USC Should Release Its 2010 Class
It is the only class thing to do. USC should release every kid who asks them to do so. USC can then re-pitch them and try to get them to re-sign with full knowlege of the recently announced NCAA penalties. The kids also could reopen discussions with any other teams they choose. Of course, we all know this is not going to happen because USC is not a class program. But it should.
So, what should Henderson and any other kid who wants out do? They should get together and tell USC that either USC does the above (at least with respect to them) or they are going to hire an attorney and sue USC for fraud. I guarantee USC's coaches and assistant coaches heavily downplayed the NCAA investigation and likely penalties. These kids relied on what USC told them. USC told them the violations were minor and the penalties would be a slap on the wrist. Since USC had received the NCAA's notice of alleged violations prior to signing day (and I highly doubt it shared that notice with these kids), USC induced the kids to sign their LOI's based on material misrepresentations of the facts. That is fraud, and a contract based on fraud is voidable by a court of law.
More importantly, I do not think USC would like to have a public fight and lawsuit with its highest ranking 2010 recruits. All of USC's files, records and emails would be accessible via the discovery process and all of USC's coaches and assistant coaches (including coaches who have recently left such as Pete Carroll) and all of the kids USC spoke with during the recruiting process about this issue could be deposed under oath. That would be an absolute nightmare scenario for USC. USC will release these kids from their LOI's if forced to under that type of pressure.
Note: I posted this once before, but it was buried in another thread and I am hoping that someone on this board will know one of USC's recruits and forward it. I do not. These guys are getting f%cked and someone needs to help them figure out how to make USC back down.
But seeing as how none of us have any input at all anyway, I was just assuming we were discussing for the sake of discussing. I wasn't planning on calling USC recruits to tell them not to file a lawsuit.
Honestly, the kids that were signing with USC had to know there was at least some risk of this happening. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not be aware of some shady backroom stuff happening with USC over the last decade. If these kids chose to ignore that to lead the glamorous life in SoCal, then they should live with the consequences.
And I'm only 21 so it's not as if I "dont understand what its like making decisions at 18" since I can remember 2007 quite clearly.
This is similar to my initial sentiment, but when you consider that USC already had the notice of allegations when these guys were recruited, coaches would have to have been either lying or delusional to tell the recruits little would come of it. The kids thought they were being sold day old pie, only to find out later they'd bought a steaming pile of bull shit. It seems wrong to "force them to live with the consequences of their actions" when the supposed adults they were listening to misled them for their own gain.
Steaming pile of sh%t.
I'm just guessing that the sanctions (or threat thereof) did not figure as heavily into the decision to attend USC as you suppose it did. Playing at USC has so much cache, and the odds of an NFL future for a stand-out prospect like Henderson so good, (relative to other potential pro players at non-USC programs around the country) whether or not they play in the off-season for a couple of years, that I don't believe many will jump ship. The up-side is still there and a powerful motive to stick with USC, especially for an incoming freshman.
... and very respectfully, you missed the point of my post. It is not about you "guessing". It is about returning the decision back to the recruits so that they can make that decision with full knowledge of the sanctions. It is the only fair thing to do.
You supposed that USC withheld information or sugar-coated it during their recruitment. I'm telling you that, even if that were true, full knowledge would not likely have changed their minds then, and is not likely to change their minds now.
But you started the thread by doing a lot of "guessing" (i.e., making assumptions about the law, the courts, recruits' decision processes, coaches' recruiting tactics). You are the only one allowed to make guesses here?
The only major assumption or "guess" that I am making is that USC did not accurately and completely disclose everything it knew about the NCAA investigation to its potential recruits. I stand by that assumption.
you know what happens when you assume dont you?
In all seriousness though, what was USC suposed to do? They had a notice of allegations. That does not tell them what their punishment is. Should they start guessing and telling recruits that? And in today's world, there is no way these recruits were not aware that punishments could be coming. USC did not know its' punishments until May.
Really? How about be honest and disclose everything?
But, and if you read my post you would understand, I am not arguing that they should have done anything. Great. USC was clueless, went overboard in disclosing everything to its potential recruits, and was just surprised by the penalties. If you want to believe that, fine. The point of my post is that now, knowing the penalties, they should release their 2010 recruits from their LOI's. It is in the title to my post. It could not be more clear.
then why have you been arguing that they should have told the recruits about this during signing day
Your whole post is based on the assumption that the exact opposite of what you just said happened with USC. Also, and it has been asked yet you still haven't answered, but to date, not one USC recruit has asked to be released and been denied....what makes you think that will happen?
answer the question:
What are the signees' compensable damages at this point?
