|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 8:57 PM
|
|
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/15884704/seven-baylor-bears-recruits-ask-national-letters-intent
I have a real problem with this.
An NLI is binding, per NCAA regulations. Basically, once the National Letter of Intent is signed, the player is bound to the university, and the university to him. (In reality the University's commitment is less, because they don't have to lose a scholarship if they kick a kid off the team, whereas the player still has to sit out a year.) Still, the rule exists for a very good and simple reason - it keeps other schools from coming in and buying your players.
Seven guys wanting out of their NLI is troublesome, because the NCAA had nothing to do with Baylor firing Art Briles. Credit where credit is due, Baylor had everything to do with Baylor firing Art Briles. Their Board of Regents acted, unloading Briles, University President Kenneth Starr (still find that ironic), and their athletic director, who was allowed to "resign" after being put on probation. You can argue that Baylor was bowing to public or alumni pressure or reacting to bad press...it doesn't matter, at the end of the day. It was an internal matter. Baylor conducted its own investigation, doled out its own punishments...and they went just way, way further than the NCAA ever would have, because they made sure the people who bore the responsibility took the hit. You don't see that a lot, especially at litigious as America has gotten these days. Someone owning up and taking responsibility? Wow.
If the NCAA meddles in this and allows those kids out of their NLI's, the NCAA is punishing Baylor for cleaning its own house. FSU didn't. Tennessee assuredly hasn't.
Keep in mind I'm not lauding or applauding Baylor, really. They did merely what they should have done all along...IMHO Baylor turned a blind eye to repeated rapes on its own campus and got itself into this mess to begin with. I still like that the Bears cleaned their own house and didn't wait for anybody to force it on them. And the last thing the NCAA needs to do is give schools more incentive to cover up campus rapes by scholarship athletes and refuse to come clean about it, and that's what smacking Baylor by allowing their signed players to defect will do. You think Tennessee will ever jettison Butch Jones, if that's what it'll cost them? No way, no how.
So, sorry, guys. The NCAA has no grounds to invalidate those NLI's. Unless they truly just wanna admit they've always been making it up as they go along.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15501]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21400
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 9:05 PM
|
|
I wish I could give you multiple TU's. That was good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [90722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45481
Joined: 10/18/09
|
i don't like the NCAA
Jun 1, 2016, 9:07 PM
|
|
Or Unc or Acc Commiss who all get special treatment since they think they're the Princeton of The South! ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [120]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 196
Joined: 5/24/15
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 9:08 PM
|
|
Quozell,
Are you Pacman? Just asking, based on yesterday/day before show, saying Baylor must fix the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17786]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13387
Joined: 9/16/03
|
Very interesting situation. And what of early enrollees in this class?
Jun 1, 2016, 9:15 PM
|
|
Who are already in school but some are not due in till August?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8565]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5495
Joined: 12/12/15
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 9:28 PM
|
|
I think maybe you are right. Signing day is when you breathe a sigh of relief knowing the recruits are really locked in. However, with Baylor's current reputation, you almost can't blame them for not wanting their name associated with that football program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I completely disagree
Jun 1, 2016, 9:35 PM
|
|
A NLI is a contract and it only binds the university for one year, it's not a 4 or 5 year contract. One could argue that Baylor miss lead the prospective athletes by not making them aware of the investigation and the misconduct on campus. Since the university and the NCAA wrote the contract, any breach or antiquity will favor the party not writing the contract. Baylor should do the right thing again and release anyone who wants out, and I think they will once they have people in place to review the facts. What Baylor was doing is criminal and those involved should be charged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42349
Joined: 7/31/10
|
+1...***
Jun 1, 2016, 10:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5701]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7026
Joined: 8/3/05
|
The problem with this argument is what is the precedence?
Jun 1, 2016, 10:44 PM
[ in reply to I completely disagree ] |
|
Or, where do you draw the line?
I can't speak for him, but I think that is the argument quozzel is trying to make.
