kind of reality.  Guess what, we might have attended Marquette University, but that DOES NOT make us any better than anybody else.

[Marquette84]

You said what Buzz did was illegal and against the rules, I made the stupid assumption that you were saying he did something to violate a NCAA rule..

I think you're splitting hairs.  The NCAA Eligibility Center administers the program, while the CCS provides governance and oversight.

Nonethless, we've agreed to a certain set of rules (along with 611 other colleges & universities) that define recruiting.  We expect each of those other schools will abide by the rules--why do you think that MU isn't bound by them?  

Here's what the NCAA sent to its member schools to clarify that the recruiting guidelines
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.

I wonder how many recruits have talked to coaches about prep school as an option for a million and one reasons.

They can talk all they want. Once they turn it into any sort of additional condition of the NLI, they've broken the rule.

The NLI is not legally binding for the school.  

That's not what the NCAA says:
http://bit.ly/cpcEX3
"The NLI is a binding agreement between a prospective student‐athlete and an NLI member institution."

If Buzz told DJ that he was going to keep recruiting and drop DJ if he found someone better, but he'd be welcome at MU the following year, there's nothing "illegal" about it from what I've read in the information you provided.

Sounds like an addition to the NLI to me.  And here's the rule on that:
NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ALLOWED TO NLI: No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.

But even if Buzz did tell Newbill this and never intended intend it to be an official part of the NLI, that agreement was voided when the NLI was signed:
[/i]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.[/i]

In regards to your question about Kentucky.  1.  What you have described in that situation and what MU might have done are two VERY different things.  

No, its breaking the same rule: No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.

2.  No, I would not call it cheating and from what I read in your post, neither would the NCAA.

Actually, the NCAA would call it cheating.   No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.  

They changed the rule to make such deals illegal after Memphis issued such letters to recruits in the event Calipari left.

The National Letter of Intent program might, but it sounds voluntary to me, and it also sounds like it is there to protect the colleges and not the players.

Let's list some of the protections we lose if we "volunteered" not to be part of the program:
1.  We will lose the ability to sign recruits (the NLI is part of the NLI program).  All of our recruits would be verbal only.
2.  Our recruits would be fair game for other teams to continue to recruit right up to the day they enroll in class.  The recruiting ban is part of the NLI program.
3.  We could not make any public statements about our recruits--coaches can only speak publicly about a recruit after the school has received an NLI.  
4.  Recruits would not be bound to attend MU. They could change their mind and attend any school--including other big east schools--right up to the first day of class.  
5.  Leaving MU would become penalty-free for recruits--under the NLI, a recruit that wants to leave a school has to either request a release, or he pays the penalty of a one-year residency period and loss of one-season's eligibility.

And let's not forget the whopper.  The NCAA requires that all members of an NLI member conference be "voluntary" NLI members.  Therefore, opting out (or being kicked out) of the NLI Program will result in us returning to the ranks of the Independents (or petitioning for admission to the Ivy League--the only league not part of the NLI program).

So don't tell me that we shouldn't be worried about maintaining NLI membership.

Let me ask you a few questions.  If you are worried about coaches shafting potential recruits don't you think the NLI program is a complete joke as it protects the school but not the recruit?  

I'm worried about MU slipping into a murky culture where we feel its okay to cheat because its "only" the NLI.

Do you think Kentucky is worried about being kicked out of the program for offering kids the security they need (and are requesting) to rest assured they can leave a school if their coach leaves?  

If they do this, I hope they get the book at them by expelling them from the NLI program.

Do you think schools should put it in writing that they are willing to let a kid out of scholarship if a coach leaves?

They can't do this leaglly under the current rules in place.

If a five star recruit walked on MU's campus and offered to sign for next year but request MU put it in writing that he could leave if Buzz left do you feel MU should do so?

Buzz can't legally do this under the current rules in place.

[avid1010]

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.[/i]

They can talk all they want. Once they turn it into any sort of additional condition of the NLI, they've broken the rule.

So if DJ's signature nullified anything Buzz had said to the kid, and they didn't put anything in writing, I fail to see where Buzz cheated or did anything illegal which is what you originally stated?  In one sentence you say Buzz can't say what he did because it's cheating and illegal, and in another you say they can talk all they want.  

So let's go one step further:  Did Buzz do anything against the NLI rules, if there were talks between Buzz and DJ about going to prep school if MU was able to find a player that better fit MU's needs?

