Nick Williams to IU

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know I hate saying this, but the NCAA needs to legislate.....

If a kid makes a verbal commitment, schools should not be allowed to contact the kid unless the kid contacts them first.  After all, the main reason kids verbal early is to stop the daily barrage of mailings, phone calls, etc.

I have no problem with Nick going to IU. Or heck, even if Tyshawn would have chosen IU, or even if Erik would have backed out of his verbal (as long as the former coach had not contacted him yet). But the former coaching calling a verbally committed kid just does not pass the smell test.

We have agreement.  But if the NCAA isn't going to do that, then what has happened is fine because the NCAA has essentially said it's fine by not doing anything.  Hell, on the football front it's nearly become part of signing day as these kids switch their commitments the day of, the verbal means nothing.

NCAA either legislates or it allows it. 

But the one thing Indee I'd like your take on is during a coaching change.  In my viewpoint, when there is a coaching change, the LOI should be abolished.  The kid has the relationship with the previous coach, whether he moved on or was fired, he still isn't there.  Forcing a kid to go to a school to play for a coach he doesn't want to play for...well, it sounds like something out a policy written 200 years ago.

[mugrad99]

In a perfect world, players would choose a school because of how much they liked the curriculum, faculty, etc.  However, kids choose a basketball program for a few select reasons, the mian ones being the coach, the facilities, or the cheerleaders

I think the LOI should be binding, but the kid should be able to include a clause, that if the coach leaves, the LOI is void (ala Ebanks at IU).  Also, I think the school the kid originally signed with should be allowed to have the kid have another "official" visit, if the recruiting is opened back up.

[downtown85]

Downtown, doesn't the kid own half the relationship?  Shouldn't he be at least 50% of the equation on the relationship?  If he chooses to continue that relationship with the former coach (he doesn't have to take the call, he doesn't have to follow him), isn't that his choice?

Yes he does.  The university owns the other half. 

[downtown85]

I know you're tired of discussing this, but you keep saying ridiculous things and I can't help taking the bait.  In one sense, you are right:  MU owned the relationship with Nick Williams by virtue of the signed LOI.  But MU gave it away.  MU could have enforced the LOI, but chose not to.  Therefore, what MU owned, MU gave away.  We can question the wisdom of that decision (although I don't), but I think it's silly to say that Crean acted immorally by accepting something that MU freely gave away.

Intellectual property rights and the work for hire doctrine are very specific rules that were created for very specific purposes.  They are not moral obligations, they are legal ownership rules.  If I create intellectual property while I am employed by you, you own the IP rights because the law says that you own them; not because you have a moral claim to them.  If I contract with you to create intellectual property and we do not have an assignment agreement, I own the intellectual property rights because the law says that I own them; not because I have a moral claim to them.  If you hire me as an independent contractor (as opposed to as an employee) for the sole purpose of creating intellectual property, and even if you pay me to create the intellectual property, I still own it unless we have a work for hire agreement that transfers the intellectual property rights to you.  Even though I did it on your nickel and I did it for you, it's mine.  In my humble opinion, your example makes it very clear that this is an issue or rules, not morals or ethics.

As for the saleperson, similar result.  The reason people have salemen sign non-competition agreements is that absent such agreements, they can compete.  Under applicable laws, they cannot steal trade secrets (including  customer lists), but they can compete.  Employers that want to prevent that competition will obtain an agreement.  The employer's failure to obtain such an agreement does not make it unethical or immoral to compete.  Before you go there, customer lists are considered trade secrets because they are not generally known or available to the public.  Basketball recruits are not particularly secretive.  Everyone knows who these recruits are and who is recruiting them.  There are literally thousands of message board like this one that identify the recruits.  In the non-competition arena, it's all about the economics and relative bargaining power of the parties.  If Marquette wanted to get an non-competition agreement from its coach, I'm sure it could.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the only candidates willing to accept that offer would be entirely  unknown/unqualified coaches (please, PRN, no Buzz jokes) or Marquette would have to pay substantially more to get someone to agree to that type of restrictions.  Marquette weighs the risk of competition against the costs of getting a coach willing to sign to such an agreement and opts to do what pretty much everyone else in that industry does:  hire a coach and understand that when he leaves, he will be working in a competitive enterprise.

you took the bait I will reel you in

Legalistically you are correct.  Are you a lawyer.  Morally or practically you are off base.  Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms.  From what I understand there are certain norms that govern situations like trying to recruit verbal commits.  From what I understand, standard practice is to lay off them until the renounce their verbal committment.   It is frowned upon what Kelvin Sampson did to Illinois last year which was recruiting a verbal commit to Illinois.  That may not be against the written rules but I am sure it did not endear Sampson to the coaching fraternity which has other ways of enforcing the unwritten rules. 

