[Rosiak's Blog] Buzz on signees, recruiting

[NavinRJohnson]

OK fine.  But obviously the issue is that you can interpret Buzz's "word" multiple ways.  Again, what he said doesn't contradict anything MU84 laid out.

Then what's his point? Of course it does. With absolutely nothing to support it, SJS suggested that Buzz told Newbill that if he didn't request out of his NLI that he would screw him over.  He even said that makes him a heartless SOB. I would suggest that would qualify as doing something wrong. At least in my book it would be. I don't see anything to suggest that actually happened. But of course, I am not looking for reasons to discredit Buzz, as others obviously are.

[Marquette84]

Then what's his point? Of course it does. With absolutely nothing to support it, SJS suggested that Buzz told Newbill that if he didn't request out of his NLI that he would screw him over.  He even said that makes him a heartless SOB. I would suggest that would qualify as doing something wrong. At least in my book it would be. I don't see anything to suggest that actually happened. But of course, I am not looking for reasons to discredit Buzz, as others obviously are.

How do you claim there is no support for my argument?

So far there have been eight possible reasons listed on this board that explain why Newbill didn't attend MU this year, ranging from the "he's ineligible because of Forster" to "there was a secret deal" to Newbill's coach somehow intervened.  And I think even you would have to admit that one of the possiblities is that Buzz leaned on DJ to get him to go away.  

By process of elimination, there was only one plausible explanation--Buzz leaned on JD.

Look, I understand that you don't LIKE that one remaining explanation, but lets be honest--you haven't actually come up with another plausible argument on your own.  And you can't fault my logic or facts.

So its put up or shut up time.  If you think I'm wrong, come up with some other reasonable explanation. 

[NavinRJohnson]

So its put up or shut up time.  If you think I'm wrong, come up with some other reasonable explanation. 

- Buzz was honest and DJ began to question whether or not he was good enough to play consistently at MU.
- Either party had doubts about his academic abilities.
- DJ didn't think he could hack it at MU and had second thoughts.
- His family didn't want him to go to Milwaukee.
- MU players expressed concerns about him.
- MU came to realize he was a douche.
- Eligibility concerns.
- He heard the ghost of Jeffrey Dahmer still roams the Marquette campus and got scared.

Fact is, I have as much basis for the suggestion of any of the above as you do for yours that Buzz threatened to screw him when he got to MU.

[Pakuni]

Whether you think Buzz is the devil incarnate or pure as the driven snow, the mechanism of what happened here (though why remains open to debate) is obvious:

Newbill never applied for admission.
As a result, he never was admitted.
Having not applied or gained admission, Newbill had  no valid letter of intent.
With no valid letter of intent, MU had no obligation to give Newbill a scholarship.
Having no obligation to give Newbill a scholarship, MU informed Newbill he would not be receiving a scholarship.
Having been informed he would not be receiving a scholarship, Newbill asked for a release from his NLI to that he could accept a scholarship elsewhere.

All this stuff was gone over and over and over again five months ago. The language of the NLI is plain as day and while the wannabe lawyers here may wish to argue otherwise, any real lawyer will tell you the plain language wins 99 percent of the time. A school has no obligation, for what most would see as obvious reasons, to provide a scholarship to player not granted admission. Newbill was not granted admission. Newbill had no scholarship.
On the other hand, a NLI commits a kid to a school whether he gains admission or not, thus Newbill needed a release before he could get a scholie elsewhere. Again, this is in the plain language of the NLI. Nobody had to coerce him to seek a release. A release was the only way for him to go elsewhere.

Now, if you think Buzz hoodwinked the kid by using his lack of admission as a pretense to dump him in favor of a better player, you may be right. Or maybe something else was going on here. I don't know. Neither, I would venture to guess, does anyone else here, no matter how Insider-y they want to pretend to be.

I'll now leave this thread for good.

[GGGG]

Whether you think Buzz is the devil incarnate or pure as the driven snow, the mechanism of what happened here (though why remains open to debate) is obvious:

Newbill never applied for admission.
As a result, he never was admitted.

Because he was *supposedly* encouraged by the coaching staff to take his time filling it out.

[Pakuni]

Because he was *supposedly* encouraged by the coaching staff to take his time filling it out.

I know I said I'd leave, but since you raise the point ... it's worth noting that when Newbill was told (according to him) to "take his time AND GET IT RIGHT" it was already mid June, long after you would think any other student serious about attending a university would have applied to said university.
Maybe you and DJ are exceptions, but I filled out my applications months before I graduated high school, not weeks after. So to pin Newbill's inability to get an application done on an innocuous remark from a coach weeks after it should have been submitted seems far-fetched, at best.