[MUCam]

This whole Newbill argument is asinine from all sides. That said, Marquette84, you specifically may want to sit the rest of this one out, as your argument about Buzz's illegality is completely void of legal merit.

First: NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ALLOWED TO NLI: No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.

This section applies to the letter/form itself. In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute, or in this case, the plain meaning of the word. It plainly and clearly says "[n]o additions or deletions shall be made to the [National Letter of Intent] or the Release Request form." It says nothing about agreements outside of the NLI; that will come next. So, unless you have evidence that the actual NLI was modified, then there is no violation of the above.

Second: 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.

This brings us to oral agreements outside of the NLI, which many have alleged was the case with the Newbill situation. Again, reading the plain meaning of the language, there is absolutely no mention of illegality. It simply says that such agreements are void, which is not uncommon. In fact, most contracts contain a "rule of completition" provision within their terms, which states that oral agreements outside of the terms of the four corners of the contract are null and void. This does not make entereing into such an oral agreement "illegal," just fruitless. . Furthermore, if you look at the language closer, it actually ties the student and not the institution. This language is intended to prevent the situation where a kid signs an NLI, a coach is subsequently fired, and the kid says, "[m]y oral agreement with the previous coach allows me to obtain my release.


If they wanted to make these side agreements "illegal" they would have used language such as "An institution, or its agents, shall be prohibited from placing verbal or oral conditions on the NLI. Note that you have not cited any such language.

To reiterate, your argument that Buzz acted "illegally" is without merit and is indicative of some ulterior motive on your part to undermine Buzz and his coaching regime. It further undermines any arguments against Buzz's handling of the Newbill situation.

Personally, I felt the Newbill situation was handled poorly. That said, I am not about to create phony legal arguments void of substance to further my point. Like I said earlier, you may want to sit this one out.

[Lennys Tap]

This whole Newbill argument is asinine from all sides. That said, Marquette84, you specifically may want to sit the rest of this one out, as your argument about Buzz's illegality is completely void of legal merit.

First: NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ALLOWED TO NLI: No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.

This section applies to the letter/form itself. In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute, or in this case, the plain meaning of the word. It plainly and clearly says "[n]o additions or deletions shall be made to the [National Letter of Intent] or the Release Request form." It says nothing about agreements outside of the NLI; that will come next. So, unless you have evidence that the actual NLI was modified, then there is no violation of the above.

Second: 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.

This brings us to oral agreements outside of the NLI, which many have alleged was the case with the Newbill situation. Again, reading the plain meaning of the language, there is absolutely no mention of illegality. It simply says that such agreements are void, which is not uncommon. In fact, most contracts contain a "rule of completition" provision within their terms, which states that oral agreements outside of the terms of the four corners of the contract are null and void. This does not make entereing into such an oral agreement "illegal," just fruitless. . Furthermore, if you look at the language closer, it actually ties the student and not the institution. This language is intended to prevent the situation where a kid signs an NLI, a coach is subsequently fired, and the kid says, "[m]y oral agreement with the previous coach allows me to obtain my release.


If they wanted to make these side agreements "illegal" they would have used language such as "An institution, or its agents, shall be prohibited from placing verbal or oral conditions on the NLI. Note that you have not cited any such language.

To reiterate, your argument that Buzz acted "illegally" is without merit and is indicative of some ulterior motive on your part to undermine Buzz and his coaching regime. It further undermines any arguments against Buzz's handling of the Newbill situation.

Personally, I felt the Newbill situation was handled poorly. That said, I am not about to create phony legal arguments void of substance to further my point. Like I said earlier, you may want to sit this one out.

Thanks for some clarification from a real lawyer (and not just someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express). In just a few short paragraphs you crystalize the situation for us laymen (as opposed to page after page of muddling, obfuscation, false accusations, etc. from 84). The more people who see through him and can further expose him as an agenda driven poser the better. I can't wait to read his (long-winded and rambling?) reply to your post. Will he man-up and admit he's been exposed and busted? I guess no.

[ATL MU Warrior]

MUcam, why on earth did you wait for this thread to go 11 pages prior to posting this?  You could have saved us all a lot of time  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Buzz and the athletic department should do everything that's allowed to put the best possible team on the floor that:
1) wins games
2) represents the university well
3) wins more games
4) helps these young men become better all-around people
5) wins more games

As fans, that's all we can ask for and expect.  All of this "we're better than that" BS isn't based in any kind of reality.  Guess what, we might have attended Marquette University, but that DOES NOT make us any better than anybody else.