So answer me the following two questions:

Was Kelvin Sampson (and Tom Crean) right (i.e., on moral high ground) to call and recruit someone who had verballed someone else? 

Was Trent Johnson stupid to tell his commits to stay committed to Stanford?

O.k., i can't resist a 3rd question,  Should the Florida and Michigan democratic delegates be seated at the convention?

[StillAWarrior]

Legalistically you are correct.  Are you a lawyer.  Morally or practically you are off base.  Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms.  From what I understand there are certain norms that govern situations like trying to recruit verbal commits.  From what I understand, standard practice is to lay off them until the renounce their verbal committment.   It is frowned upon what Kelvin Sampson did to Illinois last year which was recruiting a verbal commit to Illinois.  That may not be against the written rules but I am sure it did not endear Sampson to the coaching fraternity which has other ways of enforcing the unwritten rules. 

Wow, lot's of interesting things to discuss.  First, "Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms."  In general, I'm not sure that I disagree with this statement.  But, I think it has some real implications that I'm not entirely sure would apply here.  You have referred to both "societal" and "moral" norms.  Sometimes these are exactly the same.  Often, they differ completely; sometimes to the point of being mutually exclusive.  This, I believe, is at the heart of our debate.  I believe that the issue here in dealing with these recruits relate to societal norms -- not moral norms.  Specifically, we're talking about a very small subset of societal norms -- high level college recruiting.  When you start talking about how things are viewed in the "coaching fraternity" you are talking about social norms -- the industry standard among college basketball coaches.  That is not an issue of morality, but an issue of expectations developed over years of practice in a particular industry.  Never mind the fact that I really don't know for sure if that is even the norm among coaches.  I'm sure the Illinois coach was pissed at Sampson, but I have no idea if there would be general condemnation of such an act in the "coaching fraternity."

So answer me the following two questions:

Was Kelvin Sampson (and Tom Crean) right (i.e., on moral high ground) to call and recruit someone who had verballed someone else?

I honestly don't know, because I am not well versed in the "societal norms" of college basketball coaches.  But, I don't think it was an immoral thing to do.  It might well have been a taboo thing for a coach to do, but I think that's between Tom Crean and his peers, not between Tom Crean and his Maker. 

Was Trent Johnson stupid to tell his commits to stay committed to Stanford?

I think it was a classy thing for Johnson to have done, but I don't think he was morally obligated to have done so.  I would have thought more highly of Crean if he'd have done the same, but I don't think he's immoral because he did not do it.

[downtown85]

Ok, I'll accept that.  Crean did the taboo thing and Johnson did the classy thing.  However, if you have ever been within a group largely dominated by the societal norms (i.e., a trading pit) you know that most rules are unwritten and those who don't follow the rules become "cheaters and scumbags"  even though to outsiders they did nothing wrong "morally."   Perhaps the Kelvin Sampson official investigation was partly triggered by stepping outside the bounds of the unwritten rules.  I have no evidence of that but some coaches who felt wronged might have complained. 

[77fan88warrior]

To follow-up, exactly what is unethical?  I'm being serious.  It happens in college football almost every year, it happens in college basketball more then it should.  I know we all hate it, but shouldn't the NCAA just shut it down if it's so unethical?

I recall John Tiller of Missouri doing this a few years ago after he committed to UAB and then Mike Anderson got the job with Missouri...he followed him to Columbia and UAB fans were all fired up.  Of course then several IU players left IU to follow Mike Davis down to UAB.  Heck, how many times have we seen kids over the years transfer out and follow their coach to a new job.

Unethical to me is promising a kid a 4 year scholarship and running him off after 1 year...that's unethical.  Unethical is getting your dad a job as an assistant coach on the team (which is legal) and then canning him as soon as junior's eligibility is up.

But recruiting a kid that is no longer tied to a LOI?  Sorry, I don't see it.

