'13 CA DT Eddie Vanderdoes (UCLA)

[irishog77]

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.

It's not like ND only blasted out an email to EV, hoped he would read it, then committed to ND. They spent a considerable amount of time and money on him (and all recruits)...not to mention the current and future planning they have to involve themselves in when recruiting and SIGNING a player.

What you say makes sense...if this were one, solitary act. EV and recruits and players don't live in a vacuum though.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

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?

As you are aware, ND has allowed many players to transfer and play elsewhere, including UCLA.

So the question for me is: "What is the difference here from ND's point of view?"

At the moment we have no answers.

As for your hypothetical of ND pushing kids out the door, I am unaware that has ever happened for non-disciplinary reasons and I would pitch an absolute fit if the football program began actively weeding out kids for performance reasons. I don't think any of that applies here.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

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.

Not just ND but any school in the country. I get that you don't want those kids around but it is not about that. You can have 85 scholarship players and you recruit to manage that number. If all of the sudden kids could just jump out of their LOI's a month before school started with no penalty don't you see how that could cause problems?

 

[clashmore_mike]

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...

glad you posted again...

 

[Grahambo]

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...

Wrong. It's been heard and understood for a while by the majority. You keep spewing the same long, boorish crap over and over again. We get it, you past 1st grade.

 

[clashmore_mike]

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.

Not just ND but any school in the country. I get that you don't want those kids around but it is not about that. You can have 85 scholarship players and you recruit to manage that number. If all of the sudden kids could just jump out of their LOI's a month before school started with no penalty don't you see how that could cause problems?

this

 

[GreenSox04]

I had a dream last night he had a kid on he way...

yup, who a kid who ive never met and In fact is older then me (still weird to me being in college) is entering my sleep cycle with his LOI drama.

go irish.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Did Bruin Steve post again?

 

[Luckylucci]

Fact, if it didn't set a precedent then schools across the country wouldn't be calling ND telling us not to let him out of his LOI. Fact, your ****** basketball program fired their coach and hired a new one. Whenever that happens kids should be let out of their LOI's. Some of the stuff you say Bruin Steve has validity but when you say ridiculously dumb **** (like the stuff I'm commenting on), it doesn't matter.

 

[bibigon]

Fact, if it didn't set a precedent then schools across the country wouldn't be calling ND telling us not to let him out of his LOI. Fact, your ****** basketball program fired their coach and hired a new one. Whenever that happens kids should be let out of their LOI's. Some of the stuff you say Bruin Steve has validity but when you say ridiculously dumb **** (like the stuff I'm commenting on), it doesn't matter.

What's this about?

 

[EddytoNow]

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

I have a 20 and a 22 year old son. I expect them to honor their word. Do I get anything out of it when they do? Just the satisfaction that they acted with honor and demonstrated that their word was good. The University of Notre Dame is not perfect, but it has certain principles which it upholds. Honesty and integrity are two of those principles.

Notre Dame has just proven in another case that its honor and its core principles are more important than having the best football players on the field. The university has been very open-minded in having these young men learn from their mistakes. When a player hasn't lived up to the standards the university sets for itself, he is given an opportunity to correct the course upon which his life is headed. A number of players have returned to the team after being given a second chance.

These players learned that there was a consequence for the way they lived their lives. To do anything different in the case of Vanderdoes would be sending him the wrong message.

I'm with those who don't want Vanderdoes to return. But I am also of the position that he has a lesson to learn from his indecisiveness. One year of ineligibility is a small price to pay for learning an important lesson about the value of one's word.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Steve, the pushback you're getting has much more to do with you not listening than it does with what you're saying. The LOI is necessary to define a time at which recruiting stops. If you didn't have that, recruiting would just go on forever. Nobody wants that. But in order for the LOI to effectively end the recruiting period for each class, it must be binding. Were it not binding, recruiting would go on forever. And in order for the LOI to be binding, both parties must be willing to enforce the rights they are given by its terms.

Recruits are given YEARS to decide on a school before they sign their LOI. Further, they are not required to sign an NOI on signing day, or any other day. Before they sign, they are free to change their minds however many times they choose, even if fans don't like it. When they sign, they voluntarily bring that years-long process to a close. So at this point in the process, the recruit has literally signed away his right to change his mind with impunity. They can still change their minds, but the bargain they agreed to requires a penalty for doing so. And the schools owe it to themselves and each other to enforce the terms of the LOIs in order to maintain some semblence of order in the recruiting process. If LOIs become unenforceable, college recruiting will descend into lawlessness.

