OT- Calipari and Recruits

Submitted by tricks574 on
In the light of recent events in college basketball, namely Kentucky's hiring of John Calipari, I started thinking about recruits switching schools. I know that basketball has an early signing period and that it has already passed, and I was wondering what would happen if recruits already signed to Memphis wanted to follow Calipari to KU? I doubt there is a clause in LOI's that allows you to back out if you signed early and the coach left, so would they have to transfer and sit out a year? Would Memphis be able to release them from their LOI's and just let them enroll at KU, and if so would they have to sit out a year anyway? Really OT I know, but this is the only place I know where I can get intelligent answers about things like this.

baorao

April 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^

sure those guys will be granted a release. In fact I just saw an article this morning about one of the Villanova players being a Kelvin Sampson recruit at Oklahoma, and getting a release when he left for Indiana. However I have no idea if that type of release is granted conditionally, meaning they can't follow him to Kentucky. Calipari also has to deal with how he handles the guys already signed by Gillespie. From a reputation standpoint he can't exactly just kick them all the curb and say "too bad for you".

jamiemac

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^

Texas got a kid from Oklahoma in the wake of Sampson's departure. and, speaking of a sampson departure, when he, uh, left IU, uber-recruit Devin Ewbanks opted out of Bloomington, landing at WVA where he had a good freshmen season for the Huggy Bear. I hope all these kids dont follow him to UK....as a UK-hater, that would suck.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^

The vast majority of schools will let recruits out of the LOI but put conditions on it so they can't follow the coach to his new school. BTW just a friendly FYI: KU = Kansas, UK = Kentucky.

tricks574

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^

Yeah, the last time I remember something like this happening with recruits like this was when Tom Brands left Virginia Tech to be the wrestling coach at Iowa, and although the VTech AD had told all of the recruits he would release them if Brands ever left, there was a long drawn out legal battle with VTech to release them, and because this was after they redshirted, all of the recruits had lost a year of eligibility.

R Kelly

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^

I am pretty sure that the release will be granted unconditionally, because Dicky V was just bitching on ESPN the other day about how there should be a rule that allows the recruits to go anywhere except to the the coach's new school. Sooooo logically if he wants there to be such a rule, then there probably isn't one currently. P.S. Anyone care to explain why a rule like that would exist? Personally I have no problem with recruits following a coach to a new school.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^

You're right, the rule doesn't currently exist, but most schools will not give the unconditional release. What would be the purpose of such a rule? Easy - so a coach can't recruit a player (say, a junior) with the following tactic: "Hey, I know I'm coaching at a podunk place right now, but I've been hearing the job offers for bigger and better things through the grapevine. I'm probably only going to be at this place one more year. Sign with my current school and then stick with me when I'm hired at a much more glamorous job." Then he turns around in his job interviews after he's got that player signed and says, "Hey, if you hire me, I can deliver you this and that player/recruit that is already at my current job." Sleazy, but basketball recruiting is at least 75% sleaze. It's why schools already put that condition on. They don't want a coach angling for a job elsewhere by promising to deliver up their own best players.

R Kelly

April 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^

thanks, makes sense... doesn't seem like a very common situation, but i can understand in some circumstances why a rule like that might be necessary. Regardless, I think it would be a shame if the players who signed with, and really really wanted to play for coach Calipari (for the right reasons) are unable too.

Placentasaurus

April 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^

so that they don't rescind the scholarships of the recruits that already signed w/ kentuckey under gillespie, I'm sure he already had a full class, so to get coach-following recruits in, scholarships would have to come from somewhere.

Tater

April 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^

At the news conference, Cal said that some of UK's current players and recruits might not fit in his system, and that he would watch film and have talks with all of them. I am quite sure that a few openings will appear if Henry and Cousins want to sign with UK. It will probably be sorta like RR's attrition at UM. The one main difference at UK, though, is that he will probably have to be very careful not to include instate kids in his attrition, unless it is "their idea." The politics of the UK job are such that he can't afford to alienate instate kids, parents, coaches, or boosters by rescinding offers to instate kids. At any rate, UK appears poised to regain its status among college basketball's "creme de la creme." It should be an interesting year or two in Kentucky.

marco dane

April 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^

those to young to remeber Jack Givens,Sam Bowie and Kyle Macy type tucky teams...your in for a treat. Pretty Rick days spent in UK won't even compare.