'13 CA DT Eddie Vanderdoes (UCLA)

[phork]

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

Oh right, Eddies Dad just got a job at UCLA. Forgot about that! Sorry bro!

 

[Emcee77]

Right, Amir was totally different. The NCAA waived the penalty. There were obviously special circumstances (I don't think any of us fully understands what they were; Amir's dad changing jobs never seemed like enough to me). There may be special circumstances with EV, but so far from all we know he has simply changed his mind, and if so he should have to serve the Basic Penalty like everyone else who changes his mind after signing day.

 

[connor_in]

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

Whatever it is, Vanderdoes believes it to be legitimate...(I want out of my mortgage and I believe my reasons to be legitimate without penalty)Most of the posters here on IrishEnvy will find fault with it...(Sure...we are fans of the team. Unless he has really heart tugging reasons, any fan base would find fault with them)
I almost guarantee little he says will be greeted here with "Hey, he's right!"......(Sure...we are fans of the team. Unless he has really heart tugging reasons, any fan base would find fault with them)
And nothing you guys post here will make him say, "Okay, I am wrong, I guess I'll come to Notre Dame after all"...(to use a legal term you can understand...WELL DUH!)
NOT going to happen. Both sides are entrenched.(see last two words of last response)
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. (We are not planning on compelling him to provide services...but nice straw-man)
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. (I still don't see why you as a lawyer have such a problem with the idea of precedent. As has been stated multiple times to you by multiple posters, if ND lets a kid walk away from a signed LOI for no valid reason it damages the whole process and then LOIs are no better than verbal commits. Also, "valid reason" is to be determined by the parties in the contract EV/ND/NCAA. If ND/NCAA holds the kid to his contract, then it is not "vengence" it is holding someone to the terms of a legally binding contract. Something I would think a lawyer would appreciate.)
If and when Vanderdoes goes public with his statement, it cannot help Notre Dame. (By dragging it out and not giving any reasons I really don't see how it hurts ND, but does see how it would hurt him) 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. (The majority of these cases were there is some kind of valid family issue, have gone in the school's favor in the past. Also, again, it holds the process together as a process which affects ND, the NCAA and all its members) 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. (If the case sounds legitimate, then we would be happy to send him on his merry way. Miffed that he is not ours, but understanding nonetheless as we have been with players who have transferred out in the past for valid reasons. But I don't see how a legitimate reason would still have him want to go to a school 6-7 hours away)
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.(Once again, I don't see how its good for EV at all that if ND and the NCAA have said no and he is now in an appeal process that it is bad for ND. It would seem to be more likely that his reason is far from compelling. This is a supposition (as is your belief that EV is completely justified-and ND isn't- for a valid reason when that reason is not known), but considering we have let kids leave before for myriad reasons it seem a logical conclusion)

Check bolded responses above

 

[PANDFAN]

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

get back to work!!!

 

[Wild Bill]

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

Different set of facts. And I wouldn't be prancing around USC boards talking about "vengeance" if Kiffin (UCLA's savior) would have denied his request to transfer to ND. It would have made sense to me.

 

[IrishLax]

Bruin Steve in action:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qh93jXfetrw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishLax]

Favorite Bruin Steve gems:

"There was definitely no tampering... because I know people in the athletic department... and they told me there was no tampering... and if there was tampering and I knew about it, I would totally go share it on a Notre Dame message board."

"There is no point in holding Eddie to his LOI... and he should be exempt from the associated penalties that he agreed to when he signed the LOI... because I say so and I wish the world to work that way instead of how the system is designed to work."

"It doesn't matter what Eddie's reason is... even though the entire basis for his appeal to get out of the LOI rests on the merits of said reason."

Bruin Steve is just one giant contradiction covered in a layer illogical thought.

 

[sportallyr]

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

I asked a friend of mine, who is a huge UCLA fan and a member of several UCLA message boards, about this. He said he hadn't heard anything about this, so he posted a question and got an immediate response from Brandon Huffman (From Scout) that this has nothing to do with the Vanderdoes family's issue with ND. Huffman did not elaborate on what the issue was (I assume he must know something) and I can't share the response because it is a premium site...but he essentially squashed this rumor.

