Pistol Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 He didn't violate any rules, or at least get caught violating any rules, but this is completely dirty. When a guy gives his verbal to a school, other coaches are supposed to back off. It's the unwritten rule among coaches. No one wants to see stuff like that happen among their peers. It's like sleeping with a friend's wife- not illegal, but that doesn't make it okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 it is kinda sad to see, I expect stemmler will find his way to the bench next year despite what sampson might have promised him. I amy be wrong, but time will tell.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Actually adultery is illegal in many states. It is also not comparable to this situation. So how far is this verbal thing supposed to go? Is the eighth grader now of limits to all coaches for next 4 years? If I tell an insurance salesmen on the phone that I am going to get a policy from him is it wrong for Rich to call me, before I sign the paper work, and tell me he has a better deal for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Brian and SLUSER, while something may not be illegal, it certainly can be unethical. There is a certain code of conduct under which basketball programs are supposed to operate. One plank of the unwritten code is that a coach should not poach players that are committed to, or attending a school in the same conference. In the CUSA, this was actually a written bylaw for transfers. there was a good PF that we lost in a recruiting battle with DePaul. After his freshman year he transferred, wanted to come to SLU, but ended up at UConn. If he had transferred to SLU as an in-conference transfer, he would have lost TWO years on the transfer - one due to NCAA rule, and another year due to the CUSA rule. A second rule is a curtesy call to a program if a commit contacts your program and expresses interest in changing his commit. If it is a written committment, the school must sign the release in order for the player NOT to lose a year. If it is a verbal commit, the coaches are expected to touch base to allow for recruiting time should the scholorship slot not be filled by the commit. These ethical situations are covered by a standing NCAA Coach Ethics Committee, chaired by none other than Sampson two years ago. Sampson was the coach who spoke eloquently how all recruiting should be accomplished on a high ethical plain - and then he does the very things in his yard that he passionately worked against previously. If you get a job offer to work in Kansas City, have all the signed paperwok filled out, including the signed offer letter, and move your family to KC, ethically you expect the job. Legally, since Missouri is a right-to-work state, the company can lay you off the first day, and bring in another candidate that they "hired" the same day as you. There is a fine line you don't want to cross too often in coaching circles - and Sampson has crossed the legal line at Oklahoma, and now the ethical line at Indiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Brian, as far as the eigth grader goes, his dad had put him off limits for all other college recruiters for the next four years. As far as your insurance policy goes, courtesy dictates you call the first agent, and allow him the opportunity to make an offer in light of the one you have in hand. For insurance, it is good to have a competitive field. The call allows for you to maintain a good business and personal relationship with both agents, and for them to remain friends if they know each other. You may get an even lower quote, as well. Would I be a dirtbag in your book if I offered you two free tickets to the NC game, and then sold them on the street for beaucoup $$$? How about your wife brings in an old $1000 beater car with a muffler that has fallen off, tells me to get it repaired, don't worry about the cost, and I drop in a new Target engine and a new muffler. It is legal- she gave me a verbal carte blanche with no cap on repair costs...but is it ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 There is a reason that verbals are non-binding; it is because they are actually not commitments. By explicit NCAA rules they are not binding. They are nothing more than an expression of a player's intent at that time period. Nothing more. The NCAA has decided, correctly I believe, that it is not in the best interest of a student to commit to a school to his senior year. They have two chances to do this in their senior. If a coach truly wanted to impress me as ethical and having a kid's best interest at heart they would never let a kid verbally commit to him until his senior year in high school. A coach likes the verbal because it makes his job easier. Sorry, but this is supposed to be about what is best for the kid. This is not supposed to be about what is best for a coach or a teams fans. This is one of the biggest non-issues ever blown-up by the media and fans. They can all give Sampson all the trouble they want and say see I am a good and ethical person. Pompous bs I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 None of what you said compares at all to what Sampson did. Weber doesn't care about what is best for the kid. It is obvious that you don't either. By the way, I don't think Sampson does also. The NCAA has decided it is best for the kids option to not be lmited till his senior year in high school. This whole code issue