Semi-OT: Marist Sues Brady/JMU over recruiting

xjohnx

Original Gangster
Elite Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Posts
8,773
Likes
7,696
Kind of off topic, although not too far from situations we've experienced at VCU, so I'm putting it in the main forum.

http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details ... 484&CHID=3

Last winter, I got a call from a friend covering the Super Bowl. Another reporter, he said, had told him that a high-ranking Marist official had recently remarked, off the record, that the little Hudson Valley school was still itching to file a lawsuit against Matt Brady.

Odd, I thought. We knew that Marist President Dennis Murray had written a letter to JMU President Linwood Rose several months earlier concerning Brady's recruitment of players he had originally tried to woo to the Red Foxes. But nearly a year had passed since Madison had hired Brady as its men's basketball coach, in March 2008, and it seemed unlikely that Marist was still mulling a suit.

Turns out, the folks in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., were not only mulling - they were seething.

If anything is clear from the comments of Marist officials since their lawsuit against Brady - and JMU - became public last week, it's that they have a severe case of hurt feelings. Not only did Brady abandon them, but, according to the lawsuit, Madison also spurned Marist's repeated attempts to settle the dispute.
 
Ultimately, this will hurt Marist more than Brady or JMU. What young, up and coming coach will want to coach at Marist knowing that they'll put this clause in their contract and could possibly sue him? Personally if the recruit hasn't signed a LOI I think he's fair game. I totally understand not allowing a signed player to de-commit and join Brady. But they're not evening talking about verbals, they're saying Brady can't re-recruit players who never committed on any level? Doesn't make sense.
 
I won't lie, I live for this stuff... 8-)

I commented on the JMU board about JMU's liability:

"Under Sec. 766 of the Restatement (2nd) of Torts, I really like Marist's chances to recover (and for policy reasons, I wish they did recover) for the original inducement in contacting Brady to come to JMU without first asking consent of the school. Its a pretty textbook tortuous interference with contract. Cases like this are almost never filed in this context, but perhaps Marist is trying to usher in a new era of contract adherence when it comes to the 'courting of coaches.' JMU could have asked for permission to speak with Brady and absolved themselves from liability from interference from the start.

Frankly, I applaud Marist for actually doing something about a practice that has long been subject to civil liability. Of course, it will probably hurt them in the first place. If JMU is smart, they will follow Robert Vaughn's advice on the commercial and say 'let's settle this one.' If it goes the distance, it could re-write best practices for the college coaching search."

*insert 'I-am-not-a-lawyer' boilerplate language here*
 
Mistachill said:
Ultimately, this will hurt Marist more than Brady or JMU. What young, up and coming coach will want to coach at Marist knowing that they'll put this clause in their contract and could possibly sue him? Personally if the recruit hasn't signed a LOI I think he's fair game. I totally understand not allowing a signed player to de-commit and join Brady. But they're not evening talking about verbals, they're saying Brady can't re-recruit players who never committed on any level? Doesn't make sense.

If it goes forward, I think we will then see the courts get into what the legal definition of 'recruiting' is and whether they adhere to the statutory principles set forth through NCAA bylaw 13.02.3 and therefore make any 'contact' mean 'recruiting' or whether they might extend or limit recruiting based on some new multi-factor test. A more conservative court would probably adhere to already established definitions of recruiting set forth under Art. 13 while a more liberal court might listen to the facts a little bit more to decide for themselves if that definition is too unlimited or too narrow.

*again with the 'i am not a lawyer' language*
 
DickLawRam said:
'i am not a lawyer' language*

why don't you just abbreviate it? IANAL.

edit: nevermind, i was just informed that this is an actual REAL abbreviation, which makes my sophomoric joke much less funny.

damnit.
 
I am aware of IANAL but frankly didnt want to hear you buzzards swarm all over it with your 'balloon knot' humor. :lol: :lol:
 
regarding recruiting LOIs... I wonder what difference it would make re:tortuous interference when the contract at issue may be voidable since at least some recruits may not yet be 18 (or what would count as reaffirming the K since turning 18)

and no, I'm not gonna go try and look it up right now, because I'm taking the freakin bar exam tomorrow freakin morning :shock: ...hopefully ianal for not too much longer :?

...and no, I really shouldn't be on here at the moment :geek:
 
Godspeed Art! I have been watching the 3Ls freak out for months while working at my clinic. I am sure you will be ready!
 
Back
Top