It is a slippery slope. What are the conditions that allow for granting the release? Coach was fired? NCAA put the school on probation for the sport the athlete signed up for? The athlete got to the school and became disenchanted? Is it only for new recruits? Should athletes already at the school be allowed to leave the school without the penalty of one year not being able to compete?
Once you decide that the athlete can be released from the NLI it opens up a lot of ramifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: The problem with this argument is what is the precedence?
Jun 2, 2016, 12:21 AM
|
|
Yes.
As was pointed out - and I did read the article - the decision is Baylor's, for the first 30 days. If they don't release, it becomes an NCAA-reviewed decision. I was sort of assuming this is how it was going to go because if there's 7 today you don't want 25 guys jumping all at once, if you're Baylor.
They might let 7 go...if it stays just the 7. The problem is, they could literally lose their whole class if they start letting those guys out of their NLI. Can they afford to do that?
Tough choice.
The problem is, what happens if they stand firm - as is seemingly their right - and the NCAA overrides them? At that point you've broken an NLI for political reasons, which means it's open season on NLI's...if a college has a recruit you desired but lost out on, and a rape happens at that campus, could you not then turn right around and use the precedent to break the NLI?
Slippery slope indeed, and you'd better believe the Jim Harbaughs of the college football world already have their antennae out to see if they can do a little offseason roster raiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2416
Joined: 4/2/10
|
Re: The problem with this argument is what is the precedence?
Jun 2, 2016, 11:12 AM
|
|
How many schollies are available this time of year to sign these guys? In my opinion they sit out the year to play at a Power 5 school, or if they get released, play for a lower tiered school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: The problem with this argument is what is the precedence?
Jun 3, 2016, 2:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: The problem with this argument is what is the precedence? ] |
|
"Can they afford to do that?"
Who cares if Baylor can't afford to lose those players? The health of their program should be of the lowest priority right now. This isn't a random change of heart by the recruits. This wasn't a coaching change based on losing football games...it was due to the systematic cover-up of sexual assault.
There is a very valid case that these recruits were mislead by Baylor as to the climate & circumstances surrounding the university and football program. The recruits can easily argue that they were defrauded, in which case if Baylor refuses to release the recruits, the NCAA could step in and force them to. There's no "slippery slope" scenario here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you follow basketball recruiting then you
Jun 2, 2016, 12:59 AM
[ in reply to The problem with this argument is what is the precedence? ] |
|
Would know it's pretty much universal that if a coach leaves or the school goes on probation then the school will release all incoming recruits if they ask. When OP left we released the #1 player in Georgia and he then signed with UGA.
My point is releasing anyone who wants to go is the right thing to do, Penn State did and ended up keeping a lot of players. Most of the current players will stay, but it's only fair to release the player who want to leave. Baylor broke the law and should have bigger worries than how many players want to leave. I think Baylor does the right thing and let's them go, they just lost their President, AD, and HFC. The replacements have to get in access the situation and make a decision, and I don't think that those people exist today. I did hear Jim Grobe would be the interm coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: The problem with this argument is what is the precedence?
Jun 2, 2016, 1:32 AM
[ in reply to The problem with this argument is what is the precedence? ] |
|
It's not remotely a slippery slope. there is long standing precedent that simply changing coaches isn't grounds for release from an NLI. I think, much like Penn State, when the college and athletic department adminstration is potentially guilty of criminal conspiracy the kids can should be released. Further, the NCAA isn't on a win streak in court cases these days and probably doesn't need these policies tested in court and if they don't release these kids they almost certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10460]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7014
Joined: 5/14/01
|
That's not entirely correct
Jun 2, 2016, 7:58 AM
[ in reply to I completely disagree ] |
|
Starting in 2012, the NCAA allowed schools to start giving out four year scholarships. Many schools now do, however it is not mandatory for a school to do so. I don't know whether Baylor does so or not, but I suspect they do if the other members of their conference are giving them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1724
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I completely disagree
Jun 3, 2016, 3:31 PM
[ in reply to I completely disagree ] |
|
What Baylor did has nothing to do with the incoming freshman wanting out of their NLI. Buyer beware. They may have been mislead or not given information, but that's life. They wanted to go to Baylor, so they should be happy there regardless who the coach is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5792]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5371
Joined: 9/5/10
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 9:37 PM
|
|
I see both sides of it. But if they allow these 7 off the hook it may open up the door and cause a snowball. Kids everywhere trying to back cause they miss mama and daddy or they don't have a chick-fil-a on campus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [730]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 512
Joined: 1/20/16
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 9:38 PM
|
|
If Baylor can fire coaches without having to pay out contracts due to ethics issues, then these kids should be able to "fire Baylor"without penalty. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14193
Joined: 12/14/98
|
There are a lot of legitimate arguments
Jun 1, 2016, 9:47 PM
|
|
To release the players from their LOIs.