Last week Marist recruit (6'10" Trevon Flores) decommitted from Marist and went to...wait for it...James Madison where Madison's new coach is none other then Marist's old coach (Matt Brady) from only a few weeks earlier.  It looks like Andrey Semenov who committed to Marist will do the exact same thing and follow Brady to JMU.

Kids want to play for coaches and I just don't get the uproar and why adults would want to hold back these kids from choosing their path in life.  I really don't. 

Whether it's the stud QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) that signed with June Jones who wanted to be taught by a great QB coach who just decommitted from Hawaii to enroll at SMU to be with Jones, or Robert Griffin decommitting from Houston to follow Houston's ex-coach (Briles) to Baylor.

Or Dairese Gary last year who committed to Iowa....he decommitted and followed Alford to New Mexico.

Or Darrington Hobson who committed to Pepperdine, but when Ryan Miller of Pepperdine quit to become an assistant at New Mexico, Hobson decommitted and followed Miller to New Mexico.  He wanted to play for a coach he knew, Miller.

These kids want to play for coaches they committed to, why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Seriously, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I certainly have nothing against Nick Williams decision. I have a problem with the process. I think if you want to be released from your LOI, then you shouldn't be able to follow the coach that left the school you committed to. There are 300+ D1 schools that you can choose from. As far as the kid's having a choice in the process. Is it that hard to tell a kid that he can have any flavor of ice cream but one? I don't want the kid to sit out and I  don't want coaches to take them along like animals in a travelling circus. The coaches and top players end up with too much power in the process. The NCAA's choice to do nothing basically puts them in charge of a basketball factory. Academics don't enter the thought process of the NCAA when they are dealing with STUDENT athletes it appears.
We all know that these kids commit to schools but in essence are committing to coaches. The problem with MU putting a restriction on a release from a LOI is that it attaches a stigma to MU. MU will get a bad rap that they don't allow you out of your contract and you can't follow guys like Crean. This means that top players will shy away from a school that has a good coach who might leave because they perceive greener pastures.
Let's have the NCAA put better rules in place so that the schools are in charge instead of the coaches. The fact that stronger rules are not in place does not make it ethical. There are reasons you can't sell $500 dollar hammers to the government. People did it and they changed laws. Does that mean it was ethical to do it before they changed the laws? Just because it happens in football doesn't make it right. We know how well these arguments held up  with our mothers when we were kids.
I like downtown 85's example of a trading pit and societal norms. I come from a trading background and I realize unethical practices carry on because people don't want to be stigmatized for questioning a gray or worse area. There aren't  many people who want to jeopardize their livelihood in order to do the right thing. There might be coaches who want to speak out but are afraid of the ramifications. I certainly don't think ESPN would be willing to hire a guy who bucked the system that makes them money.
The NCAA needs to change the rules so that the schools are in charge, the players get fair treatment, and the coaches have repercussions for their decisions.

[ChicosBailBonds]

77fan, I understand your point (and Downtown's).  I just don't feel like punishing a 17 year old is the "moral" thing to do.   

In other words, if he committed to play for a coach and that coach leaves, why shouldn't he be allowed to follow them?  It's his life, he wants to be mentored by that coach.

Say that coach was the best guard coach in the country and the player was a guard.  And that guard coach left and the new coach was a big man coach, doesn't it seem silly to essentially regress this kid's ability by forcing him to stay with a coach he never had a desire to play for?  I think he should be allowed to go wherever he wants in the situation where a coach is fired or leaves.  This is a kid's life we're talking about.

[77fan88warrior]

How about he follows the coach and sits out a year retaining 4 years of eligibilty.? He can still follow the coach and receive the same coaching with the exception of games. Otherwise, he can choose among over 300 colleges and not miss a year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How about he follows the coach and sits out a year retaining 4 years of eligibilty.? He can still follow the coach and receive the same coaching with the exception of games. Otherwise, he can choose among over 300 colleges and not miss a year.

That, I believe, is the answer and one the NCAA should seriously consider.  Follow your coach, sit out a year but you still get to play for him and for 4 years.  Otherwise go to any number of other 300 schools.  Also agree with Indee that they should allow the kid to come back to the original committed school for another official visit.

See, we've solved the NCAA's issue, now we just need to get the presidents on board and it's a done deal.