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 11:14 AM ^
Weber was lead to believe that he would be coached by a certain individual whom he had developed a comfortable relationship with. That is not to be. That's fraudulent! Even if Myer hires a coach with a far more superior resume than Drayton, it still has no bearing on the manipulation dynamic! Weber and his family have been alienated. This practice should not be condoned, nor should perceptions be disseminated in a manner that would cultivate apathy for the SA. When young people are misled to this degree, the letter of intent needs to be voidable!
February 6th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
Our two opinions are not mutually exclusive.
I do think he was misled. I don't think that's right.
HOWEVER, I think there's a very good chance that he will like whoever is hired. And if he and the team have success, this will just be a bump in the road. Ultimately, most college players are probably going to play for multiple position coaches/coordinators/head coaches.
Let's say Weber leaves OSU and comes to Michigan to play for Tyrone Wheatley. What's to stop Wheatley from leaving to be Illinois' offensive coordinator next year? Or what if Wheatley and Harbaugh don't get along and he gets fired next year?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
that osu knew the coach was leaving, and witheld the information until after NSD, then that is an extremely different scenario than what you are describing.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^
I'm not describing anything.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^
of a coach knowing he is going to leave/already has a job offer he's going to take, but witholding that information until after a player sends in his committment letter, is extremely different than a coach not knowing he is going to leave until a year after he gets a player to commit (which you described in wheatley reference...)
February 6th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^
If a position coach, Wheatley or anyone else, were to leave in the future, that is a very different scenario than what took place with Weber where the position coach knew he was going to be leaving the day after the LOI was signed and never conveyed this information to the recruit.
I think most recruits know, or should know, that coaches do come and go, and that is the chance every recruit takes, but when a coach knows that he will not be with a program, and in fact will be leaving the NEXT DAY and intentionally conceals this rather material fact, that is fraud. In this instance, I'm also about 99.99999 percent sure that Meyer knew his RB coach was leaving and intentionally misled Weber by concealing a material fact.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
If Wheatley moves on next year it's a promotion he chose to take that was unrelated to the kid's recruitment. Drayton either already knew he was moving on or it's truly a bizarre coincidence he got hired the day after NSD. You obviously know this, but it bears mentioning.
February 6th, 2015 at 6:42 PM ^
We only know what Weber is leading us to believe, yet there is the very real possibility that Drayton never implied he would be remaining on the staff or that he would be coaching Weber. In fact the odds of Drayton staying at OSU for the entirety of Weber's education were always remote, as they are with every other position coach. Who knows, maybe Michigan kicks that ass in Columbus November next and Meyer decides to again look to the NFL. Will Weber be similarly pissed?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
everyone who was committed under hoke should be forced to stay with michigan because we hired an even better coach.
players get attached to coaches, and whether it's logical or not, they should be able to opt out when a school pulls some shady ass shit like changing staffs day after/day of NSD.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^
Ugh.
I KNOW.
I'm not arguing that it's shady. I've said it multiple times in this thread. It's wrong.
All I'm saying is that if he sticks with Ohio State, I believe he will be happy with his decision after 3-5 years, as long as he has the talent to compete there. The next guy will be good, too.
I know it's wrong. You don't have to tell me again. I agree on that.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
You're an excellent straw man.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^
Not trying to bust chops, Magnus. I really enjoy your posts.
And you may well be right that down the road, this may well be a minor impediment in the game of life.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
because yours is an irrelevant point. Who cares if one particular person that this happens to could potentially be happy? Irrelevant points like this imply that it is not as big a deal as it really is.
February 6th, 2015 at 2:17 PM ^
WTF?
Do you know how much irrelevant stuff is posted on this board? We have whole threads devoted to irrelevant stuff. Let me point you to the "Posbang" and "__________ Night Drinking" thread series, just for a start. I don't see you going through and arguing with all of those posts because they're irrelevant.