 

[dublinirish]

love me some Bruin Steve logic.

 

[clashmore_mike]

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

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

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

 

[PANDFAN]

 

[Grahambo]

Favorite Bruin Steve gems:

"There was definitely no tampering... because I know people in the athletic department... and they told me there was no tampering... and if there was tampering and I knew about it, I would totally go share it on a Notre Dame message board."

"There is no point in holding Eddie to his LOI... and he should be exempt from the associated penalties that he agreed to when he signed the LOI... because I say so and I wish the world to work that way instead of how the system is designed to work."

"It doesn't matter what Eddie's reason is... even though the entire basis for his appeal to get out of the LOI rests on the merits of said reason."

Bruin Steve is just one giant contradiction covered in a layer illogical thought.

What is a lawyer?

 

[bibigon]

On the one hand, I get holding someone to their word. On the other hand, what deterrence are we trying to set up? So that the next kid who doesn't want to play for ND is forced to?

Assuming EV is asking out just because of a change of heart, that makes me think he's a bit immature. But either way, I don't want him playing for us. Not releasing him from his LOI is just spiteful at that point, and makes us look like villains.

 

[clashmore_mike]

On the one hand, I get holding someone to their word. On the other hand, what deterrence are we trying to set up? So that the next kid who doesn't want to play for ND is forced to?

Assuming EV is asking out just because of a change of heart, that makes me think he's a bit immature. But either way, I don't want him playing for us. Not releasing him from his LOI is just spiteful at that point, and makes us look like villains.

Read a little bit of the thread, the reason why letting him out of his LOI is a terrible idea has already been discussed ad nauseum. It would set a very bad precedent and open a large loop hole that every program in the country doesn't want to have to deal with and would be unable to close.

 

[Kingbish01]

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

I don't think Josh would have gotten an offer if George wasn't his brother.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Have we opened up voting for gif of the year?

There words attached???

 

[BeauBenken]

I want to inform some of our posters that long loading gifs can be hassle for some of your fellow posters and slows down the loading of their web pages. Also, keep in mind that this site is relatively family oriented and that gifs and pictures should be kept that way.

 

[Cali_domer]

I want to inform some of our posters that long loading gifs can be hassle for some of your fellow posters and slows down the loading of their web pages. Also, keep in mind that this site is relatively family oriented and that gifs and pictures should be kept that way.

Better?

 

[BeauBenken]

Better?

Works for me.

 

[Kingbish01]

Better?

LOL...I would say it's better than the naked asian man dancing in a speedo, that gotta be boarderline.

 

[Bruin Steve]

Friends,
It does not set any precedent.
The rules are what they are and will remain so.
Kids ask out of their letters of intent all the time and for a variety of "reasons"...
In the end, it is all really that they have just changed their mind about where they want to go.

UCLA just a few weeks ago released a recruit from a SIGNED Basketball letter of intent. The kid will be immediately eligible at Baylor.

(And I know you will all try to make distinctions here. We changed coaches. But THAT was not his reason for asking out. And, changing coaches, whether it should be or not, is NOT a legal reason to invalidate an LOI).

This will not affect any future enforcement of LOIs.

So, not a LEGAL precedent.

If you are saying that this will set some sort of standard as to how NOTRE DAME views such cases, then you are inferring that Notre Dame will not accept a player who had previously signed to play at another school. perhaps? Or is this only intended to send a message to those possibly committing to Notre Dame that they will never be released to go elsewhere? What about kids that Notre Dame may sign, then realize that they really don't want...Will they be allowed to have an amicable parting of the ways? Or is that also to be an absolute?