 

[irishog77]

What's this about?

Part of the reason you were asked to read the thread. This has been covered.

 

[Luckylucci]

What's this about?

Multiple reports from the paid sites have said that other schools across the country have been calling ND and expressing their beliefs on this issue. Not holding kids accountable, unless a very serious issue arises, would be terrible for college athletics.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Steve, the pushback you're getting has much more to do with you not listening than it does with what you're saying. The LOI is necessary to define a time at which recruiting stops. If you didn't have that, recruiting would just go on forever. Nobody wants that. But in order for the LOI to effectively end the recruiting period for each class, it must be binding. Were it not binding, recruiting would go on forever. And in order for the LOI to be binding, both parties must be willing to enforce the rights they are given by its terms.

Recruits are given YEARS to decide on a school before they sign their LOI. Further, they are not required to sign an NOI on signing day, or any other day. Before they sign, they are free to change their minds however many times they choose, even if fans don't like it. When they sign, they voluntarily bring that years-long process to a close. So at this point in the process, the recruit has literally signed away his right to change his mind with impunity. They can still change their minds, but the bargain they agreed to requires a penalty for doing so. And the schools owe it to themselves and each other to enforce the terms of the LOIs in order to maintain some semblence of order in te recruiting process. If LOIs become unenforceable, college recruiting will descend into lawlessness.

A gentleman and a scholar.

 

[chicago51]

5/29/13 IE Word or Phrase of the Day: Bad Precedent

 

[clashmore_mike]

Steve, the pushback you're getting has much more to do with you not listening than it does with what you're saying. The LOI is necessary to define a time at which recruiting stops. If you didn't have that, recruiting would just go on forever. Nobody wants that. But in order for the LOI to effectively end the recruiting period for each class, it must be binding. Were it not binding, recruiting would go on forever. And in order for the LOI to be binding, both parties must be willing to enforce the rights they are given by its terms.

Recruits are given YEARS to decide on a school before they sign their LOI. Further, they are not required to sign an NOI on signing day, or any other day. Before they sign, they are free to change their minds however many times they choose, even if fans don't like it. When they sign, they voluntarily bring that years-long process to a close. So at this point in the process, the recruit has literally signed away his right to change his mind with impunity. They can still change their minds, but the bargain they agreed to requires a penalty for doing so. And the schools owe it to themselves and each other to enforce the terms of the LOIs in order to maintain some semblence of order in the recruiting process. If LOIs become unenforceable, college recruiting will descend into lawlessness.

I think you'd make a fine wartime consigliere.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

ND's position on this subject has been explained to Steve countless times, and far more graciously than he has any right to expect from the message board of a rival fan base. He's bordering on troll territory now.

 

[NDBoiler]

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

Bibs -

Because the coaching staff would have no way to at least ensure with some large degree of certainty that they would ever be able to maintain a full roster from year to year. If anybody can just jump ship willy nilly at any time after a LOI is signed, how could they expect to field a team consistently? With the 1 year penalty, it at least gives pause to most kids before they set off down that path if they are on the fence at all after signing day. Anybody can sign an LOI, its the holding of that LOI that is the really important part.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4T2GmGSNvaM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[irishfan]

Wrong. It's been heard and understood for a while by the majority. You keep spewing the same long, boorish crap over and over again. We get it, you past 1st grade.

"Past 1st grade" is ironic. Just sayin.

 

[Emcee77]

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...

This is what I'm talking about ... textbook trolling. Nothing but rehashing old points and taking off on tangents based on deliberate misunderstanding of the points we've made in this thread. For example, "setting a precedent as to how Notre Dame views such cases" ... what? We've continually referenced Matthew Thomas and it's clear that we are talking about all NLOI institutions. For another, Scuba Steve continually confuses the legal effect of the decision as to whether to release EV from his LOI with the prudential effect, i.e., signaling to hundreds of recruits all over the country that signing a NLOI is no more binding than making a verbal commitment, and risking mass defections in the months, weeks and days before each class enrolls. A lawyer should understand the difference. Troll nasty.

 

[jakerbluegold]

"Past 1st grade" is ironic. Just sayin.

Damn that is funny! Didn't catch it at first though.

 

[Kingbish01]

"Past 1st grade" is ironic. Just sayin.

LOL

 

[connor_in]

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. You Know this how exactly, Mr. Visitor-from-the-future?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? It is a violation of NCAA rules for ND to contact someone in that situation.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...We are not the SEC
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. Why do you keep coming back to this...what proof do you have that this is sheer vengenace? You use that term almost every single time and have yet to show why you would use a word with such connotations and then even CAPITALIZE IT HERE.

