|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Apr 1, 2009 20:15:54 GMT -5
if UK gets even half that class that they assembled at memphis and manage to hold on to meeks and patterson....yikes.....pretty sure you'll see some instant success
|
|
|
Post by wisconsinhoya on Apr 1, 2009 21:23:27 GMT -5
Not to change the scope on this subject, but did anyone read the article by Pat Forde on ESPN.com regarding his opinion on the hire of Coach Cal by Kentucky. He mentions Kentucky's long history of probation. Interesting to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaTejano on Apr 2, 2009 0:49:24 GMT -5
The NCAA dropped death-penalty nukes on SMU and the probation napalm on Kentucky and that will NEVER happen again -- in 2001 Alabama should have gotten the death penalty for the Albert Means "sale" and only got probation. The NCAA will never use its heavy weapons again on any major program. Ever.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 2, 2009 9:00:25 GMT -5
This so- called opt out clause in the LOI that some of these memphis recruits have signed is some what dubious to me. I believe that there is specific language in the LOI that states that the LOI is not for a specific coach but that when you sign it, it is for a specific sport and school. If the organization that is overseeing the LOI program is allowing recruits to take this clause out it basically defeats the whole purpose of the LOI program which is not run by the ncaa but is monitored by the ncaa eligibilty committe. also a coach leaving is prohibited from having any contact with those recruits who signed a binding letter. we all know Calipari will honor that to the letter of the law. This may ultimately be his downfall. Few opposing coaches have been willing drop a dime on coach Cal while in Memphis The SEC and the media in KY will be alot more vigiliant in regards to questionable practices.
That said him going to Kentucky will impact positively the Hoya Karma. In 85 while an assistant for Larry Brown he sold me a pair of tickets for face value center court for the championship game. things have never quite been right since then. i do believe they are changing.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Apr 2, 2009 9:21:50 GMT -5
This so- called opt out clause in the LOI that some of these memphis recruits have signed is some what dubious to me. I believe that there is specific language in the LOI that states that the LOI is not for a specific coach but that when you sign it, it is for a specific sport and school. If the organization that is overseeing the LOI program is allowing recruits to take this clause out it basically defeats the whole purpose of the LOI program which is not run by the ncaa but is monitored by the ncaa eligibilty committe. also a coach leaving is prohibited from having any contact with those recruits who signed a binding letter. we all know Calipari will honor that to the letter of the law. This may ultimately be his downfall. Few opposing coaches have been willing drop a dime on coach Cal while in Memphis The SEC and the media in KY will be alot more vigiliant in regards to questionable practices. That said him going to Kentucky will impact positively the Hoya Karma. In 85 while an assistant for Larry Brown he sold me a pair of tickets for face value center court for the championship game. things have never quite been right since then. i do believe they are changing. I agree. This opt-out clause seems to run counter to all the NCAA rules on letters of intent. Hard for me to believe so many of these reporters like Katz simply write it without either looking into it or bothering to explain to readers why these players can now sign these clauses.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 2, 2009 10:03:29 GMT -5
The LOI is very simple. You can find the text on the web. It is not administered by the NCAA but colleges have chosen to abide by it (probably because it protects them and really does little for the student).
The people who administer the LOI have often said "you sign with a school, not a coach" but in recent years the de facto rule is that if the coach leaves AND the school grants its release (blessing), then the year of sitting out has been waived uniformly. Basically, if the school is okay with it, no one is going to hold you to the LOI.
(I remember this being true all the way back in the Ashanti Cook days -- who broke his LOI for us once Frischilla was fired from NM, I think).
An out clause may be as simple as a separate agreement by the school to guarantee a release and support if the coach leaves.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalawyer on Apr 2, 2009 11:12:55 GMT -5
a LOI is a contract. It can be drafted in any fashion that the parties agree to.
_THE ABOVE MESSAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE NOR DOES IT CONSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF LAW
-Lawyer
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Apr 2, 2009 12:30:19 GMT -5
Evidently there is an additional form that gives exit rights to the player if the coach leaves but it must be executed at same time as a letter. Also, Nolan Dennis has re-opened his recruiting according to the Fort Worth paper this morning.
|
|
|
Post by atlasfrysmith on Apr 2, 2009 12:50:33 GMT -5
Really, though, the escape clause is a way to protect the school, not the player. If a player feels trapped on a team with a coach he doesn't like, he's probably going to be more harm than help, and will likely transfer anyway. So the school has an interest in being able to resolve that issue without having to go through a messy public divorce. It saves face for everyone, and gives the school more time to recruit a replacement.
In theory it should also be a recruiting incentive, though I don't know how much weight it has in practice. Given two otherwise evenly matched offers, a player could be tipped by the lower risk that comes with an escape clause. Since most of the time the coach won't leave, the school's option is in the money more often than not. This is probably most relevant at rising mid-major programs where young coaches are making names for themselves--the off season conversation on those boards every year is all about where the big-time offer is going to come from and whether coach will take it--recruits would be foolish not to wonder the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Apr 2, 2009 18:10:53 GMT -5
Think the opt out clause is in the best interest of the athlete. Since we all know that athletes are recruited by the coach and not the school, it protects them. They build and develop relationships with these coaches and to hold them in place would be disastrous.
With that said, many of the schollies at Kentucky will not be renewed. My guess is that you will see some 09ers let out of their commitment, probably only retaining Orton, and several marginally talented players released too. Meeks and Patterson will probably bolt though. IMO, Henry will take over as the man and Cousins/Orton are better than Patterson. Meeks/Patterson draft stock, along with their productivity, would decrease next year under Cal if they were to stay.
|
|