This is NOT a bigger deal than it is. It is ONE RECRUIT who, for whatever reason, has decided NOT to attend Notre Dame. And it is only a question of whether Notre Dame wants to stand in the way of this 18 year old kid's eligibility. This is NOT something altruistic on the part of Notre Dame. They are NOT standing on the side of good and virtue on behalf of all college programs. Notre Dame is standing up to one 18 year old kid who, had he realized that he didn't want to go there one day prior to signing day, would not have been an issue. It did not cost Notre Dame a thing. Kid decided and signed last minute. Notre Dame did not pass on another now unavailable recruit to take him. All that was injured is Notre Dame's pride...and now, they are taking it out on the kid...Nothing for Notre Dame here other than VENGEANCE.

I understand all of you guys...You are hurt. You really wanted this kid. You signed hiom to the LOI and figured it was a done deal (usually is at that point). Now, you can't understand how any of this happened without rationalizing some unfounded theory--like MUST have been "tampering"...Because, for heaven's sake NOBODY has ever asked out of an LOI before unless there was something illegal going on! Certainly not from Notre Dame!

I tried to come here to give you all a different viewpoint...and have put up with an incredible barrage of insulting attacks. Because I am telling you something you don't want to hear. Sheesh...

 

[Cali_domer]

Friends,
It does not set any precedent.
The rules are what they are and will remain so.
Kids ask out of their letters of intent all the time and for a variety of "reasons"...
In the end, it is all really that they have just changed their mind about where they want to go.

UCLA just a few weeks ago released a recruit from a SIGNED Basketball letter of intent. The kid will be immediately eligible at Baylor.

(And I know you will all try to make distinctions here. We changed coaches. But THAT was not his reason for asking out. And, changing coaches, whether it should be or not, is NOT a legal reason to invalidate an LOI).

This will not affect any future enforcement of LOIs.

So, not a LEGAL precedent.

If you are saying that this will set some sort of standard as to how NOTRE DAME views such cases, then you are inferring that Notre Dame will not accept a player who had previously signed to play at another school. perhaps? Or is this only intended to send a message to those possibly committing to Notre Dame that they will never be released to go elsewhere? What about kids that Notre Dame may sign, then realize that they really don't want...Will they be allowed to have an amicable parting of the ways? Or is that also to be an absolute?

This is NOT a bigger deal than it is. It is ONE RECRUIT who, for whatever reason, has decided NOT to attend Notre Dame. And it is only a question of whether Notre Dame wants to stand in the way of this 18 year old kid's eligibility. This is NOT something altruistic on the part of Notre Dame. They are NOT standing on the side of good and virtue on behalf of all college programs. Notre Dame is standing up to one 18 year old kid who, had he realized that he didn't want to go there one day prior to signing day, would not have been an issue. It did not cost Notre Dame a thing. Kid decided and signed last minute. Notre Dame did not pass on another now unavailable recruit to take him. All that was injured is Notre Dame's pride...and now, they are taking it out on the kid...Nothing for Notre Dame here other than VENGEANCE.

I understand all of you guys...You are hurt. You really wanted this kid. You signed hiom to the LOI and figured it was a done deal (usually is at that point). Now, you can't understand how any of this happened without rationalizing some unfounded theory--like MUST have been "tampering"...Because, for heaven's sake NOBODY has ever asked out of an LOI before unless there was something illegal going on! Certainly not from Notre Dame!

I tried to come here to give you all a different viewpoint...and have put up with an incredible barrage of insulting attacks. Because I am telling you something you don't want to hear. Sheesh...

 

[EddytoNow]

On the one hand, I get holding someone to their word. On the other hand, what deterrence are we trying to set up? So that the next kid who doesn't want to play for ND is forced to?

Assuming EV is asking out just because of a change of heart, that makes me think he's a bit immature. But either way, I don't want him playing for us. Not releasing him from his LOI is just spiteful at that point, and makes us look like villains.

Not spiteful at all, just holding to the integrity of the agreement. If Notre Dame decided to pull his offer after he signed his LOI, the university would have to pay the consequences. Since Eddie is the one deciding not to honor the agreement, then he should, likewise, have to face the consequences. The consequences are to transfer and lose a year of eligibilty. He gave his word and his signature. If he can't honor either of those, he must face up to the consequences.

