Given what's out there on Peterson's price tag just to choose a college I'm sure he made enough in Baton Rouge to keep himself in furs and diamonds until this lock out ends, no agent help needed.
I can speak as a Caps fan to say I'm ecstatic about this trade. For a while I thought Varly was going to be better than Neuvirth, but after the end of last year I'm not so sure I still believe that, and the truth is if we didn't trade him I think it was pretty certain he was going to bolt for the KHL. Definitely a great deal for us. Especially since our back up goaltender, Holtby might turn out to be the best of the three. As for Jagr, as a closet Wings fan after 4 years watching them play, I'm glad they avoided Jagr, don't think that's going to work out well for the Flyers.
EDIT: Didn't realize the Talbot deal was for 5 years, as a caps fan it pains me to say he seemed like a "pretty cool guy" on 24/7 this past season, but I know I wouldn't want him at 5 years 9 mill.
EDIT # 2: Plus, I can speak for wings fans here when I say any reason to root against the avalanche is a good one, here's to that draft pick being in the top 5.
While there are problem gamblers, it's certainly not ridiculous or stupid to bet now or at any other time as long as you understand and are willing to assume the risk. The professional gamblers who are jumping on the spread now aren't saying that they are better informed now than they will be months from now, they're saying that they're well enough informed that they think they acn beat the vig over a long period of time by betting now. It seems obvious, but I think a lot of people who gamble recreationally even the ones that do it alot have the mistaken impression that spreads are a prediction of the score of the game. They sort of are, but only in the sense that Vegas is trying to have an equal amount of money on both sides, so they can take the vig. If someone bets now they just think that they have an edge. No matter how slight in the long run any real edge turns out to be profitable.
I was about to post something like this. I actually read a post over at bucknuts earlier today where someone made the claim Bollman is trying to sabotage Fickel by not doing a good job recruiting, but it seems like incompetence is more likely. Regardless their loss is our gain, and you gotta love the discord down south.
I think that's a pretty safe guess. And if everything does work out well between denard devin bellomy and morris we would be better off with fuller who can step in day one and contribute at another position. But, if things don't work out and we need qb play from whomever we recruit this year, and fuller's been working at another position he's no longer an insurance policy at QB. Which is why if I had to guess, whomever we take is going to be someone who's sticking at QB. Again, I have no sources, it's just a guess.
As has been repeated ad nauseum on this board if you remember watching Nick Sheridan play a "back-up insurance policy" can be incredibly important not just for the team but for its fans' mental and physical health. That said, my guess would be they want someone like Mauk who's solely a QB, taking people in the kind of slash role that Fuller would occupy is probably a relic of the RR days. Just a guess.
There's a big difference between a hello post saying, "Frankly it's shocking the sites didn't rate Ray Vinopal as a 5 star" and making what seems like, frankly, a relatively uninformed (for good reason because there's not much out there but there were also other offers not mentioned in the post) and pesimistic guess about a recruit's abilities. There's a reason Brian's players this reminds me of doesn't list marques slocum, or other complete busts.
I agree with this. My instant reaction when I read the hello post was that the tone was overboard, and inappropriate given both that I think Tim's being objectively too pesimistic about how good Clark can be for us and that he just committed/there isn't that much info out there so if you're best guess is that negative I think it's better not to make it. In the past I've also been surprised at the disparaging tone used to describe the coaching recruits get at Cass Tech given that all of us as michigan fans should wake up every morning grateful that coaching staff is where it is
I will say it's a nice change of pace from the last few years to be genuinely surprised at the idea of Michigan losing a recruiting battle for a prospect we want. Seeing LSU and UF on a prospect's offer list seemed like the kiss of death eight months ago.
First off he's a pulitzer prize winning journalist, which doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible that his sources are wrong, but it's a pretty good indication that his work will stand up.
Two, there's a big difference between illegal (what the motor vehicle board was looking for) and against ncaa rules.
When I was at UofM I tended to like the people I knew from Jersey a lot more than the people I knew from Long Island. How's that for a backhanded compliment?
I readily admit that I could be wrong on this, since I'm not doing much to correct any ignorance of the issues involved, but here's my best guess:
Once the letter of intent is signed, both sides are bound by that agreement. If it says, you get free tuition and cost of living to play football at LSU in 2012, and the coach says actually you're going to get to play in 2013 and you have to figure out what you want to do for the next year. The damages are the value of that lost year, but there's also a requirement that you try to mitigate any damages. If all you're worried about is losing a year, and the coach gives you an opportunity to play football and receive free tuition and the cost of living somewhere else in 2012. (i.e. releases you from your LOI and there's another school that will take you) then there aren't really any damages. You could argue that there's a difference between being able to play at LSU and being able to play at LA Tech, but what's the difference? The value of your education? The value of the experience of playing football at an SEC school? If you still were going to be able to play at LSU just a year later then I don't see how you can argue those were your damages.