has nothing to do with the kid and everything to do with making it easier on coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Which would make it all fine and dandy, except that Gordan's dad said Weber was the second best influence in his son's life three months before signing day. It is somewhat academic anyway, with Gordan being a one-and-done, but the ethics falls onto the scholarship slot. If Gordon was not a firm verbal commit, then Illinois would have gotten a commit out of the shooting guard from St. Joe's rather than Gordan. It would have been a "first to commit" gets the schollie situation, not a held schollie. College basketball is a world unto itself, so there is no parallel example I could find that will satisfy you. All I would say is I never want Sampson working on my car, or recruiting at my University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 i dont think it would be right either way, but at least he should have been man enough to tell him he was chasing his committed recruit. sampson has even admitted he should have done so in stu durando's article yesterday. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...8E?OpenDocument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Roy, I really have no use for Sampson. My only thing is this whole early verbal committment thing. The people who complain about and say it is bad for the kids are full of it. That whole coaches code thing is just there to make things easier for the coaches. I have no problem with a coach breaking it. I have no problem with Sanpson approaching the kid and explaining to him that his options were now different for him than when he gave the verbal. The kid should know all the options avalible to him and not be locked into something because of a stupid coaches code. Once he signs a loi they make it hard enough for him to change schools and the Big Ten would make it nearly impossible to tranfer to another Big Ten school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 SLU cannot contact Harrelson, unless he receives a release from WIU. Once he signed a LOI, it becomes binding and no further contact from other schools can occur. I agree with you, there's a lot Brad should learn from Sampson. How not to do things!!! I have no desire to have a program that does it the wrong way. Winnings the wrong way doesn't satisfy me at all. If it does you, you probably are going to be eternally unhappy with SLU. Sampson may be a great coach, but we'll never know because he plays by his own set of rules, as stated so completely in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 >according to frank today on his show, sampson also hired >gordon's aau coach and got a gordon family member an indiana >university job leading up to the decommit from illinois and >the loi at indiana. > >sure those things are all legal, but they smell. > >i think had sampson upfront told weber via a phone call or a >face to face conversation that he believed that the gordon >verbal was no longer solid and was going to pursue it for >indiana, i might have less of a problem with it, however all >the moves were clandestine activity that weber was >apparently unaware of until it was too late. And those things go on all over the place and have for decades. Larry Brown did just fine at KU with Danny and Ed Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It is comparable in the sense that it is something that is completely unethical but not necessarily against any laws or rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMA Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 > > >Rule No.1 : No Sports Bigamy - you have to select one team >in each sport. Unless you live in Utah - you CANNOT root for >two teams at once to hedge your bets, and you CANNOT >unconditionally love two teams at the same time when there's >a remote chance that they might go head to head someday pass the Miller Lite Hey boy's I just can't agree with you here. Gordon was the #2 ranked recruit in the country (Rivals and Scout) This was a verbal (read non binding) commitment. If the Illini want to recruit this calbre of player, they have to stay in touch with the kid and make sure he remains on board... the kid has a right to change his mind Look, I'm not condoning Sampson's recruiting practices, but in this case, he did what he needed to do to get his kid--- and broke no rules, and as far as we know made no untoward claims about the Illini Weber doesn't have to like it (or him), but I would bet Weber and his staff had a little sit down afterward to figure out what went wrong and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. One more thing; your comment about Stemmler and all his IU recruits is a little off base. Let me give you an example of what I mean. The Robertson family is one of the finest around. Ryan was surrounded by good people who care and would not tolerate unethical or illegal recruiting practices. Yet today KU is on probation, in part for cash payments made by boosters both to recruits and graduating players -- some made during Ryan's era. In no way do I think he was involved, yet certainly others were (according to the NCAA) Now, would you lump him in and consider EVERY Roy William's recruit corrupt? Of course not. What happened at OU under Sampson has no bearing on Stemmler... and believe me I am no lover of IU, OU or Sampson. Now, if you are aware of specifc recruiting violations...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.