Nick Williams to IU

[ChicosBailBonds]

You hit the nail on the head there.  It is about him and always was.  Everything else was B.S.  I said before he has no principles.  Actually I was wrong, he does.  His one and only principle is what is best for Tom Creans is best. 

As Mike Deane told me several times, he was a contract employee.  The university wouldn't hesitate to fire him in a second.  He had to look out for number 1 just as other coaches have to do the same thing.  As I've heard many coaches say, give me a lifetime contract and then we're talking.   Whether it's lack of principles or not, it's reality with most coaches especially in today's age with the dollars that are being thrown around.

[PJDunn]

Too Tan Tommy's official apologist has spoken again. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Too Tan Tommy's official apologist has spoken again. 

Nice insight.

[77fan88warrior]

 I don't like it, but there is nothing against the rules, there is nothing unethical about it.  If it was unethical, please show me where the NCAA states this isn't allowed or even frowned upon.  If you can show me that, it will sway my opinion.

I'm amazed that we can compare ethics to rules. I could have sworn that we learned the difference in our philosophy and religion classes at MU. It's obviously not against the "rules". We might as well start recruiting kids like Oden and let them take one or two classes if they know they are going pro!


There is no question in my mind that Crean is doing harm to his former employer. I don't blame him for leaving MU and going to IU. It was a very good business decision for him. It allowed him to make more money and take his show to a different town with a fresh audience. Even guys like Denny Crum get shoved off the stage over time.

Crean's leaving and theft of commits reminds me of Gary Barnett(Northwestern football). He said he wasn't looking to leave numerous times and then went to Colorado with a number of commits. They both talked a great game and then leave in the middle of the night.

I haven't bashed Crean for leaving but believe the Nick William's jobbing by Crean is a huge insult. It's possible he got jobbed on IU press release but this is a well thought out decision to hurt us and help himself. Screw you Tanny!

I feel NCAA coaches run around like wild dogs and the players get screwed. However, I don't think a player like Williams should be able to follow Crean. I don't have a problem with them being released from their LOI but don't allow them to follow the former coach. This promotes all kinds of illegal activities and is detrimental to schools like MU.

I agree with fellow posters that Fulce following Buzz is not a problem if they make a stop in between. He gave up a year of eligibility at D-1 after all was said and done.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Simple, MU should have put a condition on the release and that ends it right there.  I don't know why MU didn't do that....unless....wait for it....the kid wanted to play for Crean and not MU.  Which is the case.  MU allowed the kid to fulfill his wishes and that's what he is doing.

Shouldn't the kids have a say in all this?

That's the one question that no one has answered for me.  It's the kid's life, it's his playing career...why is anyone bitter about the kid choosing to go play for the coach he wanted to play for at the very beginning?  I just don't get it.  Everyone's thinking with their MU heart but not about what the student athlete wants. It's his choice, he doesn't want MU, he wants to play for Crean...at least today.  Maybe in a year he'll be sick of Crean, but it's the kid's life we're talking about.  MU would not have released Williams so damn quickly if they didn't know from the get-go that the kid had absolutely ZERO intention of playing for MU sans Crean.  NONE.  They released him very quickly which is all one needs to know about the NW situation. 

Once MU released him from the LOI, is he not fair game?  Seriously?  Sure looks to me like he is. IU made their pitch along with 5 other schools.  The player, of sound body and mind, chose to hook back up with the original guy he wanted in the first place.  His decision.  No gun to his head, he chose to play for Crean.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[downtown85]

Simple, MU should have put a condition on the release and that ends it right there.  I don't know why MU didn't do that....unless....wait for it....the kid wanted to play for Crean and not MU.  Which is the case.  MU allowed the kid to fulfill his wishes and that's what he is doing.

Shouldn't the kids have a say in all this?

That's the one question that no one has answered for me.  It's the kid's life, it's his playing career...why is anyone bitter about the kid choosing to go play for the coach he wanted to play for at the very beginning?  I just don't get it.  Everyone's thinking with their MU heart but not about what the student athlete wants. It's his choice, he doesn't want MU, he wants to play for Crean...at least today.  Maybe in a year he'll be sick of Crean, but it's the kid's life we're talking about.  MU would not have released Williams so damn quickly if they didn't know from the get-go that the kid had absolutely ZERO intention of playing for MU sans Crean.  NONE.  They released him very quickly which is all one needs to know about the NW situation. 

Once MU released him from the LOI, is he not fair game?  Seriously?  Sure looks to me like he is. IU made their pitch along with 5 other schools.  The player, of sound body and mind, chose to hook back up with the original guy he wanted in the first place.  His decision.  No gun to his head, he chose to play for Crean.

