Fraudulent inducement lawsuit (Weber, etc.)
The Roquan Smith and Mike Weber recruitment stories cry out for someone to take on the NCAA and a school like UCLA or OSU and sue to rescind a NLI for fraudulent inducement. These kids are being misled into thinking guys who have jobs elsewhere are going to be coaching them, and they get trapped in the NCAA regulations and have to miss a year if they are PO'd that the coach left. Weber has perfect facts for a lawsuit: he was conflicted at the last minute, his "position coach" at OSU was recruiting him hard, the guy obviously had the Bears job in his pocket and was waiting until after signing day to announce. Weber can easily allege he would not have chosen OSU had he known the true facts. Discovery into the text messages, emails and phone records among Urbs, his RB coach, the Bears etc. would be fascinating. I'd wager there is testimony to be had (probably from the Bears) that "we need to keep this quiet until after signing day." Fraudulent inducement allows you to rescind the NLI, meaning it never existed. NCAA regulations can't trump the law of the land. I would love to see one of these kids get PO'd enough to bring this abusive system down.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
Miek WEEBEAR
February 6th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
Easy to claim and/or allege in a pleading but very difficult to prove.
Also, how has he been damaged? By having hurt feelings?
This isn't going anywhere, but I think that the kid should have a personal discussion with Urban Meyer about the affair and how it was handled.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
I, sir, charge you with providing false pretenses to the MGoCommunity by virtue that your title induced me to click on the thread thinking I'd find information relating to a case in motion to perhaps get Weber (and kids like him) out of their LOIs and send them on to Michigan.
WHEREAS, I am not a lawyer in any way and just wanted to use fun words that I think have some legal meaning.
Versooth!
February 6th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
As a lawyer, I approve this message.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
I think that's "forsooth," but this definitely deserves +1 for style.
Verily, nice job.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
It would require some pretty unique circumstances. First of all, the student would have to prove that he was specifically promised that the coach who recruited him would not be going anywhere. That seems like it would be difficult to prove, especially given the nature of college football - coaches change jobs all the time, so it's unlikely that someone could convincingly argue that they were promised that a specific coach would not leave.
With that said, I disagree slightly with the people who are saying that the student (Weber or whomever) could not show any damages. It's true that he could not recover money damages (since he'd have to prove that he somehow lost money by choosing Ohio State over Michigan based on fraudulent inducement). However, what he might be able to obtain would be equitable relief in the form of a waiver from the NCAA that allows him to transfer immediately to another FBS without waiting the mandatory year.
But, like I said, the hard part would be proving that he was specifically promised that a certain coach would not change jobs in an industry where everyone knows that coaches come and go all the time.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^
All you need, I think, is statements such as "I can get you playing like Eliot" or "I am really looking forward to us working together, we'll be a great team" or anything that makes it appear the RB coach was staying--so long as he already had the Bears job, and was making statements like that to get Weber to sign, you'd have a claim, IMO. Those statements in and of themselves would be fraudulent.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^
I have my doubts that this situation will ever be litigated, but I have no doubt that Meyer would not like to have his depositon taken, or even worse, be a defendant/witness at a trial. He would have to tell he truth or risk consequences way worse than giving a kid a release from an LOI.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
but, you do know that when two sides can't find common ground for agreement, "lawsuits" are one way disputes are resolved peacefully in a civilized society.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
The drama is getting too thick on this one. Yeah it was shitty thing do, but what does it really matter? If he's good enough to play, then he'll play. If he's getting carries then I doubt he's going to actually give a shit who his running back coach is. Coaches move around. Heck, there's a good chance that Urbz will be in the NFL by the time Weber's college career is even over.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
I wonder if that provides a basis to challenge the transfer restrictions. As I understand it many non-compete clauses in employment contracts are not enforceable. As an example, if you are an IT consultant in the healthcare industry and your employer has a clause that you can’t provide IT consulting to any healthcare company for two years if you leave the company, it would be unenforceable. Essentially the clause would prevent you from making a living.
On the other hand, a clause that says you can’t provide services to your current clients if you leave the company is enforceable. The idea is that something that prevents employees from stealing their employer’s customers is OK but preventing former employees from participating in the market at all is anti-competitive and illegal.
If someone was able to apply this argument to the NCAA transfer rules it seems like a restriction on transferring within the conference would be OK but the blanket requirement to sit out a year if you transfer anywhere goes too far. Essentially it prevents the college football player from participating in college football (they only place they can play football if they are not three years out of school)
February 6th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Uh, these are not employees?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
That is why it would not be an open and shut case. You would have to successfully argue that the principle should apply to the student athlete/university relationship. I think there are several lawsuits out there that are going after the nature of this student athlete/university relationship. The current approach has potential to change over the next decade.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
Your general statement on non-competes is too broad. Although courts don't like keeping people out of work, a well-constructed non-compete provision is generally enforceable (with a few exceptions).
February 6th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
My example was based on some brief experience with this issue in the past. Essentially a non-compete clause could be read as you are not allowed to work in your current occupation if you leave the company. The clause was poorly constructed. The advice from an attorney was to talk to the previous employer and indicate we would not take clients but ignore the rest of the non-compete. The idea was that the attorneys for the former employers would tell them the clause was a loser and they would agree to our terms That is essentially what happened. The impression I had was that poorly constructed non-compete clauses are fairly common.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
Well-constructed non-competes can be valid in most (but not all) states. However, they are generally disliked by courts as being anti-competitive, so will be construed strictly. They must be reasonable in three realms:
1) Geographically (not for "the entire world" or more broad than is reasonable to protect the interests of the employer)
2) Chronologically ("For the rest of your life," would not be acceptable--again, reasonable for the purposes of protecting the employer) and
3) Activities limited (You couldn't restrict a football player from, for example, becoming a physics professor).
