Pulling a Scholarship Offer

[DontHateOState]

An incredibly dumb thing to do for EMU. Mentor is a school that always puts out some MAC level talent. To make them mad is just stupid. They won't send another kid there as long as Trivisonno coaches.

 

[Jake]

Eastern Michigan plans to give Pike's scholarship to a junior college player who would be ready to play next fall, Trivisonno said. Pike (6-3, 225) likely would be a redshirt freshman and sit out his first year.

"It's unbelievable, but that's why they don't win," Trivisonno said.

I understand the frustration but I think it's more a question of the current coach at EMU is feeling pressure to turn the program around NOW, not later. Otherwise, he won't be there when a redshirt freshman is ready to play. He's not in a position to go 2-9 next year, assuming he doesn't get canned after this year, so he's going the JUCO route.

Sucks for the Mentor kid but that's the business side of college football.

 

[sepia5]

Good stuff, thanks for the reply. My final question is, if the offer of an athletic scholarship were given equal treatment as an employment offer, would there be any different? In other words, are employers allowed to have this kind of leverage in the labor market?

Most employment contracts are "at will" contracts, meaning, generally, either party can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason, even after performance on the employment contract has begun (some contracts do have guarantees in them, for instance, that the employee will not be terminated without the occurrence of some defined malfeasance). But what you're asking is whether an employer can make an "offer" to a prospective employee that it could then turn around rescind anytime prior to the start of performance on the employment contract, without legal penalty.

Technically, I don't see why an employer couldn't do this, but, practically speaking, I don't know why an employer would want to send a prospective employee such an offer. The irrationality of such an act is actually pretty telling when considered against the EMU recruitment story that precipitated this thread. Why would an employer want to go through the process and expend the energy and resources it takes to find qualified employees, and then not try to lock them down with an employment contract (even if the prospect of better employee candidates was ever-present)? And if employers were sending out non-binding offers like this, why would any prospective employee ever take the measures necessary to accept the offer (e.g. relocate, quit the job he already has, etc.) if the employer could then rescind the offer without warning or penalty?

Similarly, why would prospective recruits with other offers want to choose EMU when stories like this are publicized? EMU isn't tOSU, USC, or Florida, so I can hardly see how it can afford to pull stunts like this (and I'm not sure those more heralded programs would want to do so either).

 

[sparcboxbuck]

Either way it has to be rough on this kid. I hope that he lands somewhere in the MAC and has his opportunity to show EMU the huge mistake they made.

[ame="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4fbox_ive-made-a-huge-mistake_fun"]Dailymotion - Ive made a huge mistake, a video from alexis711. ad, gob, michael[/ame]

(you may need to click the title at the top)

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

But what you're asking is whether an employer can make an "offer" to a prospective employee that it could then turn around rescind anytime prior to the start of performance on the employment contract, without legal penalty.

Actually I'm asking the opposite, which is whether there is any legal basis for the non-binding nature of athletic scholarship offers. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be that if both sides provides value, have the capacity to enter into an contract and do into a contract, then no matter what the ink says on the offer, it is a contract. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. The university is definitely offering something of value in the way of a free education for the prospective athlete. The athlete reciprocates by forgoing time that he or she could have spent on extra income in order to become the athlete that the coach is project him or her to become, before and after the formal acceptance was made. When these considerations have been exchanged, a contractual relationship would have already been entered, which is true regardless of what the coach or the university wants to call it. And there have been many cases where terms explicitly stated on a contract are deemed invalid by the court even after the contractual relationship has been formed. I'm wondering if this one of these cases.

 

[sepia5]

Actually I'm asking the opposite, which is whether there is any legal basis for the non-binding nature of athletic scholarship offers. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be that if both sides provides value, have the capacity to enter into an contract and do into a contract, then no matter what the ink says on the offer, it is a contract. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. The university is definitely offering something of value in the way of a free education for the prospective athlete. The athlete reciprocates by forgoing time that he or she could have spent on extra income in order to become the athlete that the coach is project him or her to become, before and after the formal acceptance was made. When these considerations have been exchanged, a contractual relationship would have already been entered, which is true regardless of what the coach or the university wants to call it. And there have been many cases where terms explicitly stated on a contract are deemed invalid by the court even after the contractual relationship has been formed. I'm wondering if this one of these cases.

The bolded part is where you're going askew (from a legal standpoint, anyway--certainly not from a moral standpoint). The university actually isn't giving anything. Its end of the "bargain" is nothing more than what is referred to as an illusory promise since the face of the offer allows it to choose not to honor its promise at any time prior to signing day. In other words, even though it looks like there is valuable consideration on the university's end, there legally is no consideration there, so there is no contract. To use your language, it doesn't look like a duck to a court.

At that point, when it is understood there is no contract and you start talking about the losses the student athlete has incurred in reliance of the so-called promise, you're talking about an alternative form of recovery in equity (as opposed to in law). But to recover damages under this theory would necessarily require the student athlete to show he reasonably relied on the university's representations in taking the preparatory actions he did. That would be very difficult to do, considering the offer they sent him expressly said it was non-binding.