On the other hand, if you had an agreement to sign a letter of intent, and that gets yanked away from you then there are some very real damages, it would seem to me. Obiovusly, the above situation changes if Porter's signed the LOI and then the coach tells him you will never get to play football at LSU unless you walk on. Then it seems like they're the same situation to me, and damages depend on whether you're able to mitigate, and what exactly the damages are. That's why I brought up in my previous post that a player might try to argue tort instead of contract because it seems like schools can cancel LOI for lots of reasons, but that there might be a better case for emotional distress or some other wrong knowingly caused by the actions of the football coach in cancelling the LOI.
Again, I'm admittedly a little shakier in contracts than some other areas of the law, so that's a best guess.
Yeah, and I guess the question to keep in mind are what the damages are and if the contract was actually breached. I think that where the LOI isn't revoked but the scholarship's delayed a year or something else happens that doesn't breach the parameters of the agreeement (someone can correct me if they think that breaches the contract) then it seems like the case sounds in tort not contracts, and the damages issue becomes much harder to pin down.
In this Hawaii case having an offer and acceptance followed by the school reneging with no other recourse for the player to get a free education/play college football seems like a clearer case of breach of contract. Though who knows if the kid actually would have won, seems like there are so many ways for a school to void a LOI that the promise of one doesn't seem to be worth all that much...
I know it seems like a fine line, and there's probably an argument that the Hawaii case should be the same as the LSU case just because ultimately what's being deprived is the same thing, but at least for Porter they seemed to still be giving him the option of following through on his LOI, just one year later.
Statute of frauds probably wan't a big deal here. As has been noted many times in the oversigning context LOI are only good for one year, and there are many theoretical ways that the contract could come to an end as well (such as leavign the team).
I don't think this is that important though. A few things make the situation unique. He accepted the verbal offer and the coaches told him not to look anywhere else i.e. there was an offer and acceptance. So, this isn't like a player being told he couldn't commit, or didn't have a commitable offer.
And it happened on signing day which means there might have been actual damage done. I would guess that most of the time this sort of thing happens earlier, and the player has other scholarship options making it much tougher to argue there were any real damages. Add in that this was a settlement and there's no precedent here for much of anything.
Recent Comments
Given what's out there on Peterson's price tag just to choose a college I'm sure he made enough in Baton Rouge to keep himself in furs and diamonds until this lock out ends, no agent help needed.
It's hard not to be a big McPhee fan if you cheer for the caps. Not so sure how I feel about Boudreau at this point though...
I can speak as a Caps fan to say I'm ecstatic about this trade. For a while I thought Varly was going to be better than Neuvirth, but after the end of last year I'm not so sure I still believe that, and the truth is if we didn't trade him I think it was pretty certain he was going to bolt for the KHL. Definitely a great deal for us. Especially since our back up goaltender, Holtby might turn out to be the best of the three. As for Jagr, as a closet Wings fan after 4 years watching them play, I'm glad they avoided Jagr, don't think that's going to work out well for the Flyers.
EDIT: Didn't realize the Talbot deal was for 5 years, as a caps fan it pains me to say he seemed like a "pretty cool guy" on 24/7 this past season, but I know I wouldn't want him at 5 years 9 mill.
EDIT # 2: Plus, I can speak for wings fans here when I say any reason to root against the avalanche is a good one, here's to that draft pick being in the top 5.
While there are problem gamblers, it's certainly not ridiculous or stupid to bet now or at any other time as long as you understand and are willing to assume the risk. The professional gamblers who are jumping on the spread now aren't saying that they are better informed now than they will be months from now, they're saying that they're well enough informed that they think they acn beat the vig over a long period of time by betting now. It seems obvious, but I think a lot of people who gamble recreationally even the ones that do it alot have the mistaken impression that spreads are a prediction of the score of the game. They sort of are, but only in the sense that Vegas is trying to have an equal amount of money on both sides, so they can take the vig. If someone bets now they just think that they have an edge. No matter how slight in the long run any real edge turns out to be profitable.
I was about to post something like this. I actually read a post over at bucknuts earlier today where someone made the claim Bollman is trying to sabotage Fickel by not doing a good job recruiting, but it seems like incompetence is more likely. Regardless their loss is our gain, and you gotta love the discord down south.
I think that's a pretty safe guess. And if everything does work out well between denard devin bellomy and morris we would be better off with fuller who can step in day one and contribute at another position. But, if things don't work out and we need qb play from whomever we recruit this year, and fuller's been working at another position he's no longer an insurance policy at QB. Which is why if I had to guess, whomever we take is going to be someone who's sticking at QB. Again, I have no sources, it's just a guess.
As has been repeated ad nauseum on this board if you remember watching Nick Sheridan play a "back-up insurance policy" can be incredibly important not just for the team but for its fans' mental and physical health. That said, my guess would be they want someone like Mauk who's solely a QB, taking people in the kind of slash role that Fuller would occupy is probably a relic of the RR days. Just a guess.