February 6th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^
No issue - I was rolling these distinctions into "well constructed" because I didn't see the need to get into all the details.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
Do you think you could get anywhere arguing point 1. Is the current rule which restricts your ability to transfer anywhere in the country to broad and make the restriction unreasonable?
February 6th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^
I think you need to get over the hurdle of analogizing a NLI to an employment non-compete first. That's still up in the air and problematic.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^
I see... Well, going purely hypothetical here because I think that's a BIG if, but there's a lot of case law developed on non-compete about what is reasonable in terms of geographic restrictions, including what market area for which the employee was responsible. I suppose courts could choose to draw on that.
For a player, the "competitive" area is the US maybe? It's not as easy to tie down because you don't have as neat of markets as you do in business where people have more defined responsibility. What's the market area for a RB at a major college?
People higher up in companies are more likely to get more expansive non-competes becuase they have higher responsibility, so they might be something more broad, such as the US as a whole (as opposed to a mile-radius or county limit). It seems to me that's the case the University would make.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^
Fair enough - Your point on the practical implications is completely reasonable - in reality, yes the parties usually come to an agreement that resolves the dispute. Most employers are also worried about competition with their direct interests (customers, employees, etc.), so agreeing not doing either of those things generally tends to resolve my disputes. I also agree there are a lot of poorly constructed non-competes out there. The reality is judges don't like keeping people out of work either. There's incentive to get a deal done.
But... still a correctly constructed non-compete IS enforceable in most jurisdictions. Some areas (California for example) have limits.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
that will be 11-0 and #1 in the country when they roll into Ann Arbor on November 28. Cry me a fucking river, Mike.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
Yeah, I have to agree. The LOI isn't to a "coach", it's to a school. Granted, I'm sure that selling the school is very much conflated with selling the coach. However, unless the LOI says something to the effect that player is going to be coached by a particular individual (an absurd idea) there's no leg to stand on.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
On November 29th.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
Do we have confirmation that a parent signed his LOI? If not, there may be an easy out for him...
February 6th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
We don't know what Weber was told. We don't know he is unhappy with his decision.
And while I am generally in favor of easier transfer rules, if you let a recruit change his mind because a coach has left, why shouldn't every player, regardless of year, be able to walk when a head coach leaves?
February 6th, 2015 at 10:56 AM ^
Just for the record, he tweeted that he was unhappy.
I do agree with you that it is a slippery slope. Still the commitment should not be one way.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
This is the sad state of our fanbase at the moment. We really need to start winning...
February 6th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
Eh, it's less about our fanbase and more about the nature of the game. I think even if this happened to a Clemson recruit or a BYU recruit it would get some play on the board. These are interesting issues and interesting times for the NCAA.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
This happens every year. Maybe not same day, but kids committ to coaches they never play for and no one cares. We only care because we missed out on these two guys.
Time to win Jim!!
February 6th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
Eh, I think it's pretty rare that a coach up and leaves less than 24 hours after signing day, when that coach purposely mislead the prospects for weeks leading up to the announcement.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
How do you know anyone was mislead. Are you 100% sure that the coach knew he was leaving? Are you sure the opportunity didn't present itself yesterday? No, and you only care because you wanted Weber to come to Michigan. If this was a kid decding between OSU and Florida, you wouldn't take 5 seconds to post.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
I don't follow recruiting, so no I don't really care where Webber goes, but I am genuinely interested in NCAA reform. Thank you for your concern, though.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
All you have to do is read down the board and there is a thread about a kid pushed out at Louisville, and some manner of discussion on oversigning. All dirty recruiting tactics most of which have nothing to do with UM. This would be a board topic even if it wasn't OSU and Weber. Shoot, I am here commenting and I want nothing to do with Weber.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Weber was not sold a bill of goods. He chose to believe a man with a very public track record of being a liar and a douche. Sounds like he got exactly what he was sold. At some point maybe kids or their parents will care about the bigger picture before it directly effects them, but more likely they will continue to go were the cash and/or the trophys currently reside. The names that have popped up around signing day are the names that have popped up every year. yet OSU (et. al.) already has top kids signed on for next year. Go figure.
Nothing (new) to see here. Move along.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
(1) a false statement concerning a material fact,
and
(2) knowledge by the person making the statement that the representation is false,
and
(3) intent by the person making the statement that the representation induce another to act on it,
and
(4) reliance on the representation to the injury of the other party.
He definitely would have a case in Florida, anyone know Michigan law?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
What's the damage though? 1 - 4 are all fine and good but without demonstrable damage, this would get laughed out of court.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^
"A false statement concerning a material fact" would be hard to prove, imho, unless there's something we don't know. What did the position coach or someone else actually say that was false? We don't know that he said anything at all about staying.
Secondly, even if the coach or someone knowingly lied by saying, "I intend to stay here for 4 years at a minimum," was it a "material fact"? I'd argue that there were many other factors that were more important.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
So, he has that going for him which is nice!
February 6th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
I know you are trying to be reaonable but please go elsewhere. And here is a hearty "up yours!". If you don't want to see this content then do not come here.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
I have no problem with seeing this content, that's why I clicked on the page and have been commenting for the last three days on this topic.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
I hate Ohio as much as the next Michigan Man but I haven't seen anything from @buckeyejonross which merits such a response. He's generally respectful and plays it straight down the middle regardless of his TSDS ties.