I can't take it anymore

[Sam]

I have a 2014 and have been told by numerous people that 2014 is basically over. I sont believe it based on what my gut says as well as data. But i bet every 2015 and 2016 is bwing told money is drying up. Yep. Its the parents fault

The math says that there would be plenty of 2015 and 2016 money left if the parents would protect their kids.

[Ks softball fan]

Sam - agreed - but it wont happen. Why not make a rule that no contact until July of Sophomore year...period.

Lets go back to the 28 yr old guy and 14 yr old girl analogy...its illegal:)

The rule today is no contact until July after Jr year...unless initiated by kid. So TB and college coaches stay in contact and push parents and kids to go make visits and have "backroom" deals made. Just eliminate any contact at all until after SO year - and leave JR year rule in place. That allows the cream of the crop to make earlier decisions, but not 4 or 5 yrs early.

Now nobody has to be blamed and things make more sense. Trust me, if there was no law protecting underage girls....there would be more stories (all of them tragic by the way - was not my analogy) about that...regardless of how hard the parents worked at it.

[Blind Squirrel]

I can't think of a rule coaches and parents couldn't get around if they wanted. Legally. I've told the story before but I'll happily boor everyone again. We couldn't go up and talk to coaches at tournaments. So we saw a coach that was interested in my kid and we were interested in the school so my wife, while standing 20 or 30 feet from the coach, called her on her cell phone. The coach looked at her phone, saw who it was, looked at my wife and laughed and waved. They had a pleasant chat. Good thing there was a rule preventing us from talking to coaches face to face at games before a certain date.

Johnny Lawless the Cellular Squirrel

[AlwaysImprove]

Yep, very hard to legislate. The current line being held is that if a parent has a question about a school, a coach should be able to answer that question. Regardless if it is asked via text, at a tournament, on the phone, in email or through a coach.

Coaches let it be known if you want to talk to them, just ask a question, they can answer most any question. If they think they can get a scholarship at a school they are interested, parents are going to call with questions.

NCAA will have a hard time legislating that away.

[Ks softball fan]

Maybe i am over simplifying this. I get what is being said about contact but for these kids to commit there has to be offers made. Find one occasion punish the school offers stop commits delay
...why is that hard?

[MTR]

Maybe i am over simplifying this. I get what is being said about contact but for these kids to commit there has to be offers made. Find one occasion punish the school offers stop commits delay
...why is that hard?

Because the school doesn't make the offer. The "school" isn't allowed to make an offer. The coach on the other hand can say just about anything they want to say as long as they do not initiate.

It is bad enough that the NCAA punishes schools for the actions of the coach, but not the coach. The schools lose scholarships, TV time, post-season berths and the coach moves on to another school and continues to work.

If the NCAA takes the control people think they should, they will just move the NLI availability up a year and you will still have the same issue, nothing will change other than tying up the real money a year earlier until the buyer stops jumping on the coaches' bandwagon.

[jonriv]

Maybe i am over simplifying this. I get what is being said about contact but for these kids to commit there has to be offers made. Find one occasion punish the school offers stop commits delay
...why is that hard?

Because the school doesn't make the offer. The "school" isn't allowed to make an offer. The coach on the other hand can say just about anything they want to say as long as they do not initiate.

It is bad enough that the NCAA punishes schools for the actions of the coach, but not the coach. The schools lose scholarships, TV time, post-season berths and the coach moves on to another school and continues to work.

If the NCAA takes the control people think they should, they will just move the NLI availability up a year and you will still have the same issue, nothing will change other than tying up the real money a year earlier until the buyer stops jumping on the coaches' bandwagon.

The coach making an "offer" is the school making an offer. The Coach is a legal representative and authority of the school. Parents/players view it that way and the law views it that way. No different than as bank officer I speak as a representative of that bank. Just because the NCAA does not "recognize" them does not mean that they do not exist. I am waiting for a pissed-off, disgruntled deep-pocket parent to take a school to court for a breach of contract- my guess they win

[DonnieS]

[The coach making an "offer" is the school making an offer. The Coach is a legal representative and authority of the school.

Nope JR, the school is not making an offer. In the cases where a coach leaves, its "fold the deck and reshuffle."

[jonriv]

[The coach making an "offer" is the school making an offer. The Coach is a legal representative and authority of the school.

Nope JR, the school is not making an offer. In the cases where a coach leaves, its "fold the deck and reshuffle."

I understand that's what happens (sometimes) Legally if challenged I think the courts would view it another way. Basically that the recruit had a reasonable expectation that the coach had the authority to make such an offer. How it has been explained to me by my attorney friends that a "verbal": qualifies as verbal contract and can be found binding. They said in the few cases that had been made(all of whiche the schools settled) That was the arguement. They did not know any that went all the way to court. In most case the schools have the money and legal resources to overcome any challenges, but..... get some Hedge Fund owner with a "wronged" student-athlete child and all bets are off!

On the legislation side, both CT and California have passed laws that other states or teh Feds might follow that could cause the NCAA to act: http://ctsportslaw.com/2011/11/22/new-l ... g-process/

[UmpSteve]

[The coach making an "offer" is the school making an offer. The Coach is a legal representative and authority of the school.

Nope JR, the school is not making an offer. In the cases where a coach leaves, its "fold the deck and reshuffle."

I understand that's what happens (sometimes) Legally if challenged I think the courts would view it another way. Basically that the recruit had a reasonable expectation that the coach had the authority to make such an offer. How it has been explained to me by my attorney friends that a "verbal": qualifies as verbal contract and can be found binding. They said in the few cases that had been made(all of whiche the schools settled) That was the arguement. They did not know any that went all the way to court. In most case the schools have the money and legal resources to overcome any challenges, but..... get some Hedge Fund owner with a "wronged" student-athlete child and all bets are off!

On the legislation side, both CT and California have passed laws that other states or teh Feds might follow that could cause the NCAA to act: http://ctsportslaw.com/2011/11/22/new-l ... g-process/

The kicker to the schools settling is that you can bet they used the general fund, not the scholarship fund; and didn't count the settlements toward their scholarships limit. Somehow, that just doesn't seem to address the problem; if a coach knows the school will pay off anyone he promises without limits, then there are effectively no scholarship limits. Even if there are limits, it is more than the coach should have for maintaining competitive neutrality.