May be better to release them in cases like this than to lose the case in court . A loss in court may have further reaching consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [819]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11/25/14
|
If Art Briles can be working somewhere
Jun 1, 2016, 9:50 PM
|
|
else next year with his feet kicked up and smoking a cigar, then these players should do what they have to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: If Art Briles can be working somewhere
Jun 1, 2016, 10:07 PM
|
|
Where does it stop, though?
If kids can break NLI's owing to changing circumstances, it basically puts players on an open market...which opens the door for all sorts of funny business.
There's way too much funny business as there is. If your roster isn't even safe once it signs, you're going to have dirty boosters and street agents doing all sorts of business all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
you're bringing up hypotheticals that have nothing to do with this situation***
Jun 2, 2016, 1:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: If Art Briles can be working somewhere
Jun 3, 2016, 2:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: If Art Briles can be working somewhere ] |
|
I think you're assuming far too much. This is an atypical situation, where there is a massive cover-up of violent crime by a coaching staff & university, akin to the Penn State/Child Rape cover-up. It's far from over, and don't be surprised if we don't see several lawsuits and potentially even criminal charges for those involved.
This wouldn't create an open market. This is common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4359]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2/21/05
|
Your argument focuses on this simply being an NCAA
Jun 1, 2016, 10:03 PM
|
|
decision. What if Baylor let's them out of their NLI? I don't see that as bad for college football. Other programs have done the same when they got into trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [399]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1132
Joined: 1/25/13
|
Re: Your argument focuses on this simply being an NCAA
Jun 1, 2016, 10:28 PM
|
|
NCAA allowed recruits & players out of the Penn State issues. Players fearing college football career destruction and or destroyed. Hasn't hurt Clemson's recruiting in any shape, form, or fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12771
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Baylor football is folding like a wet taco.
Jun 1, 2016, 10:10 PM
|
|
Just like that. No tomorrows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42349
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I generally agree with your posts... This time, no.***
Jun 1, 2016, 10:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 1, 2016, 10:20 PM
|
|
I sorta see what your saying. However, I think it pertinent that Baylor continually and routinely re-violated female students after they had been sexually assaulted and in some cases raped.
It wasn't until AFTER Espn's Outside the Lines ran a report listing the common place violations at Baylor that the school investigated itself. (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14675790/baylor-officials-accused-failing-investigate-sexual-assaults-fully-adequately-providing-support-alleged-victims)
Your desire to give them credit for doing an internal investigation, I believe, is misplaced. It seems more like going home after you've robbed a bank....and then investigating yourself for potential robbery. Baylor knew what was going on and it took an outside source to stop the behavior.
Any young athlete could make a very strong argument that they were mislead about the nature and the culture at Baylor. Most any contract can be broken if it can be shown that one party provided false and/or misleading information in order to induce a signature. Particularly if 1 of the signators is 18 yr old or less.
I'd let them out of the NLI. It's the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 324
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You should have read the article...
Jun 1, 2016, 10:32 PM
|
|
NCAA deserves to be called out often enough, but this has nothing to do with them at this stage. This is a Baylor decision--as it says in the article the institution has 30 days to review the request and determine whether they will allow the players a release.
If they do not grant a release, then there is an appeal process. Baylor has already made the decision (perhaps a bit on the late side) that integrity is more important than football wins...that standard should hold here and they should make the decision quickly so these players can move on. This shouldn't be put on the NCAA--Baylor should do the right thing before it goes that far.