Frankly, I don't think my comment is irrelevant, and you're making things up as you go. Next time someone posts "Good luck to the kid" or "Let's talk about kids going to Michigan," you should voice your concerns that their wishes are irrelevant to the thread. After all, you appear to have crowned yourself as the Relevance Police.
The bottom line is that I said the practice is dirty, but I think Weber will probably find success with the next hired coach. That's in no way irrelevant to the topic at hand.
February 6th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
sorry for picking a fight for no reason and ignoring everything you said in your previous posts. you clearly have a nuanced view on the whole issue and i realize now what you're saying--it is good for weber's sake that he may still wind up fine after all this regardless of what ends up happening.
February 6th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^
Thanks. I think we see eye-to-eye on the topic, but you just didn't realize it at the start. I appreciate the apology.
February 6th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
i felt like having an internet fight, but eventually realized there was nothing there to argue about
February 6th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
but it certainly doesn't need to be investigated for fraud.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
I don't think the claim would fly. The inducement is the scholarship and the school. No school can or would promise that a particular coach is going to stay there for some specified period of time. This might be evidence that the entire system is anti-competitive, but that claim is already being made in other contexts. If I took my current job, and then a week later found out that my boss is leaving, I couldn't sue for that. What I COULD sue for is if my non-compete clause were non-competitive. That is likely where a claim might lie.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
The inducement is what you say to the person to convince him to sign the contract. If you lie, or fraudulently conceal something that is material to the decision, the person who signs the contract in reliance on that fraud has a claim for recission.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
As my post noted, I don't think a school would claim that a coach will be there a particular period of time. If the coach was stupid enough to say, "I'm going to be here at OSU for your 4-5 years," sure, there could be a claim. And if Weber can show that, I'll start lining up those lemons to eat.
BTW: I don't think concealing a plan to leave would be deemed "fraudulent." That's too high a standard when the LOI says that the individual is pledging to the school, not a coach. Particularly when it's a position coach rather than, e.g., a head coach. I can't see this claim making it past a motion to dismiss.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
I think this is the key point. I highly doubt the position coached guaranteed Weber he was going to be his coach the entire time. It probably was just assumed.
I haven't looked at an NLI, so I don't know for sure, but I assume they have a merger clause in the agreement, which would make parol evidence an issue here as well (with fraud claim of course, this necessarily a case-ender, but it's still a hurdle).
Weber would likely be fighting an uphill battle.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
This has been mostly covered on the original Weber thread...
1) I'm pretty sure that the LOI is not legally binding because Weber is under 18.
2) It doesn't actually matter because getting out of a LOI would require cooperation from another college, which would be immediately sanctioned by the NCAA.
3) The LOI says that coaches come and go and that the player understands they are committing to the school and not the coach.
In other words, the LOI is probably not legally enforceable (with or without the "inducement") but it doesn't matter.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
On #1 - if a prospect is under 21 he needs his parent to sign the NLI.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
I actually do not think that the parent's signature has any legal effect.
EDIT: If an individual is incompetent to enter into a contract, they are incompetent. The contract may be enforceable against the competent party, but not the incompetent party (with limited exceptions).
February 6th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^
Legally, that makes sense - he could void it if he chooses to, absent a state law that gives mirnors the ability to enter into such agreements (I'm not aware of any in MI or OH). The University can't/doesn't want to seek specific performance against the co-signers (parents), and there's not an easy method of monetary damages to assess against players, plus that'd be PR suicide.
But he still has to sit out a year because NCAA rules make him ineligible for a transfer after he signs the NLI.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
"Fraud in the inducement" is a matter of whether a contract was valid to begin with (or whether it is voidable), not the damages that would result from breach.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^
Yes, you do need damages. Damages/injury is an element for both Ohio and Michigan Fraud in inducement claims:
Ohio
(1) an actual or implied false representation concerning a fact or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact;
(2) which is material to the transaction;
(3) knowledge of the falsity of the representation or such recklessness or utter disregard for its truthfulness that knowledge may be inferred;
(4) intent to induce reliance on the representation;
(5) justifiable reliance; and
(6) injury proximately caused by the reliance.”
