OT: DePaul Won't Release Signee

[kevinfootes]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5243526

Interesting, in light of some of our recent debate about scholarships and commitment.

[Taj79]

Kids sign with coaches, we all know that. Unless its the bigger name guys, but they usually have stable coaching regimes as well.

Kid doesn't want to go there, give him his release. Why have a potential malcontent on the bench. Or Purnell re-recruits him. Isn't that what happened with Marque Perry or someone alongf the line?

[kevinfootes]

Kids sign with coaches, we all know that. Unless its the bigger name guys, but they usually have stable coaching regimes as well.

Kid doesn't want to go there, give him his release. Why have a potential malcontent on the bench. Or Purnell re-recruits him. Isn't that what happened with Marque Perry or someone alongf the line?

You mention that kids sign with coaches. I agree with you. However, how many schools have the same coach they had 4-5 years ago?

Struggling coaches get fired, many good coaches leave for better jobs, etc. I don't blame the players, but you can really get burned by hanging your star on the coach.

[Clock_Tower]

As per prior posts, I am against total free agency of players. Current restrictions do create some hardships (and this might be an example); however, IMO, restrictions are needed to prevent an even worse situation. While I feel for this kid, there HAS to be more to the story. Would really like to hear DePaul's side of the story.

On a related note, I would really like to see coaches also - for whatever reason they have for transferring - have to sit out a year - and have recruting restrictions placed on them - to prevent another Bob Huggins situation where he actively recruited kids w/o officially declaring his/their school. The NCAA would need to require that all its member schools agree to include such language in all employment contracts for head coaches. Covenants not to compete and such employment restrictions are common in the workplace but most schools, on their own, could never require such a provision.

[jjray]

The NCAA would need to require that all its member schools agree to include such language in all employment contracts for head coaches. Covenants not to compete and such employment restrictions are common in the workplace but most schools, on their own, could never require such a provision.

Sorry to picks some nits but mandated contractual noncompetes would be an absolute minefield. There is no uniformity from state to state in this area of the law. They are not enforceable in California except for situations not applicable to coaches. Even though a coach is temporarily out of the game (ala Huggins), the NCAA could make adherence to certain regulations a requirement for future employment by any NCAA institution.

[Clock_Tower]

Sorry to picks some nits but mandated contractual noncompetes would be an absolute minefield. There is no uniformity from state to state in this area of the law. They are not enforceable in California except for situations not applicable to coaches. Even though a coach is temporarily out of the game (ala Huggins), the NCAA could make adherence to certain regulations a requirement for future employment by any NCAA institution.

Exactly. The NCAA is always fearful of the Courts - and for good reason. At the same time, the NCAA regulations on the kids/players have seemed to stick but that regulation of the coaches has rarely been attempted - most likely for the reasons you mention - even though the coaches are often the ones really deserving the punishment.