Early verbals

[default]

The topic came up about early verbal's and the issues with teams pulling the verbal's when it comes to signing time.

Here is a question -

* Since the player is verballing and then signing with the University and not the coach personally, should the school be bound by the verbal if the coach leaves for another job or is fired?

* Should the player be made to honor the verbal if the coach leaves?

Poll to follow

 

[default]

I don't see how the fourth option's "all of the above" and "free for all" are consistent with each other...

I'd like to see adjustments made to the recruiting rules so enforceable deals can be made earlier. However, regardless of what changes are made, there will always be verbal agreements between coaches and recruits that are not enforceable.

 

[default]

Haha - I put 4 options in when building the poll before I could figure out 4 actual options - so I tried to be cute with the last one. Didn't work.

The verbal situation is really a one sided process in most cases - but not all. An example that I REALLY hate is the kid that verbals to a school and thus marks all her recruiting data as committed. She and her coaches are so happy that she has been chosen to play for the school of her dreams that they concentrate on simply getting better. They no longer are chasing the coaches and their offers, and can finally make plans for their college experience. The summer before her senior year comes and the coaches contract is not renewed. A new staff comes in and says they are not honoring the recruits that have already committed there. The player is now in a horrible situation. No schools of the same level have roster spots available - let alone scholarship money. Even though the schools representatives agreed to a verbal agreement, the player is now on their own. Selfishly this could actually cost the family a TON of money let alone the heartbreak associated with being thrown to the side. Heck the same thing can happen if the coach says at the last minutes - nah, I just found someone better. The original players is still screwed!!!

 

[default]

Haha - I put 4 options in when building the poll before I could figure out 4 actual options - so I tried to be cute with the last one. Didn't work.

The verbal situation is really a one sided process in most cases - but not all. An example that I REALLY hate is the kid that verbals to a school and thus marks all her recruiting data as committed. She and her coaches are so happy that she has been chosen to play for the school of her dreams that they concentrate on simply getting better. They no longer are chasing the coaches and their offers, and can finally make plans for their college experience. The summer before her senior year comes and the coaches contract is not renewed. A new staff comes in and says they are not honoring the recruits that have already committed there. The player is now in a horrible situation. No schools of the same level have roster spots available - let alone scholarship money. Even though the schools representatives agreed to a verbal agreement, the player is now on their own. Selfishly this could actually cost the family a TON of money let alone the heartbreak associated with being thrown to the side. Heck the same thing can happen if the coach says at the last minutes - nah, I just found someone better. The original players is still screwed!!!

So what good is a verbal?

 

[default]

Verbals work the overwhelming majority of the time in softball. The most common reason for a verbal falling through is academics - the recruit won't make it through admissions. Some players do lose their deals when there is a coaching change. I know one that lost hers to Auburn and that's because the new coach, Clint Myers, had other recruits he was bringing with him. Most of the time, the new coaches keep the existing recruits because there are not better alternatives for them.

Word gets around well connected TB coaches if/when a college coach reneges on a deal. This is just one reason why you're better off playing for a coach/org experienced with college recruiting rather than a parent-coach going through it for the first time.

 

[default]

In a court of law in business, a handshake can be construed as a binding contract......interesting if a school backs out what could happen.

 

[default]

In a court of law in business, a handshake can be construed as a binding contract......interesting if a school backs out what could happen.

I have always thought that. Any lawyers out there?

There are a couple SEC schools that begin recruiting players as soon as they verbal to another conference school...lol

 

[default]

Not a lawyer, but in our work training this has been brought up many times in classes over the years, so we don't dare make deals without everything covered in contracts..... We do many many contracts in the hotel world.....

 

[default]

Enforcing a verbal via a law suit was discussed on another board and the consensus was it could be done, but the cost/benefit and length of time required make it an unappealing option.

 

[default]

Enforcing a verbal via a law suit was discussed on another board and the consensus was it could be done, but the cost/benefit and length of time required make it an unappealing option.

I am not sure I would agree at this point. With all the money floating around, and the general publics view of the NCAA and its member sports institutions I would bet there would be an attorneys practice willing to take the case on a contingency. If a family loses a 50k annual scholarship I bet attorneys might even go as far as researching a class action suit.

