Charlie Weis is An ASS

A verbal committment to attend a particular university is not a binding contract. Once you enroll at one school, you have the ability to enroll at a second university and even transfer at any given point. Thus, why would they bind you on your word when even writing your name on the paper can be voided at a whim?

As such, Hellfire and Brimstone god is correct. A verbal agreement is a legally binding agreement.

 

It depends on the state and the circumstances whether or not a verbal contract is binding.

In the state of Florida, for example, in most cases an agreement between two parties that it is witnessed by a third party is considered a binding contract.

A letter of intent to college is a binding contract. The verbal committment athletes give prior to signing that LOI is not. The penalty for breaking that LOI contract is giving up one year of eligibility, unless the coach, who holds that contract, agrees to release the player from it.

 

Is there a difference made between calling someone an advisor rather than an agent? Perhaps for NCAA purposes, the point is that the player isn't getting paid. But as I recall, Rocket Ismail had a team bigger than the Polyphonic Spree reviewing his options while he was still in school.

 

Anyone who thinks a ``verbal agreement'' to an agent will keep other agents from trying to sign a kid is hopelessly naive. It's just like recruiting -- verbal commitments never stop coaches from continuing to recruit star players because kids change their minds all the time. Hell, even signed contracts don't stop the Drew Rosenhauses of the world from badgering players about changing agents. If this is an attempt to keep agents away from players, it's doomed to failure. Agents don't know how to take no for an answer. Brady Quinn can tell as many agents as he wants that he's going with someone else, but until he puts his name on a contract -- and maybe even after that -- they won't leave him alone.

 

I am not saying it's going to work. But after what USC has gone through in the last year with those sharks lurking everywhere, trying this can't be any worse than doing nothing.

 

McNuggets' post pretty much explains what I was saying. In NCAA terms, what Weis was suggesting isn't a rules violation. There's nothing to sweep under the rug because no NCAA rules were broken.

Weis could have phrased it a little bit better though.

 

1. The Clausen story shouldn't have pissed Weiss off.
2. The Clausen story shows what a bunch of buffoons the Clausen family is. I hope like hell little Jimmy is better than the older brothers, because they've spectaculary over-achieved.
3. Jimmy Clausen wasn't the best high school quarterback in the country last year. Tim Tebow was. And Tim Tebow will have a better college career than little Jimmy.

 

Kids playing NCAA hockey have "advisors" (as long as they're lawyers) and not agents.....

 

So do juniors who get drafted in baseball.

 

Just some mildly contrarian thoughts.....

The Carroll story on Clausen had me dialed in - great color. Fantastic reporting. But four parts on this?? Sometimes I think these papers need to quit while they're ahead. Less is more sometimes, no?

The Trib article 21 posted doesn't make clear whether the meeting b'tween Weis and the reporters happened before the presser or after. If the two sides had met in the morning and formed a truce, why would Weis be taken aback by Carroll asking him if he'd take a question at the presser? Why would Carroll even need to ask that? Weirdness.

Side issue - something was written about the "bribe" of lunch. We laugh about it, but I see this becoming a teensy weensy problem. I'm seeing reporters get genuinely pissed if they aren't provided lunch. ;D It might be time to ask ourselves if we should really be eating lunch provided by the team. Seriously.

That was not an insignificant mistake by the paper to print quotes alleging negative recruiting-- quotes that were full of fabrications. Not good.

Couch's column about Weis's weight - tough one. Without having Charlie's comments about why he struggles with his weight, the story seems suspect. What if Charlie has a thyroid disorder or some other medical condition we don't know about? It seems like a great issue-- just one that would most definitely need Charlie's comments. It doesn't justify freezing out a reporter, though.

And I agree Carroll obviously did a great job smoothing over the situation, which is the most important thing. Now he can do his job and serve his readers.

 

Just reading through the lines....there's probably more to that off-the-record 'truce' than we know. I have to believe Weis wanted to comment on the situation before appearing to fold....then Carroll took a shot anyway and Weis let him. Possible?

No thoughts about the lunch issue, however.

 

Supposedly what Weis is pissed about is Carroll contacting Paddy Mullen without going through ND's SID... which is really stupid since Mullen probably wasn't even enrolled at ND yet. This story was obviously reported over the spring/summer so the kid was likely at home.