Clearly, the institution itself is at fault here--there are individuals that are culpable, but there were people in too many high places enabling if not condoning--I'm not sure why kids that played no role in this should be punished by being forced to go to Baylor instead of Baylor being punished to lose football recruits.
Lastly--even if they are not granted a release, they can transfer, right? Sit out a year (aka redshirt) and be ready to play next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [718]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 592
Joined: 2/5/15
|
With it being a one year contract
Jun 1, 2016, 10:38 PM
|
|
I think they should be locked in for the year. However waiving the transfer sit out rule for one year could be a perfect compromise and I would advocate for such
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I disagree. The student athletes already have very very
Jun 1, 2016, 10:39 PM
|
|
little power as it is. In extreme circumstances like this i wouldn't have a problem with the entire team being given a free transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
And yes i see where there could be more incentive for
Jun 1, 2016, 10:43 PM
|
|
cover ups, but i think that needs to be addressed in a different manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1213
Joined: 11/16/13
|
I see your point
Jun 2, 2016, 12:33 AM
|
|
And I agree to a degree.
The ncaa does permit a release from an NLI due to extenuating circumstances (illness, family issues, etc.) and they are dealt with on a case by case basis.
I do think that this would qualify as an extenuating circumstance. And I would understand the granting of a release.
The ncaa still may lay sanctions against Baylor and they would be warranted. If they choose to not incite some sort of postseason ban or scholarship reduction (or anything, really) it becomes quite a slippery slope when compared to other cases -- like penn state a few years ago. And if sanctions are doled out, the kids who had absolutely nothing to do with the program aside from signing their names to a dotted line, they should have had the option to sign elsewhere. Or at least transfer without sitting a year.
Tl;dr: ncaa may punish Baylor with addition to self imposed penalties, so recruits should have options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1327]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1570
Joined: 10/29/00
|
I say let them go. The recruiting process as
Jun 2, 2016, 5:56 AM
|
|
I understand it involves young high school players being pitched a set of promises or expectations by a coach and his staff. If the coach is fired, the players no longer have those promises or expectations to rely upon. They should be allowed out of their "contract" since the other party to it is no longer able to uphold the terms. That is my $.02 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
They'd be better off staying and then transferring
Jun 2, 2016, 7:49 AM
|
|
at this point most of the other schools comparable to Baylor have already managed their rosters and not have spots available. Stay, use the Baylor scholarship, don't redshirt, and if things don't the way you want, transfer. Then you have all your options plus you never missed a year of free schooling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6280]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12978
Joined: 4/21/15
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 2, 2016, 11:14 AM
|
|
So you don't think they should be able to leave without a transfer and sitting out a year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
coaches aren't legally binded to a school so why should players be?***
Jun 2, 2016, 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: coaches aren't legally binded to a school so why should players be?***
Jun 2, 2016, 2:23 PM
|
|
Coaches contracts aren't legally binding???
LOLOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96798]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29204
Joined: 9/14/05
|
No, not in the
Jun 2, 2016, 2:25 PM
|
|
fantasy land he lives in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [139870]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33843
Joined: 12/5/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
And how many times has buyouts prevented a coach from going to another school? Zero***
Jun 2, 2016, 3:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96798]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29204
Joined: 9/14/05
|
It's still a contract***
Jun 2, 2016, 3:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: It's still a contract***
Jun 2, 2016, 3:33 PM
|
|
A legally binding contract***
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: Glad you know the details of every single contract negotiation in CFB
Jun 2, 2016, 3:46 PM
|
|
What do you expect from someone who used "binded" instead of bound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
didnt say that, just said a buyout has never prevented a coach from jumping jobs...
Jun 2, 2016, 3:55 PM
[ in reply to Glad you know the details of every single contract negotiation in CFB ] |
|
The only reason for buyout clauses is for schools to get some kind of money back if they sign a coach to a huge contract if he leaves. It's not a preventive measure, it's a money measure. Hasn't been a single instant of a coach not taking a job due to a buyout clause.