 

[irishog77]

steve-

Are you trolling FSU boards as well attempting to get them to all be fine for letting a kid out of his LOI? When you show me proof of those actions, then I'll reconsider "altruistic" motives.

 

[bibigon]

Read a little bit of the thread, the reason why letting him out of his LOI is a terrible idea has already been discussed ad nauseum. It would set a very bad precedent and open a large loop hole that every program in the country doesn't want to have to deal with and would be unable to close.

I've read the thread. I don't see what the bad precedent is.

It would set a precedent that the next kid who didn't want to play for ND would feel like he could also get out of his LOI? Okay... So? Do we really want to keep that kid around anyway in that case?

We want players who want to play for Notre Dame. We don't want players who would have left if they could have gotten out of their LOI.

 

[bibigon]

Not spiteful at all, just holding to the integrity of the agreement. If Notre Dame decided to pull his offer after he signed his LOI, the university would have to pay the consequences. Since Eddie is the one deciding not to honor the agreement, then he should, likewise, have to face the consequences. The consequences are to transfer and lose a year of eligibilty. He gave his word and his signature. If he can't honor either of those, he must face up to the consequences.

Why? What do we get out of it other than making an 18 year old kid feel a bit of pain too?

 

[luckoftheirish11]

Friends,
It does not set any precedent.
The rules are what they are and will remain so.
Kids ask out of their letters of intent all the time and for a variety of "reasons"...
In the end, it is all really that they have just changed their mind about where they want to go.

UCLA just a few weeks ago released a recruit from a SIGNED Basketball letter of intent. The kid will be immediately eligible at Baylor.

(And I know you will all try to make distinctions here. We changed coaches. But THAT was not his reason for asking out. And, changing coaches, whether it should be or not, is NOT a legal reason to invalidate an LOI).

This will not affect any future enforcement of LOIs.

So, not a LEGAL precedent.

If you are saying that this will set some sort of standard as to how NOTRE DAME views such cases, then you are inferring that Notre Dame will not accept a player who had previously signed to play at another school. perhaps? Or is this only intended to send a message to those possibly committing to Notre Dame that they will never be released to go elsewhere? What about kids that Notre Dame may sign, then realize that they really don't want...Will they be allowed to have an amicable parting of the ways? Or is that also to be an absolute?

This is NOT a bigger deal than it is. It is ONE RECRUIT who, for whatever reason, has decided NOT to attend Notre Dame. And it is only a question of whether Notre Dame wants to stand in the way of this 18 year old kid's eligibility. This is NOT something altruistic on the part of Notre Dame. They are NOT standing on the side of good and virtue on behalf of all college programs. Notre Dame is standing up to one 18 year old kid who, had he realized that he didn't want to go there one day prior to signing day, would not have been an issue. It did not cost Notre Dame a thing. Kid decided and signed last minute. Notre Dame did not pass on another now unavailable recruit to take him. All that was injured is Notre Dame's pride...and now, they are taking it out on the kid...Nothing for Notre Dame here other than VENGEANCE.

I understand all of you guys...You are hurt. You really wanted this kid. You signed hiom to the LOI and figured it was a done deal (usually is at that point). Now, you can't understand how any of this happened without rationalizing some unfounded theory--like MUST have been "tampering"...Because, for heaven's sake NOBODY has ever asked out of an LOI before unless there was something illegal going on! Certainly not from Notre Dame!

I tried to come here to give you all a different viewpoint...and have put up with an incredible barrage of insulting attacks. Because I am telling you something you don't want to hear. Sheesh...

lol.

 

[IndyIrishFan1]

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

 

[Kingbish01]

Why? What do we get out of it other than making an 18 year old kid feel a bit of pain too?

I think 18 year old kids would change their minds a lot more often if they didn't have to sit a year. It's better for everyone that this rule is in place.