'13 CA DT Eddie Vanderdoes (UCLA)

[phork]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Kids who verbally commit need to have all contact towards them stopped. If they decide they want to reach out to another school it is up to the athlete to do so.

 

[Irish#1]

If it's something tragic, ND would know about it and they would let him out.

It's not and they're not. I feel like we're about to hear a whole load of horseshit.

I think you're right.

 

[connor_in]

when is this statement going to be?

The ever popular "shortly" and/or "soon"

This family keeps putting out via Dad tweets, EV tweets, leaks to the SacBee guy that they are "soon"/"shortly" to put out a statement and apparently feel everyone will be all "OH...I see now! Yeah you guys are right to be doing what you are doing. Notre Dame is a big meanie if they won't let you out of your legall signed contract for such an obvious meaningful reason...so you can go to school at a place that is still 6-7 hrs away from home/family."

 

[Irish#1]

Based on your logic, that means ND may still have a chance to keep him on. Because they've waited this long, it seems like there may be conflict between the family as to whether he should go to ND, or back out.

If ND doesn't release him, then I believe he'll have to sit out the entire year if he doesn't report. I tend to agree with others that if it was a family medical hardship it would be known by now. Plus as mentioned there are a lot of other schools closer to home than UCLA.

 

[ScooterIrish]

Any truth to the rumor regarding the family being pissed his little sister wasn't guaranteed a bball scholarship?

 

[dublinirish]

Any truth to the rumor regarding the family being pissed his little sister wasn't guaranteed a bball scholarship?

if that is the truth then UCLA can have them all. But if ND guaranteed this to them, then shame on them. When USC/UCLA did we all agreed it was a very tacky move

 

[connect the dots]

Any truth to the rumor regarding the family being pissed his little sister wasn't guaranteed a bball scholarship?

That rumor doesn't sound plausible. Hardly Notre Dame's modus operandi for offering football scholarships, bringing little sister along for a ride!

 

[Kingbish01]

That rumor doesn't sound plausible. Hardly Notre Dame's modus operandi for offering football scholarships, bringing little sister along for a ride!

Not sisters, but the've brought teamates before.

 

[Bruin Steve]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

 

[GoIrish41]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

I suspect if there was actually any "dirty laundry" to be aired, it would already be on the line. If the Vanderdoes family has something to say, I cannot understand why they don't just say it now that "both sides are entrenched" in their positions.

 

[sportallyr]

Sorry if this was posted before, but what year is his sister? Are they twins or is she in another class?

 

[GoIrish41]

Sorry if this was posted before, but what year is his sister? Are they twins or is she in another class?

think she's a freshman, if I'm not mistaken. way too early to be receiving offers.

 

[Kingbish01]

He is def a publicity whore, one major reason I hope this thread doesn't hit a milli a milli a milli.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

I read the whole thing, Bruin, and my life is poorer for it. I can't get the five minutes back either.

If there were a case ND or the NCAA would be amenable. If there were improper conduct, the case would seem to be stuck. Like it is. Because talking about it would cause more problem than not.

You are talking about this case like we are all in Harvard Law; this isn't the American legal system, it is the NCAA!

In your last paragraph you say the same thing that posters here have been saying when they say that maybe he figures if he keeps at it, ND will relent. If he had a good reason, he would have cut the drama and used it. Mike Frank has it nailed when he says the chance of these kind of guys making it is greatly diminished. AL could have been great, now he probably will have an okay year at USF, get drafted based purely on his talent and potential, and play okay in the NFL for a while. It is the guys that can't come up with a plan and work it that rarely realize all of their potential . . .

 

[IrishinTN]

Or...maybe the kid just changed his mind with the help of...some coaching staff, perhaps...who convinced him to stay close to home. But, no, I'm sure that is a crazy notion, especially to UCLA fans, but perhaps not the unbiased public.

I'm sure their announcement will say something like "A private matter between the family that affected his decision..." blah blah blah with no ground-breaking news for anyone.

 

[Grahambo]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

I almost had a rebuttal then I realized I would just be wasting my time responding to this crap. Do lawyers ever consider morality of any situation or just what would get them the most money?

Time has now been considered lost.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

Deterrence

 

[Emcee77]

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

Scuba Steve, no one needs your lectures. I don't know why you are even bringing up most of this stuff, certainly not the 1L Contracts-course law about personal services contracts. What the issue boils down to is simply this: as we've pointed out numerous times in this thread, we disagree with the logic of the portion of your post that I've quoted. It sets a bad precedent to let a kid out of an LOI when he has just changed his mind and there are no other special circumstances. For our own planning purposes, we simply must be able to rely on a kid's promise to attend ND when he signs with us. If EV doesn't want to come to ND, we know we can't make him, but we can make him serve the Basic Penalty to which he agreed when he signed the LOI in order to deter others from changing their minds after signing day. This isn't an outrageous position to take. FSU is doing the same thing in the Matthew Thomas situation. Stop trolling us and go away.

(having written that, I know you won't go away. You will do what trolls do -- use misdirection to inflame the board, perhaps take off on a tangent, perhaps isolate a portion of my post out of context and twist my words, hoping to ignite a debate. So tiresome.)

 

[Emcee77]

Pops' post was almost infinitely superior to mine. I wrote hundreds of words when I needed one. Reps.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I read the whole thing, Bruin, and my life is poorer for it. I can't get the five minutes back either.

If there were a case ND or the NCAA would be amenable. If there were improper conduct, the case would seem to be stuck. Like it is. Because talking about it would cause more problem than not.

You are talking about this case like we are all in Harvard Law; this isn't the American legal system, it is the NCAA!