How bout this make coaches have to sit out a year if they leave a school before their contract is up. That's reasonable considering players have to sit, other than the graduate exception, a year when transferring
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: didnt say that, just said a buyout has never prevented a coach from jumping jobs...
Jun 2, 2016, 3:57 PM
|
|
No, you said they aren't legally bound which is patently untrue....
Also, do you have to sit out a year if you switch jobs? I have a non compete clause in my employment contract, but that doesn't stop me from taking another position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
Re: didnt say that, just said a buyout has never prevented a coach from jumping jobs...
Jun 2, 2016, 4:11 PM
[ in reply to didnt say that, just said a buyout has never prevented a coach from jumping jobs... ] |
|
It's definitely preventive in nature. UF came very close to not hiring Jim McEllwain because of his 7.5 million dollar buyout. They were only willing to pay 3 million of it and negotiated to play CSU with huge paycheck attached, and McElwain had to pick the remainder himself. Also tax consequences of forgiven debt or having debt paid for you is huge when you're talking millions of dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida...
Jun 3, 2016, 2:50 AM
|
|
Like I said before there isn't an instance of a buyout clause that has prevented a coach from going to a new job. You may not like me, but I'm right on this one, because you can't find a single instant of the buyout clause preventing a coach from switching jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida...
Jun 3, 2016, 10:29 AM
|
|
Good lord you're an idiot.
You were 100% wrong in your initial statement. That's the FACT of the matter.
Also, the buyout clauses are preventative in nature and protect the school and the coach from each other.
I guarantee buyouts have hindered schools from considering a possible candidate because they didn't want to deal with it.(you don't hear about it because they don't contact those coaches) Thereby, hindering a coaches ability to gain other employment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
Re: Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida...
Jun 3, 2016, 1:39 PM
[ in reply to Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida... ] |
|
You have no clue what you're talking about, as shown when you said coaches are not legally bound (or "binded" in your words) to the school. The very definition of a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. My instructor for LAW 406 flat out said that they are used a preventive measure, and he just happened to be a former AD of an ACC school. It's clear you have no idea what schools go through, evaluate, and negotiate when hiring a coach. If I wanted to I could read through my sports law book and give you case law I could, but I'm going to enjoy my weekend watching Clemson advance to the Supers and playing golf instead dealing with a self righteous prick that likes to talk out of his ###.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96798]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29204
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Re: Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida...***
Jun 3, 2016, 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
Still wrong, still not a single example of a coach having to stay because of a buyout...
Jun 3, 2016, 3:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: Again it didn't prevent McElwain from going to Florida... ] |
|
Sorry but the contract doesn't force a coach to stay at a school. They don't have no compete clauses in coaches contracts. You're the self righteous prick. I asked you to provide me with an example of a coach being forced to stay at a job because of a buyout and you could not provide a single example. Like I said I know you don't like me but that doesn't change the fact you are wrong. And learn to read I said they aren't legally bound to have to stay at the school, never said a contract wasn't a legally binding document. But that's your tactic when you're wrong, you start claiming a poster stated something they didn't.
It's clear you can't find a single shred of proof to back up your claim about buyouts preventing a coach from leaving, so you tried to change the subject to being about the overall contract instead of the only aspect I spoke on.
You're wrong admit it, provide an example, or gfy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: Still wrong, still not a single example of a coach having to stay because of a buyout...
Jun 3, 2016, 6:46 PM
|
|
You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in this thread that you are indeed the biggest idiot on tigernet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1724
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [7]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6
Joined: 6/1/16
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 2, 2016, 3:31 PM
|
|
I also see your point quozzel, but the unfortunate fact is nearly all recruits pick a school for football reasons only, and when football is falling apart before they arrive, I can see why they feel they must move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5082]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5133
Joined: 11/9/09
|
BoomBus has been spotted crossing TX State line.***
Jun 3, 2016, 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1724
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This is dangerous...7 guys trying to get out of Baylor NLI's
Jun 3, 2016, 3:32 PM
|
|
Great post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
.