I did answer in another post.  Sometimes the wants and needs of a 17-year-old is not what the world (or the NCAAs) should base what is ethical or what is not.  If you have kids, you will completely understand me there.  Signing a LOI is probably the biggest decision and commitment of his life to that point and it should mean something.  

In one instance, some posters act like NCAA basketball is about dollars and ethics have disappeared altogether.  In the next instance, if the University acts in a way to preserve its interest and act like a business (by putting conditions on his release) then it is cold hearted by not letting a kid play where he wants to play.  You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.  

My problem is not with Nick Williams by the way.  My problem is the behavior of Crean.  BTW, i looked at Trent Johnson's 2008 recruiting class.  It is a very good class and certainly at the level to compete in the SEC.  He had every chance to try to poach them and he didn't.  If ethics doesn't exist anymore in college basketball, nobody has answered to me why Johnson behaved in an ethical way upon his exit and Crean did not?  

[downtown85]

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.

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

Once MU released Nick from his LOI.  He was fair game.  There had to be a reason why the release was unconditional and that was so Indiana could recruit him.  The University should have put a condition in his release and been done with it.  Nobody would have batted an eye, except Chicos.  He would have complained that the University wasn't allowing a 17-year-old to do what he wants. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually Downtown, if they would have put conditions on it then at least it would have ended all the hand wringing and for that I would be happy.

You mentioned in your previous post that a commitment by a 17 year old should mean something...yeah, I agree.  Then again, he's 17.  The kid can't go to 7-11 and buy a beer or vote for President of the United States yet so I guess I'm willing to cut him some slack IF (only IF) the guy he committed to left.

Do you think I want NW or TT to leave MU?  Of course not.  Do you think I want them to go to IU?  HELL NO!  But that's THEIR CHOICE.   In one sentence you say their commitment should mean something, but didn't the terms of their commitment change....the coaching staff changed, the one (and perhaps only) group of trusted people that you know at that school left.  Yes I know the LOI is with the school, but the reality of the situation is that kids commit to coaches often and shouldn't that be part of the equation, or should that matter not one iota?

If you were hired to go work for someone you greatly respected and wanted to work for, and the day before you started (or even 2 months after you started), he/she left for whatever reason, do you think you might want to get out of that job?  Knowing that your guy wouldn't be there to mentor you or protect you while you got up to speed.  I'll bet you would strongly consider it.  I don't see any difference in this situation.  This is someone's LIFE we're talking about.  And we're holding a 17 year old kid to a commitment that essentially doesn't mean anything close to what it originally meant because the guy that sold him on coming is GONE.

Downtown..I do have kids and I suspect you do too.  If you were going to send your kid off 2000 miles to a school that you just spent the last 2 years being recruited by one coach, and that coach left...would you feel as comfortable sending your kid to a school not knowing that coach?  Not knowing anything about them, their philosophy, their style, their character, their experience?  You don't think you and your kid wouldn't have serious reservations?  Your trust is with the other guy...the guy you spent 2 years getting to know.  That doesn't factor in....really?


Personally, I think the NCAA should make this real easy.  If the coach leaves, your LOI is null and void and you're open to be re-recruited again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know you guys don't like Hurley but he makes some interesting points, including that pesky detail that many of these kids signing a LOI are 17 and their status as a minor.


"We have a minor entering into a contract with a university based on the influence the coach had over this child to make him decide to sign with this school over somewhere else," said Bob Hurley, who has produced more than 125 Division I prospects while coaching more than three decades at St. Anthony in Jersey City, N.J. "A very persuasive adult with a basketball reputation convinced this minor to enter a contract because of all the things he's going to do for him. Then the coach goes to another situation, and now you're going to have another person coach the kid who (the recruit) doesn't even know."

Hurley doesn't expect changes to be made to the process anytime soon because he figures nobody wants to rock the boat at a time when college basketball is thriving. But that hasn't stopped him from asking that prospects receive more rights in the college selection process, even if it means inserting a clause in the letter-of-intent that allows student-athletes to look elsewhere when they've signed with a school that experiences a coaching change.

"Maybe we have to get an addendum to it," Hurley said. "I can't believe we're getting to that point, but it's necessary."

[Pardner]

I know you guys don't like Hurley but he makes some interesting points, including that pesky detail that many of these kids signing a LOI are 17 and their status as a minor.

Except TT's mom also signed the LOI....and we have kids of a similar age signing up for the armed forces to go fight (and die) for our freedom.  Hurley needs to get off his high alter and enter the real world.  Is it so bad MU offered his kid a $160k free ride at a great school where his odds of graduating are almost 100%?  TT was granted his release after ALL the appropriate papers (i.e., his mom signed not his high school AD).  Frankly, Hurley needs to act more like a teacher and less like a pimp.  I have lost total respect for the man...and Hurley and his so called Catholic HS  have been exposed here as the basketball meat market they are.  They are what is wrong with college basketball today.