 

[default]

The suit would be with the school, not the NCAA. That would severely limit the prospects of putting together a class action suit.

They'd have to find a really hungry lawyer to take the case because the lawyers for the school would make it very expensive to pursue the case. Any lawyer that hungry probably isn't going to fare well. If the parents lose, they probably end up paying the school's legal fees which would easily exceed the value of the scholarship.

The most likely situation would be where a parent is a rich lawyer. They're not going to get a judgement forcing the college to honor the coach's verbal agreement because of the time required to get it through the courts. The best they could get would be settlement and I seriously doubt they would get that while the kid was still in college. They'd really be doing it for the principle, not the money.

If someone is able to successfully win their case and the subsequent appeals, it would have a tremendous impact on verbals for everyone and then the NCAA would probably take action.

 

[default]

Yea I understand who the suit would be against - my point was that the NCAA as a whole is not looked upon very favorably.

I am going to ask around a bit. I am not too sure that schools would want the bad press. I know football and basketball offers players early. This can't be a new issue. I have just seen a few schools pull verbals in the last couple years and it cost the families the opportunity to seek like offers.

 

[default]

I've always thought about this situation. It seems to me that a lawsuit could be successful, especially in a situation where a player verbals in her freshman or sophomore year and then loses the commitment at the end of her senior year when there is a coaching change and she then can't secure anywhere near as good of a scholarship.

Think about the facts and what makes sense. A coach representing a college offers a 15-year-old a full ride scholarship. The coach leaves, but the coach made this offer as a school representative. Similarly, if I work for Company X and enter into a contract with an individual or another company, that contract does not become void if I leave Company X. And courts will give all of the benefit of the doubt to the minor over a college.

The problem is that in most cases if the player is good enough to secure a deal as a frosh or sophomore, she will probably get snapped up pretty quickly when she becomes a free agent. At that point, there is potentially nothing lost monetarily, so there may not be any damages. So you can sue, but the gain is likely minimal, if any, in most cases.

 

[default]

We lived the situation exactly. Daughter verballed February of Junior year of high school. Coach that offered her was fired that Spring. Were informed by the University that the new coach would have final say if that offer was to be kept in place. Had to wait until end of June before new coach was hired, and then she wanted to see my daughter pitch which could not happen until Nationals due to scheduling issues and then she would only be there for 1 game. Daughter really had fallen in love with the school and wanted to go there. Was an incredibly difficult situation as we attempted to talk to other schools just to keep some options possibly open if things did not work out. Not to mention the stress on my daughter who had been diagnosed with mono in June and was trying to recover enough to be able to pitch 1 game at Nationals. Fortunately everything worked out. Coach liked what she saw and offer remained.
Having lived through this, I agree with someone who said earlier that the system should change a little and allow a more enforcible( not sure if that is how I want to describe it but best I got now) commitment at a little earlier age than senior year. Perhaps anytime after start of Jr. year. If someone verbals earlier than that and it falls apart they still have some time to find another school.

 

[default]

Companies generally control the authority of their employees and I expect schools would do likewise with their coaches. Just because the coach represents the school doesn't mean they have carte blanche authority to make verbal agreements that are binding for the school.

I'd like to see most of the recruiting rules moved up a year - recruiting materials, off-campus contacts and NLI - with some restrictions to protect the kids from excessive and/or unwanted contacts. For example, coaches would be allowed to return recruits' phone calls and off-campus contacts would have to be set up in advance. The additional year would offer some protection for recruits if a school doesn't formalize a verbal at the next NLI opportunity.

 

[default]

The second half of this is exactly what I was trying to say, but SoCal did it a lot better.

Companies generally control the authority of their employees and I expect schools would do likewise with their coaches. Just because the coach represents the school doesn't mean they have carte blanche authority to make verbal agreements that are binding for the school.

I'd like to see most of the recruiting rules moved up a year - recruiting materials, off-campus contacts and NLI - with some restrictions to protect the kids from excessive and/or unwanted contacts. For example, coaches would be allowed to return recruits' phone calls and off-campus contacts would have to be set up in advance. The additional year would offer some protection for recruits if a school doesn't formalize a verbal at the next NLI opportunity.