[GGGG]

I know I said I'd leave, but since you raise the point ... it's worth noting that when Newbill was told (according to him) to "take his time AND GET IT RIGHT" it was already mid June, long after you would think any other student serious about attending a university would have applied to said university.
Maybe you and DJ are exceptions, but I filled out my applications months before I graduated high school, not weeks after. So to pin Newbill's inability to get an application done on an innocuous remark from a coach weeks after it should have been submitted seems far-fetched, at best.

I have no idea how most basketball players do it, but my guess is that they don't apply like most of us would.  Furthermore, and I said this previously, but he was encouraged to take his time by the coaching staff.  (At least according to DJ's sources.)

[Marquette84]

Newbill never applied for admission.

Correct.

As a result, he never was admitted.

Correct. 

Newbill was also never denied admission.  I do hope you'll agree with me on this. 

Having not applied or gained admission, Newbill had  no valid letter of intent.

Incorrect.

The plain language of the NLI states that the NLI is declared Null and Void at the point at which a player is denied admission--it does not state that the letter is void until admission:

The NCAA's own reference guide states (emphasis added):
"The NLI is a binding agreement between a prospective student‐athlete and an NLI member institution.
--Prospective student‐athlete agrees to attend the institution full‐time for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
--Institution agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters)."
http://bit.ly/cpcEX3

And the reference guide they send that provides details states (empahsis added):
"If a prospective student-athlete is denied admission to the signing institution, the NLI shall be declared null and void. There must be documentation substantiating the denial of admission before an NLI is considered null and void. The institution must notify its conference office regarding the denial and the prospective student-athlete should be informed by the signing institution of the status of his or her admission"

and:

"It should be noted that a prospective student-athlete has an obligation to provide, by request, a transcript of his or her academic record and an application for admission to the institution. If the prospective student-athlete fails 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."

For some odd reason, you continue to reverse the NLI language to mean what you want it to--not what it  says.  You continue interpret "If a prospective student-athlete is denied admission to the signing institution, the NLI shall be declared null and void"  to actually mean "The NLI is not valid until such time the player is admitted." 
 

With no valid letter of intent, MU had no obligation to give Newbill a scholarship.

There you go again.  The NLI does not become effective when the player is admitted--it is declared null and void when his admission is denied (as well as several other reasons). 

So in July, Newbill has a valid NLI at this point, which obligates MU to give him an athletics scholarship unless he is denied admission.  Since this has not occurred yet, the letter is not yet null and void.

Having no obligation to give Newbill a scholarship, MU informed Newbill he would not be receiving a scholarship.

Incorrect.

The NCAA own documents state that the school has an obligation to provide a scholarship unless a player is denied admission.   Nebill had not yet been denied, therefore his NLI was not Null and Void. 

Furthermore, had he applied and gained admittance, MU would have been obligated to provide him an athletics scholarship. 

Having been informed he would not be receiving a scholarship, Newbill asked for a release from his NLI to that he could accept a scholarship elsewhere.

On what basis did MU state that Newbill would not be receiving a scholarship?   I know you'll probably claim that's its because he had not been admitted.  But I think even you would admit that it was still possible for that to occur, right?  With nearly eight weeks to submit the application before the NCAA specified deadline, there was a pretty good chance that Newbill could have been accepted.

Unless you are saying that MU already knew that they would deny Newbill's appliction, in advance, sight unseen, regardless of how compelling it is?  Boy, there's a great example of Cura Personalis for you. 

I know from our discussion five months ago that you feel that the Athletic Office dictates to the admissions staff what the decision will be and Newbill's denial would have been a fait accompli in your mind. 

My believe the admissions office is fiercely independent-- I don't think they would deny an otherwise deserving kid solely to enable the basketball coach to strip a scholarship and give it to a better player, nor would they admit an otherwise unqualified person simply because he's a good basketball player.

But even If I'm wrong and you're right, on what basis can MU can claim a not-yet-existing application for admission has been denied?  The would at least have to wait until the application was submitted before they can deny it.

All this stuff was gone over and over and over again five months ago. The language of the NLI is plain as day and while the wannabe lawyers here may wish to argue otherwise, any real lawyer will tell you the plain language wins 99 percent of the time.

Then why do you have to change the plain language to make your argument?

I read this:
"If a prospective student-athlete is denied admission to the signing institution, the NLI shall be declared null and void."

And you keep saying this:

"Having not applied or gained admission, Newbill had no valid letter of intent."