Should MU have granted him his release?  Yes, when he and his parents agreed in writing to it as is the responsible thing to do.  Would there be a 1000 other hs seniors eager to have his free ride to MU for academics?  Yes.   And, who, if granted , btw, had to sign a scholarship commitment form so they don't take a spot from another kid?  Yes.  Woe is Hurley.  He has proven unreliable and to be a hypocrite...and has done harm to his student athletes by not representing them in a responsible manner.

[downtown85]

Yes.  It is unfair that the coach can leave and the kid is theoretically stuck in an LOI.  I really have no problem with a kids being released from his LOI when a coach leaves.  

What I have a problem with is Crean's apparant behavior.  Look at MU's program.  TC had a lot to do with the recovery of the basketball program here.  However, a lot of it was the Marquette community's (adminstration, alums, and fans) committment to rebuild the program and to provide the resources so it could be competitive.  TC walked into a really good situation when he was hired and he made the best of it (according to his ability).   However, it is still MU's basketball program and not TC's.  I do not think our former coach has one ounce or recognition or gratitude for what MU has given him.    

What I would expect of a normal moral human being (e.g., Trent Johnson) when he leaves is to tell the kids that he recruited that 1) he is sorry that he is leaving MU, 2) their committment is to MU and not to him, 3) Buzz Williams is a great coach and you will do you fine with him,  and 4)  MU is a great program, he should know, he helped build it.  Then TC should then leave our recruits alone.  If the kid searches high and low and he still wants to play for him, so be it.  I wouldn't have a problem with it then.  

HOWEVER, what I think really happened was that TC went to "It's Indiana" and said "Oh sh!t, I can't recruit here due to restrictions and I have no real class signed for 2008 or 2009 and I need to get some decent players in.  Let's raid Marquette".  I do believe that TC called our committed recruits.  I do not believe he made a case to them to remain committed to MU.  It is actually shameful.  Given now what we know about his character, it shouldn't have come as a surprise.  

I have less of a problem with the Nick Williams situation than the Erik Williams situation.  From what I understand Crean called EW and tried to persuade him to go to Indiana.  I know we are not privy to what was actually said but everything indicates that Slimeball called him and tried to get him to follow him to Indiana.  I am glad EW could see through his slimy, tan exterior.  

While we are proposing NCAA rules changes.  How about this:  "Any coach who leaves before the end of his contract must wait 1 year before coaching an NCAA team again."   This would put coaches and players on more equal footing.  However, as Huggy's year off indicated, he wasn't coaching anywhere and he could basically call recruits and visit them as much as he wanted since he wasn't subject to NCAA rules.  For every rule proposed, there are consequences and outcomes which may not be desireable.  

Chicos, you think calling committed recruits from his former employer with the aim of getting them to follow is perfectly moral and ethical. I don't.  That is the difference.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

From what I understand Crean called EW and tried to persuade him to go to Indiana.  I know we are not privy to what was actually said but everything indicates that Slimeball called him and tried to get him to follow him to Indiana.  I am glad EW could see through his slimy, tan exterior. 

See, I actually agree with you ... We are NOT privy to any of the conversations... so I guess I just haven't made the leap to "tan slimeball" like others have.

The guy (Crean) is a great marketer and salesman, but throughout his history he's been never accused of being dirty with players or recruiting (outside of the very few who accused him of "running players off").

I guess that's why I give him the benefit of the doubt... I don't know what the conversations were... and his history is pretty clean.

Oh well.

[downtown85]

I am not making it up. Look at the link below:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739841

For those of you who were too lazy, here is the quote from Rosiak:

"In the meantime, he (E. Williams) and coach John Harmatuk heard from Crean, who made it known he still desired his services in Bloomington, Ind."

Scumbag.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, you think calling committed recruits from his former employer with the aim of getting them to follow is perfectly moral and ethical. I don't.  That is the difference. 

Now it's a moral question?   

Because none of us were on the phone it all seems like a bit of a reach.  At the end of the day, the kid deciding to go play for the immoral and unethical coach, so maybe we don't want the kid anyway.     Or, perhaps in a more realistic viewpoint, the kid and his family were more comfortable playing for a coach that they know the last 2 years during the recruiting process.

For Nick, he went with Crean.  For Erik, he went with Buzz.  By the way, Erik Williams had not signed any LOI, he's free game.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I am not making it up. Look at the link below:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739841

For those of you who were too lazy, here is the quote from Rosiak:

"In the meantime, he (E. Williams) and coach John Harmatuk heard from Crean, who made it known he still desired his services in Bloomington, Ind."

Scumbag.

Hmmm I do trust Rosiak's reporting, so thanks for sharing.