And do you think #2 above was what happened as a result of this? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Personally, I felt the Newbill situation was handled poorly.

Agreed

[ATL MU Warrior]

And do you think #2 above was what happened as a result of this? 

I think our team represents the University marvelously.  Don't you?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think our team represents the University marvelously.  Don't you?

Yes I do.  I think what we did to Newbill, however, doesn't.  A lot of others agree with me, as do some journalists from ESPN, Rivals, Philly newspapers, etc.  That's why I asked you the question if you thought the actions we took met one of the criteria you had listed.  So does it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Article mentioning Newbill at Southern Mississippi.  Looks like Larry Eustachy was also hoodwinked by what offers the kid had.  Maybe he was drunk with some coeds again at a frat party.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100814/SPORTS030104/8140338/Forward-with-gun-conviction-among-USM-newcomers

[hoops12]

Yeah! From reading that article, it also looks like he is bringing in a lot of classy kids. (Drugs, gun possession, a player was shot) I wouldn't be sending my son to play there. Why don't you drop this finally. It's unfortunate whatever the case, and move on.........

[ATWizJr]

/quote]

Good question.

[MerrittsMustache]

A lot of things are allowed, the question is whether we should do them.

We could go hire a recruit's AAU coach or high school coach....should we? 

That's what this discussion has always been about.

Not if we want said recruit to attend Marquette. As of January, any D1 school that hires a high school, AAU or JUCO coach is prohibited from recruiting players from that coach's program for two years.

[Marquette84]

This whole Newbill argument is asinine from all sides. That said, Marquette84, you specifically may want to sit the rest of this one out, as your argument about Buzz's illegality is completely void of legal merit.

First: NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ALLOWED TO NLI: No additions or deletions shall be made to the NLI or the Release Request form.

This section applies to the letter/form itself. In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute, or in this case, the plain meaning of the word. It plainly and clearly says "[n]o additions or deletions shall be made to the [National Letter of Intent] or the Release Request form." It says nothing about agreements outside of the NLI; that will come next. So, unless you have evidence that the actual NLI was modified, then there is no violation of the above.

Second: 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.

This brings us to oral agreements outside of the NLI, which many have alleged was the case with the Newbill situation. Again, reading the plain meaning of the language, there is absolutely no mention of illegality. It simply says that such agreements are void, which is not uncommon. In fact, most contracts contain a "rule of completition" provision within their terms, which states that oral agreements outside of the terms of the four corners of the contract are null and void. This does not make entereing into such an oral agreement "illegal," just fruitless. . Furthermore, if you look at the language closer, it actually ties the student and not the institution. This language is intended to prevent the situation where a kid signs an NLI, a coach is subsequently fired, and the kid says, "[m]y oral agreement with the previous coach allows me to obtain my release.


If they wanted to make these side agreements "illegal" they would have used language such as "An institution, or its agents, shall be prohibited from placing verbal or oral conditions on the NLI. Note that you have not cited any such language.

To reiterate, your argument that Buzz acted "illegally" is without merit and is indicative of some ulterior motive on your part to undermine Buzz and his coaching regime. It further undermines any arguments against Buzz's handling of the Newbill situation.

Personally, I felt the Newbill situation was handled poorly. That said, I am not about to create phony legal arguments void of substance to further my point. Like I said earlier, you may want to sit this one out.

All I can say is go back and read the article:

"NCAA Says No Conditions Allowed On Letters Of Intent"
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2009-10-01/ncaa-says-no-conditions-allowed-on-letters-intent

The headline seems pretty clear to me. 

The article itself seems pretty clear to me. 

Mike DeCourcy has been a credible source of information on college basketball.

Language such as "institutions should be aware they are prohibited from establishing any additional conditions associated with the NLI agreement in advance of a prospective student-athlete signing the NLI" don't seem to leave much room for interpretation.

To me, telling a recruit that his NLI is conditional on the team not finding a better player would seem to represent exactly the type of condition the NCAA is trying to prohibit.

If you disagree with me that vehemently, give Susan Peal of the NLI office a call.  She's DeCourcy's source.   