The plain language does not specify "applied or gained admission" for the letter to become binding.  it says binding unless admission is denied.

A school has no obligation, for what most would see as obvious reasons, to provide a scholarship to player not granted admission. Newbill was not granted admission. Newbill had no scholarship.

However, a school does have an obligation to provide a scholarship to a player granted admission.

Newbill was still eligible to apply, and if his appliation was accepted he would have had a scholarship.

On the other hand, a NLI commits a kid to a school whether he gains admission or not, thus Newbill needed a release before he could get a scholie elsewhere. Again, this is in the plain language of the NLI. Nobody had to coerce him to seek a release. A release was the only way for him to go elsewhere.

A denial of admission renders the NLI null and void, at which point he could seek admission elsewhere, release or no release.

Again, this is in the plain language of the NLI.   

Had Newbill applied to MU and been granted admission, the athletic department would have been obligated to give him a scholarship.
Therefore the athletic office--wanting to use his scholarship elsewhere--HAD to get Newbill to request a release from the NLI  BEFORE he applied and was potentially admitted.

[Marquette84]

I know I said I'd leave, but since you raise the point ... it's worth noting that when Newbill was told (according to him) to "take his time AND GET IT RIGHT" it was already mid June, long after you would think any other student serious about attending a university would have applied to said university.
Maybe you and DJ are exceptions, but I filled out my applications months before I graduated high school, not weeks after. So to pin Newbill's inability to get an application done on an innocuous remark from a coach weeks after it should have been submitted seems far-fetched, at best.

I think you well know that the process for D1 basketball players is different than non-athletes.

In fact, if basketball players had to follow the normal process and deadlines, MU would NEVER bring in a spring signee, because the spring signing period occurs well after the normal December 1 application deadline.  Jimmy Butler, DJO, Mbao, Liam McMorrow--they didn't even CONSIDER MU--no less having completed an application--prior to December 1. 

I seriously doubt that Jamil Wilson had his application done by then--and we still admitted him.

Given that we know that MU routinely signs players in the spring, your suggestion that Newbill's process was anything outside of normal expectations for spring signees is disingenuous and/or misleading.

[Pakuni]

The plain language of the NLI states that the NLI is declared Null and Void at the point at which a player is denied admission--it does not state that the letter is void until admission:

The NCAA's own reference guide states (emphasis added):
"The NLI is a binding agreement between a prospective student‐athlete and an NLI member institution.
--Prospective student‐athlete agrees to attend the institution full‐time for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
--Institution agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters)."
http://bit.ly/cpcEX3

And the reference guide they send that provides details states (empahsis added):
"If a prospective student-athlete is denied admission to the signing institution, the NLI shall be declared null and void. There must be documentation substantiating the denial of admission before an NLI is considered null and void. The institution must notify its conference office regarding the denial and the prospective student-athlete should be informed by the signing institution of the status of his or her admission"

It's funny you accuse me of misleading/misstating the facts when, in your quoting of the language, you omit a pretty important phrase.
You're correct, the NLI says the letter is void if admission is denied.
But what you conveniently left out was the second part of that sentence, which states:
"or, by the opening day of classes in fall 2011, has failed to provide me with written notice of admission, provided I have submitted a complete admission application."

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


As you can see, denial is not the only way it becomes null and void. As I said - and you've contradicted, wrongly - failure to admit also makes the letter invalid. Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume your omission was a mistake. But now having seen the full statement can you now admit that you're wrong?

For some odd reason, you continue to reverse the NLI language to mean what you want it to--not what it  says.  You continue interpret "If a prospective student-athlete is denied admission to the signing institution, the NLI shall be declared null and void"  to actually mean "The NLI is not valid until such time the player is admitted."  

For some odd reason, you're basing your argument on a carefully edited version of the NLI language. It's simply wrong, as the language I quote above states. Denial is one way the NLI is declared invalid. Failure to admit is another. It's there in writing for all to see.
 

Furthermore, had he applied and gained admittance, MU would have been obligated to provide him an athletics scholarship.  

On what basis did MU state that Newbill would not be receiving a scholarship?   I know you'll probably claim that's its because he had not been admitted.  But I think even you would admit that it was still possible for that to occur, right?  With nearly eight weeks to submit the application before the NCAA specified deadline, there was a pretty good chance that Newbill could have been accepted.

Yes, as I already wrote, had Newbill been admitted, he would have been owed a scholarship. Which is why he wasn't going to be admitted. Do you think the admissions department would let in a kid under these circumstances? Do you think they would have set up a situation where some other kid promised a scholie would then have to be bounced? Or do you think it's more likely they would have done as the coaching staff asked and denied admission had the kid persisted in applying?