Trues... Upgrade the facilities? I thought we gave up on Harbaugh and his gold plated toilet.
Thanks for the first sentence disclaimer. When I read the title of your post my first thought was, "jesus, not this again."
There's a big difference between a hello post saying, "Frankly it's shocking the sites didn't rate Ray Vinopal as a 5 star" and making what seems like, frankly, a relatively uninformed (for good reason because there's not much out there but there were also other offers not mentioned in the post) and pesimistic guess about a recruit's abilities. There's a reason Brian's players this reminds me of doesn't list marques slocum, or other complete busts.
I agree with this. My instant reaction when I read the hello post was that the tone was overboard, and inappropriate given both that I think Tim's being objectively too pesimistic about how good Clark can be for us and that he just committed/there isn't that much info out there so if you're best guess is that negative I think it's better not to make it. In the past I've also been surprised at the disparaging tone used to describe the coaching recruits get at Cass Tech given that all of us as michigan fans should wake up every morning grateful that coaching staff is where it is
I will say it's a nice change of pace from the last few years to be genuinely surprised at the idea of Michigan losing a recruiting battle for a prospect we want. Seeing LSU and UF on a prospect's offer list seemed like the kiss of death eight months ago.
First off he's a pulitzer prize winning journalist, which doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible that his sources are wrong, but it's a pretty good indication that his work will stand up.
Two, there's a big difference between illegal (what the motor vehicle board was looking for) and against ncaa rules.
They're personalized, that's just rodgers's ring
To be fair to Sparty it'll probably be 1/2 of a big ten championship when all's said and done.
When I was at UofM I tended to like the people I knew from Jersey a lot more than the people I knew from Long Island. How's that for a backhanded compliment?
I like the "he'll make the right choice" part even better
I readily admit that I could be wrong on this, since I'm not doing much to correct any ignorance of the issues involved, but here's my best guess:
Once the letter of intent is signed, both sides are bound by that agreement. If it says, you get free tuition and cost of living to play football at LSU in 2012, and the coach says actually you're going to get to play in 2013 and you have to figure out what you want to do for the next year. The damages are the value of that lost year, but there's also a requirement that you try to mitigate any damages. If all you're worried about is losing a year, and the coach gives you an opportunity to play football and receive free tuition and the cost of living somewhere else in 2012. (i.e. releases you from your LOI and there's another school that will take you) then there aren't really any damages. You could argue that there's a difference between being able to play at LSU and being able to play at LA Tech, but what's the difference? The value of your education? The value of the experience of playing football at an SEC school? If you still were going to be able to play at LSU just a year later then I don't see how you can argue those were your damages.
On the other hand, if you had an agreement to sign a letter of intent, and that gets yanked away from you then there are some very real damages, it would seem to me. Obiovusly, the above situation changes if Porter's signed the LOI and then the coach tells him you will never get to play football at LSU unless you walk on. Then it seems like they're the same situation to me, and damages depend on whether you're able to mitigate, and what exactly the damages are. That's why I brought up in my previous post that a player might try to argue tort instead of contract because it seems like schools can cancel LOI for lots of reasons, but that there might be a better case for emotional distress or some other wrong knowingly caused by the actions of the football coach in cancelling the LOI.
Again, I'm admittedly a little shakier in contracts than some other areas of the law, so that's a best guess.
Yeah, and I guess the question to keep in mind are what the damages are and if the contract was actually breached. I think that where the LOI isn't revoked but the scholarship's delayed a year or something else happens that doesn't breach the parameters of the agreeement (someone can correct me if they think that breaches the contract) then it seems like the case sounds in tort not contracts, and the damages issue becomes much harder to pin down.
In this Hawaii case having an offer and acceptance followed by the school reneging with no other recourse for the player to get a free education/play college football seems like a clearer case of breach of contract. Though who knows if the kid actually would have won, seems like there are so many ways for a school to void a LOI that the promise of one doesn't seem to be worth all that much...
I know it seems like a fine line, and there's probably an argument that the Hawaii case should be the same as the LSU case just because ultimately what's being deprived is the same thing, but at least for Porter they seemed to still be giving him the option of following through on his LOI, just one year later.
Statute of frauds probably wan't a big deal here. As has been noted many times in the oversigning context LOI are only good for one year, and there are many theoretical ways that the contract could come to an end as well (such as leavign the team).
I don't think this is that important though. A few things make the situation unique. He accepted the verbal offer and the coaches told him not to look anywhere else i.e. there was an offer and acceptance. So, this isn't like a player being told he couldn't commit, or didn't have a commitable offer.
And it happened on signing day which means there might have been actual damage done. I would guess that most of the time this sort of thing happens earlier, and the player has other scholarship options making it much tougher to argue there were any real damages. Add in that this was a settlement and there's no precedent here for much of anything.