Michigan:
(1) the defendant made a material representation;
(2) the representation was false;
(3) when the defendant made the representation, the defendant knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion;
(4) the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff would act upon it;
(5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; and
(6) the plaintiff suffered damage."
February 6th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
You are correct. They have to demonstrate injury. They just don't have to demonstrate "I was harmed $X worth of injury" they way they would have to if they were suing for damages.
I'd think it would be pretty easy to make the case that because signing the agreement procluded him from signing other similar agreements, he was injured with the loss of that ability. It's speculative/consequential, but i would guess that would be sufficient.
I still don't think an action would have a prayer though.
February 6th, 2015 at 8:29 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
if you select a school because of the coaches and only the coaches you're being a fool...we all know it's almost inevitable that these guys are gonna move on to new roles, especially the good ones. It was shady that they kept this from him, but i think at this point recruits should almost assume they will have at least some coaching attritiion during their stay.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
I don't mean to stir our own pot here but if you watch that Youtube interview with Wheatley jr., someone asked whether Harbaugh was a big factor in him coming to Michigan and he said no, not really, because coaches come and go. I thought that was interesting - not that there's any hidden meaning in it, but just that you have to pick the school, not the coach.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
The point is these kids are being screwed by concealing this information, and it would be good if someone made an issue of it and forced a reexamination of this process.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
How much is he really being screwed by a position coach leaving? Time to move on with the players we have, some of whom may end up being better than Weber.
Way too much stock is being placed in this kid.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
Welcome to the real world. I've seen people get hired just to have their department outsourced after a couple months.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
There are already too many lawsuits in this country. It's not like Weber has any real "damages." He's still getting a scholarship that was promised to him.
I think it sucks, but people leave for better jobs all the time. It's why I think recruits should pick the school not the coach (even though we have one of the best coaches in the game).
However, I do think restrictions on transfer locations are ridiculous. I don't think any of our coaches should place restrictions on a player if he wants to leave, and I don't think other coaches should be allowed to do the same either. Having to sit out a year is already more than enough of a restriction on transferring.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
There are already too many lawsuits in this country. It's not like Weber has any real "damages." He's still getting a scholarship that was promised to him.
I think it sucks, but people leave for better jobs all the time. It's why I think recruits should pick the school not the coach (even though we have one of the best coaches in the game).
However, I do think restrictions on transfer locations are ridiculous. I don't think any of our coaches should place restrictions on a player if he wants to leave, and I don't think other coaches should be allowed to do the same either. Having to sit out a year is already more than enough of a restriction on transferring.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
The NCAA - for what it is worth - has their own little Q&A page on the LOIs... LINK
The money question perhaps for the questions surrounding Weber:
What happens when a prospective student-athlete signs an NLI and the coach leaves?
The NLI is a contract between a prospective student-athlete and a school, not an agreement between individuals. A student-athlete is obligated to attend the school he or she signed with unless the school agrees to release the student-athlete. If a school entices a prospective student-athlete to sign an NLI by offering an automatic release if a coach leaves, the prospective student-athlete’s NLI may be declared void and the school may face penalties.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
So by this rule, an NLI isn't even allowed to include an automatic release clause in case of a coach leaving? That's a damn shame. This needs to be addressed because it's pretty clear that 17 and 18 year olds are being taken advantage of based on this rule.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
...and guess that Urbz won't release Weber from his LOI, most especially since doing so would mean a 4-star RB goes to your biggest rival.
February 6th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
Give me a break, let's focus on the players who chose to come to Michigan
February 6th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
Totally agree, The obsession with Mike Weber is ridiculous. He's gone, let it go.
Let's focus on Karan Higdon, who fought through a snow storm to get to Ann Arbor for his OV or Keith Washington, who committed without even taking an OV. These young men understand the value of a U-M degree and jumped at the opportunity for academic reasons, not because of the football team's win-loss record in the recent years.
These are the kind of young men that will become great husbands, fathers, and citizens long after their football careers are over