It's all speculation and hearsay, but it certainly doesn't sound good... I agree with you there.

Oh well. He's gone... no need to dwell.

[downtown85]

This horse has been beaten to death many times.  We all agree that it is a moral/ethical issue and some of us have different moral thresholds than others.  In Crean's case I am not sure he knows what morality or ethics is.  But so be it.  Let's move on.

I do say that if a coach does not respect verbals from our recruits to us/our coach then we should not reciprocate the courtesy to the other school/coach. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

How does it make it a  MORAL issue?  What harm is being done to the student athlete....a scholarship offer?

I'm surprised someone hasn't gone to the next step and labeled it criminal.

There is nothing immoral at all about this.  People are upset because the kid left MU, that's what this is about.

What I find "immoral" is forcing a kid to go to a school for a coach he has no relationship with or who didn't recruit him.  That I find immoral, that's not the case with Buzz but often the case at these schools where a coach is brought in from the outside and some poor kid is forced to play there site unseen for the new staff

[downtown85]

O.k., I will try to explain.

When you work for someone, you create value for your employer and your employer has certain rights to the fruits of your labor.  In exchange for those rights, your employer gives you a paycheck.  Over time, the benefits from work grow and accrue to your employer and your pay hopefully rises as your employer recognizes this.  However, the moment you leave, the fruits of your labor stay with your employer. BTW, in another post you talked about rolodexes etc.  I have worked at jobs where the rolodex (or equivelent) has been impounded as soon as someone announces they are leaving.  The guy is literally shown the door in minutes of the announcement since the stuff he was just working on was so sensitive.  Also, in my profession, it is common to have "gardening leave" which amounts to a cooling off period where you can't go into competition with your former employer.   But you may say that TC acted within the law and written rules.  Just because sometimes there is no legal backing in an agreement doesn't mean that those rights don't exist on some moral level.  That is what I mean by moral.   

Now we would all agree that TC helped rebuild the program.  We all agree that recruiting is the key to success in upper tier college hoops.  I would say that the recruiting relationships that TC created while at MU are MU's.   If not legally, then morally.   Where do we draw the line? I would draw the line at commits.  Those with LOIs and those who have verbally committed.  I think it is reasonable place to draw the line and one that most coaches (and fans) would agree.   BTW, i scanned an Indiana message board and while most fans were esctatic about Crean getting NW, some questioned whether it was ethical going after MU recruits so hard.   It makes some feel queasy because they recognize that he recruited these kids on MU's dime and now IU is reaping the rewards of that. 

Like I said in another post, what a 17 year old kids wants doesn't make something moral or not.  I am sorry. 

Chicos, your argument is a bit of a red herring.  I am not talking about keeping NW committed to his LOI.  I am talking about TC's crossing the line and calling the likes of EW after he has verbally committed to MU and trying to get him to come to IU.  That is just sleazy.   If you don't think that TC crossed some line by calling one of our verbal commits and trying to get him to IU, then we will never agree. 

[StillAWarrior]

I would say that the recruiting relationships that TC created while at MU are MU's.   If not legally, then morally.

You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

Exactly

[downtown85]

You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

I think in a court of law or an NCAA rules committee.  He would get off scott free.  In a jury of his coaching peers.  I think he would be guilty as charged, especially by calling EW.  If his jury were MU fandom, it might turn into a lynch mob.  

You may think TC owns the relationship and TC may think he owns the relationship and a recruit may even feel his relationship is with TC but morally TC doesn't own it.  It was developed while doing his job at MU.  Similar to a software programmer or salesperson.  The ownerhip of the intellectual property or the relationship is with the company and property of the company because it was developed using company resources.  TC wasn't out on the recruiting trail doing volunteer work on his own nickel.  He was paid for it.  The relationships are MU's.  

Whether a rule is written or not doesn't change its moral nature--i.e. whether or not it is fair.  Laws and rules are supposed to be a reflection of morality or what is fair, not the other way around.  I don't want to get into a metaphysical/epistomological debate comparing legal codes and moral codes.  This is a basketball forum!

Frankly, I am tired of discussing it.  TC crossed the line calling Erik Williams.  I think he acted like a sh!thead with NW.  But so be it.  We kept EW. NW is gone.  We all know TC's true stripes now.  

[StillAWarrior]

You may think TC owns the relationship and TC may think he owns the relationship and a recruit may even feel his relationship is with TC but morally TC doesn't own it.  It was developed while doing his job at MU.  Similar to a software programmer or salesperson.  The ownerhip of the intellectual property or the relationship is with the company and property of the company because it was developed using company resources.  TC wasn't out on the recruiting trail doing volunteer work on his own nickel.  He was paid for it.  The relationships are MU's.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[mugrad99]

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.