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...

Steve,

I understand that you are butt-hurt that you want EV on your team this year and care little if anything for rules and anyone who stands in your way is merely beneath you and VENGEFUL.

You say you are merely trying to give a different viewpoint and feel no one is listening to you so you repeat and repeat and repeat. However, some people are responding to your points and your only response to those are basically repeating yourself again, saying we have no valid points in the things we say, and everything you say is correct even when you are basing it on the same exactly lack of any knowledge you criticize us for going on.

Essentially Steve, your failure to actually engage and your whole know-it-all demeanor with a dismissive attitude is what has drawn you your harshest rebuffs.

So please, if you feel to unfairly treated, let us not stand in the way and may the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.


...and be sure to have a nice day now, ya' here

 

[NDWorld247]

Letting EV out of his LOI does not set a precedent. Future signees at ND, or any other school, could not use EV being let out of his LOI in an appeals case. For example, ND could let EV out of his LOI for a “change of heart” (i.e. no good reason) and then turn around and deny Jaylon’s request for the same reason. Jaylon could not cite EV’s case in his appeal because the reason EV was let out of his LOI never made it to the ruling body (NCAA NLI Office). He was simply let out of his LOI while the reason(s) is never revealed to the ruling body. The player doesn’t want to be at the university and the university doesn’t want the player there. That’s good enough for the ruling body.

The precedent can only be set by the ruling body. For example, if ND denied EV for a “change of heart” and EV’s appeal on the basis of “change of heart” was granted by the ruling body, then all hell would break loose and we’d have the Wild West. (As an aside, there are no LOI’s in the CIS - Canadian equivalent of the NCAA – and it’s the Wild West. Coaches have been clamoring for some rules to no avail). However, the NCAA is not a court of law and even this precedent is not guaranteed to be upheld from one case to another. Just another example of how f’d up and inconsistent the NCAA is.

What we have here is an unwritten rule amongst college coaches and administrators that a signed LOI should be respected and not taken lightly. Kelly, or any coach that just lets any player that has a change of heart out of his LOI, will lose the respect of his peers, likely hinder his ability to be hired in the future and **** off his fan base.

With that said, I agree with all of the reasons posted on why ND should not let him out with the exception of "it will create a mass exodus of players across the country".

 

[ACamp1900]

All work and no play make Bruin Steve repeat himself lots... All work and no play make Bruin Steve repeat himself lots... All work and no play make Bruin Steve repeat himself lots...

.

 

[GreenSox04]

@TJamesNDI: #NotreDame signee @JaeeSmiff9ENT spoke with Eddie Vanderdoes last Tuesday. More on that convo in our #HuddleUpND app: http://t.co/cfi7nlkDhW

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If FSU had let Mathew Thomas out of his LOI over a "change of heart", and EV said to Kelly, "but FSU did it", Kelly's response would likely be, "We are not FSU. This is ND". Of course ND would look bad letting him out for no good reason and I agree it would be a terrible decision. The point is, everyone saying a 'precedent' would be set and we would see kids across the country be released is off base. More kids would TRY to complain their way out but it would do nothing to strengthen their case, just as a hypothetical FSU letting Thomas out would do NOTHING to EV's case with ND.

No one's arguing it would create a legal precedent, but it would create a precedent in the court of public opinion, which could be just as damaging in the long term.

 

[NDBoiler]

If FSU had let Mathew Thomas out of his LOI over a "change of heart", and EV said to Kelly, "but FSU did it", Kelly's response would likely be, "We are not FSU. This is ND". Of course ND would look bad letting him out for no good reason and I agree it would be a terrible decision. The point is, everyone saying a 'precedent' would be set and we would see kids across the country be released is off base. More kids would TRY to complain their way out but it would do nothing to strengthen their case, just as a hypothetical FSU letting Thomas out would do NOTHING to EV's case with ND.

THAT is the precedent that is being set - "try complaining and it might work, it worked for EV", or in other words, the recruits take power over the schools and dictate to them, making it head down the path of being extremely difficult to consistently maintain an adequate roster.

 

[clashmore_mike]

@TJamesNDI: #NotreDame signee @JaeeSmiff9ENT spoke with Eddie Vanderdoes last Tuesday. More on that convo in our #HuddleUpND app: http://t.co/cfi7nlkDhW

Would be lovely if that app were available for android phones.