Unless you are saying that MU already knew that they would deny Newbill's appliction, in advance, sight unseen, regardless of how compelling it is?  Boy, there's a great example of Cura Personalis for you.  

Oh, please. Should MU just admit anybody with a compelling story because Cura Personalis?
And you're making quite a leap of faith to suggest DJ's case for admission - in July, when most classes are long past set - would have been so compelling that the admissions department just couldn't say no. DJ may be the exception - and for his it would be great if he were - but I'd guess that the average public school kid from the inner city of Philadelphia wouldn't meet MU's standard admission requirements.

My believe the admissions office is fiercely independent-- I don't think they would deny an otherwise deserving kid solely to enable the basketball coach to strip a scholarship and give it to a better player, nor would they admit an otherwise unqualified person simply because he's a good basketball player.

Really? Seriously?
You mean Dwayne Wade's GPA and winning personality got him into Marquette, not simply his ability basketball player? James Matthews? Trevor Mbakwe? Jeronne Maymon? These kids all had the grades to get into MU, basketball skills notwithstanding.
What kind of fantasy world does one live in to believe that admissions departments don't overlook serious academic and even character questions because a kid can ball? Every major D-I program lets in kids who wouldn't otherwise get in because they can play sports well.

But even If I'm wrong and you're right, on what basis can MU can claim a not-yet-existing application for admission has been denied?  The would at least have to wait until the application was submitted before they can deny it.

And again, you're basing this one a partial - whether intentional or not - quote of the language. The language states failure to admit is the same as denial.

Then why do you have to change the plain language to make your argument?

I didn't. You omitted the portion of the plain language that didn't suit your needs.

The plain language does not specify "applied or gained admission" for the letter to become binding.  it says binding unless admission is denied.

Yes, it does.
"has failed to provide me with written notice of admission"

However, a school does have an obligation to provide a scholarship to a player granted admission.

Newbill was still eligible to apply, and if his appliation was accepted he would have had a scholarship.

Nobody disputes that. But he never applied and never would have been granted admission.
How do we know this?
Because that's what DJ's coach said. That Monarch called and told him MU would not be giving DJ a scholarship. That means, even by your logic, they were telling him he wasn't getting admitted.

Therefore the athletic office--wanting to use his scholarship elsewhere--HAD to get Newbill to request a release from the NLI  BEFORE he applied and was potentially admitted.

No, they didn't. They could have waited and denied him admission. But, in the meantime, DJ couldn't have fielded offers from other schools. It was much more to his benefit than MU's for him to seek a release.

And, again, you're resting your argument on some fantasy notion that the admissions department would have granted Newbill admission irregardless and independently of the athletic department's wishes. I think that's about as unlikely as Buzz offering me a scholarship tomorrow (I may still be eligible). But even if they are as "fiercely independent" as you'd like to believe, do you think Newbill would take the chance that he was going to be admitted under the same guidelines as any other kid trying to get into MU? Especially in July, long after admission applications for regular students are due? And he'd take that risk for a one-year scholarship, after which he might be shown the door, requiring him to transfer and sit out a year?
Wasn't going to happen, nor would any smart kid risk it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I just hope to God Buzz won't do it again.  His remarks this past week reveal what he did, why he did it and he believes he is right (by the letter of the law)...of course that doesn't take into account how the other party feels, what was done to him (can't play in Big East ever again), etc.

Now that's he holding the scholarship this time around, one would hope this isn't how we should be treating people and he won't do it again. 

[brandx]

I love reading this board - there are a lot of smart guys posting here; probably more than most boards. But...

How LONG are you guys gonna OBSESS over this. You're like a bunch of 11-year old girls who have to be right and get in the last word. And all you are doing is speculating. You do NOT know all of the details. I don't have a problem with anybody offering their opinions on this subject - I just don't want to read the same thing month after month!

And the sad thing is that some of you doing this are among the best & brightest on the board

[Marquette84]

It's funny you accuse me of misleading/misstating the facts when, in your quoting of the language, you omit a pretty important phrase.
You're correct, the NLI says the letter is void if admission is denied.
But what you conveniently left out was the second part of that sentence, which states:
"or, by the opening day of classes in fall 2011, has failed to provide me with written notice of admission, provided I have submitted a complete admission application."

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

As you can see, denial is not the only way it becomes null and void. As I said - and you've contradicted, wrongly - failure to admit also makes the letter invalid. Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume your omission was a mistake. But now having seen the full statement can you now admit that you're wrong?