I'm not saying that I don't feel bad for the kid, or that I in any way justify what the program did to him, just that he wouldn't have a remedy in the courts.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Its end of the "bargain" is nothing more than what is referred to as an illusory promise since the face of the offer allows it to choose not to honor its promise at any time prior to signing day.

Would it still be an illusory promise if the underlying condition asks something of value from the athlete, which is that they must keep their academic and athletic standings for the offer to hold? To me, the act of asking for something from the athlete in itself is an admission that something of value has been rendered in return, and that is the option of the student athlete to sign the dotted line on NSD.

 

[sepia5]

Would it still be an illusory promise if the underlying condition asks something of value from the athlete, which is that they must keep their academic and athletic standings for the offer to hold? To me, the act of asking for something from the athlete in itself is an admission that something of value has been rendered in return, and that is the option of the student athlete to sign the dotted line on NSD.

Yes, because the illusion of a promise is on the university's side of the bargain, not the student athlete's side. If the university expressly promised to hold the scholarship if the student athlete kept his grades at a certain level, that would probably work. But the university obviously hasn't made that promise since it expressly said the offer was non-binding and freely rescindable.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Yes, because the illusion of a promise is on the university's side of the bargain, not the student athlete's side. If the university expressly promised to hold the scholarship if the student athlete kept his grades at a certain level, that would probably work. But the university obviously hasn't made that promise since it expressly said the offer was non-binding and freely rescindable.

If someone contracts a builder to construct his house for a determined monetary value, but beforehand, tells the builder that he has the option not to pay upon the completion of the house, and in fact does not pay, would his argument hold up in court on the basis that the agreement was expressly non-binding?

 

[Oh8ch]

`

That would be very difficult to do, considering the offer they sent him expressly said it was non-binding.

Long time since I studied contract law, but that is really the key - the specifics of the "agreement".

If the school didn't include language that addressed contingencies they would be subject to taking kids who committed felonies, lost limbs, gained 200 pounds or failed the SAT.

Without knowing the details of how this works I have to believe it is along the lines of preliminary negotiations the same as in any business leading up to a signed contract.

I can invite a building contractor out to my home for estimates and make statements to him leading him to believe I will sign a contract - but the very existence of a future contract waiting to be signed is evidence that we have not yet come to a binding agreement.

If the so called verbal was binding the LOI would be redundant.

And for all our talk about how unfair this is to the kids there are about 100 stories of kids changing their minds for every story about a school pulling a ship. And these changes of mind can have significant impact on schools recruiting plans with accompanying damages. Offers and verbals are not binding contracts and that they have not been treated as such by either party in any instance I am aware of is further evidence that something more formal is anticipated by both parties.

 

[sepia5]

If someone contracts a builder to construct his house for a determined monetary value, but beforehand, tells the builder that he has the option not to pay upon the completion of the house, and in fact does not pay, would his argument hold up in court on the basis that the agreement was expressly non-binding?

I dunno, probably. But why in the world would the builder build the house without a firm promise from the owner to pay? That's really the point.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

I dunno, probably. But why in the world would the builder build the house without a firm promise from the owner to pay? That's really the point.

That is the point, but in a different way than you see it. In the example of the contractor, he has the choice to go to someone else who is able to offer a contract in expressed language. The student athlete does not have the choice to do that, because every university is given the option by the NCAA to not go through with extending the offer on NSD. In practice, that is not a big deal because few coaches are willing to put up with the moral backlash, but in theory, that is exactly like mandating homeowners the option not to pay the people who build their houses. I don't believe this is lawful.

 

[NightmaresDad]

Either way it has to be rough on this kid. I hope that he lands somewhere in the MAC and has his opportunity to show EMU the huge mistake they made.

Dailymotion - Ive made a huge mistake, a video from alexis711. ad, gob, michael

(you may need to click the title at the top)

They must have edited out the scUM AD in that clip.

I'm sure he's been saying the same thing this year.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

They must have edited out the scUM AD in that clip.

I'm sure he's been saying the same thing this year.

True dat.

 

[jwinslow]

I don't speak legal-ease, but this whole thing seems grossly "overtalked", tb.

The school can screw the player like EMU, and pull the scholarship. Teams avoid this without justification (grades, visiting, wrongdoing) because they will smear their name. Sometimes those incidents let them drop a kid they feel they should not have offered, but they are still legitimate excuses. They don't drop a kid because he wouldn't do his chores.

The player can screw the school like endless kids do on signing day (and before), and not honor their oral commitment and sign with someone else. A player can do this as much as his talent will allow.

The player has a lot more protecting himself from being screwed than vice versa. Kids back out all the time, schools very rarely do so without just cause, or they land all over the news and creating an uproar, like here.

In practice, that is not a big deal because few coaches are willing to put up with the moral backlash, but in theory, that is exactly like mandating homeowners the option not to pay the people who build their houses.

This whole example is poor. They haven't started construction yet. It's the backlash of scheduling (ie setting aside time for) construction but knowing nothing is final until a contract is signed many months later.

The school/owner is sending out offers to build their program/house. Many players/contractors respond, talk details, and some may even commit/agree during their talks, but it's all non-binding until a loi/contract is signed.

The example is further flawed in that the contractor is the one who must continue to connect with owners, which is backwards from the NCAA example.