In your last paragraph you say the same thing that posters here have been saying when they say that maybe he figures if he keeps at it, ND will relent. If he had a good reason, he would have cut the drama and used it. Mike Frank has it nailed when he says the chance of these kind of guys making it is greatly diminished. AL could have been great, now he probably will have an okay year at USF, get drafted based purely on his talent and potential, and play okay in the NFL for a while. It is the guys that can't come up with a plan and work it that rarely realize all of their potential . . .

He is responding to earlier arguments that an LOI is a garden variety contract. He's right. It's not. And he's correct about the reasons stated.

EDIT: but I wholly disagree that the NCAA is, or should be, worried about the court system throwing it out. The NCAA's remedy only applies to NCAA institutions and does not bind him generally.

 

[connect the dots]

Not sisters, but the've brought teamates before.

You're alluding to Manti Teo and Robby Toma, UCLA verbals. Have there been other tag along teammates in ND history?

 

[Voltaire]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...
Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services.

If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. If the case doesn't sound very good, MAYBE it brings hope that ND wins the appeal case--but that doesn't affect Notre Dame, just the kid's eligibility. If the case sounds legitimate (Not to you guys...we all know it won't...but to the general unbiased public, it COULD affect the thinking of potential recruits.

Why has Vanderdoes waited to make such a statement? Likely, up to now, he had been hoping that Notre Dame would consent to the release and the parting would be amicable. No reason to tick them off more with airing any dirty laundry. Now that Notre Dame has filed a challenge to the appeal, he has nothing to lose.

Bruin Steve, I'm glad you cracked open your contract law 101 textbook and read a couple paragraphs from the first chapter so that you could bless us with your incredible knowledge.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about this. Everyone here knows that Notre Dame can't compel (and wouldn't want to compel) this kid to play for ND if he has no desire to do so. The "enforcement" angle is just about not letting him out of the LOI and giving him free reign to attend any other school. This isn't about Eddie, it's about making sure that no potential recruit in the future thinks that, if he hasn't yet decided where he wants to go, he can just sign an LOI with Notre Dame under the assumption that he can change his mind later and go somewhere else (including, for some reason I can't possibly comprehend, a school with such renowned NFL alumni like Cade McKnown - woo!). FSU is going through this same issue with the linebacker recruit who wants out of his LOI.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

He is responding to earlier arguments that an LOI is a garden variety contract. He's right. It's not. And he's correct about the reasons stated.

Preciate it Pops! I kind of read most of what was posted. Maybe my attempt at trying to have some fun wasn't! If not, I am sorry. I thought juxtaposing the two everyone would get the implication that the NCAA was an illegal organization, profiting off of slave labor, or something!

 

[ShakeDown]

It matters little WHAT Vanderdoes' explanation turns out to be...

It does to me. It doesn't matter in terms of where he will be, but I want clarity.

I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"...

You're an idiot if you think that if EV came out and said his mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer the majority of this board wouldn't be empathetic. That's simply not what he is going to say, so I suppose this is a moot point.

And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...

This is not the point. In the words of Kelly... "I'm going to coach the guys who want to be here at Notre Dame." If he doesn't want to be here then, well, don't let the door hit you on the way out. ND is greater than any single recruit and even though you obviously feel strongly enough about EV to come troll Our Lady's board, I could give two shits about a guy that doesn't want to play under the Golden Dome.

As to his "signing a binding contract", again, here's the issue: You cannot enforce a personal services contract in a way such as to compel the bound party to provide the services. One can only sue for monetary damages. But, when monetary damages are difficult to ascertain, parties write into the contracts provisions for "liquidated damages"--an agreed upon amount. In the case of the LOI, it's worse than that. The "agreed upon" penalty is merely the loss of a year of eligibility. That is all.

Good. All that nonsense you spouted before the bolded is irrelevant. I have never once thought that the legal debate was trying to get EV to stay.

Notre Dame can get nothing out of "enforcing" this contract...except maybe vengeance and some notion of "showing the world that Notre Dame won't bend". They can't and won't get the kid's services

What you really mean is that UCLA would get a stud DL next year if we allowed what is essentially a breach of contract. Well no, I think I would rather we go ahead and teach this kid that if he does not follow through with his commitment, there will be consequences. AGAIN, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY THINK THIS LEGAL BS IS GOING TO KEEP EV HERE AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GOOD RIDDANCE IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE IRISH.

I rarely post beyond recruiting and the occasional nonsensical board drivel, but dammit Steve you are chapping my a$$.

 

[Bruin Steve]

Did it set a bad example when SC released Amir Carlisle? Did any of you rail against that decision?

 

[GoIrish41]

Did it set a bad example when SC released Amir Carlisle? Did any of you rail against that decision?

Did USC have a say in it? I thought everyone in their program was free to go when they got hit with sanctions?

 

[ShakeDown]

Did it set a bad example when SC released Amir Carlisle? Did any of you rail against that decision?

Of course not, he was transferring TO us... why would we complain? On top of that he honored his LOI and attended USC for one year, then his father accepted a position as the Director of Sports Performance at Purdue. Apples and oranges my friend.

That being said I was surprised when Amir won his appeal. If EV has compelling evidence and wins his appeal, so be it. Who I am to question the law of the land?

Rules and those regulating them are there for a reason, you know.

 

[FLDomer]

Did it set a bad example when SC released Amir Carlisle? Did any of you rail against that decision?

Oh silly Steve, poor poor example. I hope you don't argue in court....

 

[IrishLax]

Did it set a bad example when SC released Amir Carlisle? Did any of you rail against that decision?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?!?!?

Seriously, do better. Those aren't even comparable situations. One involves a standard transfer, one involves breaking an LOI. And Amir Carlisle would've had to sit out still... except he won a hardship appeal with the NCAA.