Right - no compensation, no standing.
Well, not in every case (constitutional cases, for example), but mostly you are correct.
But this issue of compensation does prove an irony re: this board's view of USC.
USC's signees have not suffered any damage - the whole point of a scholarship is to go to school for free, and they still have that opportunity (unless you want to completely destroy the notion that some athletes go to a school because of the school, like Chris Rock said). They will still be able to play football the next 4-5 years. And like I said above, you cannot argue that losing bowl games constitute "damage" to your future because, well, Brandon Graham.
So, the only "damages" that I think you could allege these players are going to lose are the kinds of compensable items that got USC in this mess in the first place.
Go back to your notes for Contracts 101. They are not looking for damages. They are looking to void the contract. Moreover, I doubt this ever gets to trial. Trial would be a very bad outcome for USC.
Your also assuming USC wouldnt release these players from their scholarships. Has anyone tried to leave and been told no? I'd be willing to guess a majority of the 2010 recruits will be playing for USC this fall.
... and I have fallen through the looking glass.
First: there are no compensable, actually legal provable damages. I think that some people who have been waving around the "contracts 101" argument need to realize the proper terminology, as fellow attorneys licensed in not one but two jurisdictions(!), one of which I share: They seek a court order. That's what they seek. A court order releasing them from their scholarships. Not "voiding the contract," per se. i am sorry to split hairs on this, but dude, you've been the one flaming away, questioning people's qualifications to comment. As such, use the right language: it would be a suit in equity, not in law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/court+of+equity) and, thus, you wouldn't be seeking damages (which, to your credit, you correctly pointed out). In at least one of your jurisdictions, counselor, the fair state of Illinois, they are separate: chancery court handles equity. Seeing as this would most likely be a federal diversity case, it would still be an ACTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF, er go, a suit in equity.
Sorry. Just was annoying me.
We need to forget about USC players. This story is done. Most of these kids are from out west and wanted to play there their whole lives. They are not going to change. Its been a couple of weeks and we have only seen one (back-up) leave. Also, barely any kids in this upcoming class have crossed them off.
With USC is only going to get worse as they recruit for the future. Lets worry more about that with the kids we are in on....Andre Y. etc.
as a school or AD that would ever make you think they would "do the right thing"?
This comment is almost more enjoyable if I imagine that you're not being sarcastic.
I'm sorry but it is quite convenient that a fan of a team that all of a sudden has a few open 2010 slots would start this thread. Of course I would not argue if Baxter decided to transfer to Michigan. But let's be reasonable here, none of this is going to happen.
I'm enjoying psychomatt's meltdown.
This has seriously been one of the more entertaining threads to read, despite its abject stupidity. Started bad, got worse, and managed to come back around to good.
By the way, I like your name. Nice. Please use this picture as your avatar:
I will, I absolutely will.
that's present at the high school level in California.
Tre Madden is arguably the best WR/LB at Mission Viejo H.S. (OC). He is still solid in his commitment to USC despite the obvious 3 years of sanctions (and with Kiffin at HC, a high likelihood of many more sanctions in the future).
A lot of kids dream about playing for Michigan and wearing the winged helmet. But there's strong pull to play for USC despite Garrett, Kiffin and the violations. It surprises me one level, given the reduced opportunities for the players (no bowl games, tarnished rep, etc.). On another level it's impressive to me that few kids have jumped ship (so far). Maybe more will defect. We'll see.
I do think USC will be 4-0 to start the year (Could they possibly draw up an easier non-conf. schedule?). But then Kiffy and the Toejams run a gauntlet of some pretty tough games starting with Washington in the Colliseum - a game I think Sarkisian's Huskies will win again.
Alternatlvely anyone who wanted out of their scholarship who USC wouldn't release could try and sue the NCAA and argue that the requirement that sitting out a year after a transfer is an illegal restraint of trade.
That's a damn good point. I don't want to wrack my brain as to the intricacies of it, but that IS interesting. Although the counterargument would be one of, "without the NCAA in the first place, with its history and all its done over the past xyz years, this opportunity wouldn't even present itself," or something like that. I don't know. We're on pick 51 of the NBA draft right now, and I don't think Manny's getting drafted. Brain. drained.