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.  I actually did read this clause, and spcifically didn't t include this clause because its not relevant to the discussion of the events surrounding Newbill.

First, this clause is predicated on the player completing an application ("provided I have submitted a complete admission application").  We know that Newbill had not yet submitted an application.  Until Newbill submits a complete admission application, this clause will never apply. 

Second, the clause doesn't apply until the first day of classes, or 8/30/2010.  The the earliest the NLI would become null and void under this particular clause is 8/30/2010.  Since we were discussing events that took place around the 1st of July, I felt that a clause that would not be operative until 8/30 had no relevance to the discussion. 

IF Newbill submitted an application, AND 8/30/2010 came and went AND written notice from MU was not provided by that date, THEN (and only then) the letter would become Null and Void under this clause.  ALL THREE of those conditions  would have to occur. 

In this case none of the three conditions were met.  Ergo, this clause has no relevance to the discussion.

THAT is why I didn't include this clause in my post.

Yes, as I already wrote, had Newbill been admitted, he would have been owed a scholarship. Which is why he wasn't going to be admitted. Do you think the admissions department would let in a kid under these circumstances? Do you think they would have set up a situation where some other kid promised a scholie would then have to be bounced? Or do you think it's more likely they would have done as the coaching staff asked and denied admission had the kid persisted in applying?

Maybe you're right.  I'll accept your view that the entire admissions process for Newbill was dictated by the coaching staff.

It eliminates the need to coerce Newbill by promising that they'll ride him in practice, never play him, and not renew his scholarship.  Instead, he was coerced into requesting the release by telling him in advance that regardless of what he writes in his application, they're going to deny him admission anyway. 

I'm sure you would prefer a sanitized word like "convinced" or "requested" instead of "coerced."  But given the circumstances, coerced is factually correct and contextually appropriate. 

DJ didn't want out of his NLI--he wanted to play for Marquette. 

[MerrittsMustache]

I just hope to God Buzz won't do it again.  His remarks this past week reveal what he did, why he did it and he believes he is right (by the letter of the law)

No, they didn't. YOU interpreted his remarks to reveal those things. There's a big difference.

[Lennys Tap]

No, they didn't. YOU interpreted his remarks to reveal those things. There's a big difference.

You're 100% correct, of course. He snaps his fingers and his opinions/interpretations magically morph into facts. The Amazing Chicos. LOL.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No, they didn't. YOU interpreted his remarks to reveal those things. There's a big difference.

Me and many many others.  If only someone would man up and tell us what he meant.

[MerrittsMustache]

Me and many many others.  If only someone would man up and tell us what he meant.

Well as long as "many many others" interpret the comments in the same way then I guess it's fine.

Just for clarification, many many others disagree with a lot of the things that you post on here. Does that mean that those posters are right and can present their opinions as facts?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I didn't realize I presented mine as facts, sure look like they were opinions to me....no different than yours or Lenny's or Ners.

[MerrittsMustache]

I didn't realize I presented mine as facts, sure look like they were opinions to me....no different than yours or Lenny's or Ners.

Chicos: "His remarks this past week reveal what he did, why he did it and he believes he is right"

That's your interpretation/opinion of what Buzz said. That's not a fact but, to me, it appears to be presented as such.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos: "His remarks this past week reveal what he did, why he did it and he believes he is right"

That's your interpretation/opinion of what Buzz said. That's not a fact but, to me, it appears to be presented as such.

It's my viewpoint of what he said, shared by by some and not shared by others.  I don't know how you can read my sentence and infer anything other than opinion.  Almost everything on this board is opinion based.  We're not talking about Newton's laws of gravity.  How good player X will be, the decision Buzz or TC or MD or KO made was good, bad, ugly, indifferent.....most of what we talk about on here is opinion....in my opinion.   

[bilsu]

None of us will ever know 100% what happen. If you hate MU, You are going to see it as proof Buzz is evil. Take your agenda elsewhere.

[jtrash37]

Please stop quoting Chicos....it negates all that hard work I put into pressing the "Ignore" button.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

None of us will ever know 100% what happen. If you hate MU, You are going to see it as proof Buzz is evil. Take your agenda elsewhere.

Or, Iif you love MU, you may see it as proof that MU could have done it better and in a way that that didn't portray MU so negatively (that's why we love MU, so we don't see MU in that light).  In Buzz's own words he says that he knows he lost some people with that decision....does that mean all those people hate Buzz?  All those people hate MU? 

Buzz is not evil.  MU is not bad.  We can do better in how we handle these situations.  (in my opinion)