Describe for her the scenario of a college coach telling a recruit that his NLI is conditional based on the school not finding a better recruit.  Ask her flat out if that is permitted under the new rule.  That's probably the only way you'll be satisfied.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, time to let it die....besides, all I care about is Indiana's latest top recruit they signed yesterday.  I'm just all IU baby.

[avid1010]

All I can say is go back and read the article:

"NCAA Says No Conditions Allowed On Letters Of Intent"
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2009-10-01/ncaa-says-no-conditions-allowed-on-letters-intent

The headline seems pretty clear to me. 

The article itself seems pretty clear to me. 

Mike DeCourcy has been a credible source of information on college basketball.

Language such as "institutions should be aware they are prohibited from establishing any additional conditions associated with the NLI agreement in advance of a prospective student-athlete signing the NLI" don't seem to leave much room for interpretation.

To me, telling a recruit that his NLI is conditional on the team not finding a better player would seem to represent exactly the type of condition the NCAA is trying to prohibit.

If you disagree with me that vehemently, give Susan Peal of the NLI office a call.  She's DeCourcy's source.   

Describe for her the scenario of a college coach telling a recruit that his NLI is conditional based on the school not finding a better recruit.  Ask her flat out if that is permitted under the new rule.  That's probably the only way you'll be satisfied.

Like MUcam said...just walk away buddy.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Yeah, time to let it die....besides, all I care about is Indiana's latest top recruit they signed yesterday.  I'm just all IU baby.

If Indiana did as you say--signed a 2012 recruit at this time--then this is an "illegal" action under the NCAA guidelines and will place the Hoosiers on the death penalty list due to past transgressions they are still on probation for.  With the ticket scandal at KU, that makes 2 out of your 3 alma maters under NCAA watch.  To me that would be quite a bit more concerning of my ethical energy than the Newbill situation which is allowed and legal (oversigning) under NCAA regulations--as a bitter end as most of us feel that this was. 

[ATWizJr]

Yeah, time to let it die....besides, all I care about is Indiana's latest top recruit they signed yesterday.  I'm just all IU baby.

With all due respect, this is weak.  When you can't explain why you can't let it go, just change the subject.

[ChicosBailBonds]

With all due respect, this is weak.  When you can't explain why you can't let it go, just change the subject.

I just respond to other posters in the thread....why can't they let it go?  Why does Lenny bring it up AGAIN in a totally DIFFERENT post?  Is that weak?  Should you address it with him?  Why can't he let it go?  Honestly, selective outrage toward some and not others, seems "weak"...with all due respect.   


Blackheart...it was in teal...it was sarcastic.  

[ATWizJr]

At the risk of defeating my own purpose, which is cloture of this unfortunate and, apparently, never ending thread, I would posit that it is clear that you are the antagonist in this thread, unwilling to accept any other view and always in need of defending your opinion even when, on many occasions, you could easily have agreed to disagree. 

You have kept this thread alive whether or not your beliefs are genuine.  You delight in yanking everyone's chain and arguing for its' own sake.  That's amusing for a page or two. 

If my criticism is "selective"  I guess it is because I have elected to side with those who refuse to accept your criticism of the program in the absence of the facts.  None of us really have the facts. 

So, why continue to speculate and judge and poke a stick in the eye of your fellow posters?  For your own amusement?  Do you get your jollies by getting a rise out of  people?  Like I said, for a page or two, fine.  But this......ridiculous.    And to that end, this thread (like Favre) is dead to me. I hope to invoke my own personal   cloture.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Blackheart...it was in teal...it was sarcastic.  

I know that....I was responding back with faux sarcasm as it is not a "legal signing period" anywhere as you mistakenly indicated, not even at the probation plagued IU or the under investigation KU.     But there seems to be a lot of on going ethical concern about the allowable and legal over signing of Newbill that you can't seem to put to rest.  

Since the time of this post you seem to indicate you know of some Pearl-like goings on...that are again legal/allowed but you disapprove of if I paraphrase you correctly. Rather than continually drudging up a dark shadow with alleged whispers of "allowed but Pearl-like" practices that you have heard about, perhaps you should opine why you don't like these practices rather than casting open aspersions and tarnishing the program? You do state they are allowable after all so why the dark curtain?  

[MUBasketball]

Agreed

We f!@#$% get it...can we move on???? Do we need 11 pages of the same thread for you to pound it in our heads that you aren't happy with how it went down??? Unbelievable. Can we lock this thread and talk about something else???