'10 CA QB Chase Rettig

#1,076
#1,076
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Based on what I know, yes. We have a board and we want people to commit in that order if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking this does not make sense. If the offer is firm in writing. And both parties suffer a legal detriment once committed it is binding. The only thing I can think of is courts have decided choosing which school is not a legal detriment.
 
#1,077
#1,077
Jewbaccah said:
Legally speaking this does not make sense. If the offer is firm in writing. And both parties suffer a legal detriment once committed it is binding. The only thing I can think of is courts have decided choosing which school is not a legal detriment.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is a legal binding document is the LOI. A written offer just means that IF the school accepts a verbal commitment from you to play ball, then they will try and hold a spot for you. A written offer doesn't mean anything until NSD.
 
#1,078
#1,078
matts42012volfan said:
Dont we look stupid now....
Click to expand...


Nature of the beast, especially at this position. Obviously he was not at the top of our board at the time, but might have been later in the process. I still think this will be a tough spot to fill until these kids see a product on the field to judge by. Right now it would be risky, early playing time or not (for the player that is). IMO, which is all it is. Crompton's season this year will go a long way toward give us better options at QB. National perception of our QB's right now is extremely low, a good solid year by Jon or Nick could change that.
 
#1,079
#1,079
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The only thing that is a legal binding document is the LOI. A written offer just means that IF the school accepts a verbal commitment from you to play ball, then they will try and hold a spot for you. A written offer doesn't mean anything until NSD.
Click to expand...

So on the face of the offer it says somewhere that it is this way. I think I understand as long as an offer had wording that negates it actually being a legal "offer."
 
#1,080
#1,080
Jewbaccah said:
So on the face of the offer it says somewhere that it is this way. I think I understand as long as an offer had wording that negates it actually being a legal "offer."
Click to expand...

It's not a "contract" type document until the LOI is signed. Then the student is guaranteed a spot and financial aid, considering the school accepts them. The offer just means that they would accept a verbal commitment at some point in time.
 
#1,084
#1,084
Jewbaccah said:
If the offer is written can we still say no? Assuming it is accepted before revoked.
Click to expand...
There are provisions in the offer that give us an out in several different circumstances. If we get a number of guys at the position, if there is some sort of behavior issue with the prospect, or if the prospect's performance drops below a certain level. There are usually more, but those are the most common ones.

g8terh8ter_eric said:
Based on what I know, yes. We have a board and we want people to commit in that order if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...
There is no board like that. I have to get you Meat Market to read.
 
#1,085
#1,085
Sabanocchio said:
There is no board like that. I have to get you Meat Market to read.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, if there's not a board then we would have taken a commitment from Hendrix in May. The goal is to go down the list and get the top guys to commit before the lower ranked guys if possible. Plus, I would say that the coaches would prefer certain positional commits before others, especially if it's a position of need. That's my understanding or it. They do have a war room with such a board in it, if I have been told correctly.
 
#1,089
#1,089
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Wait a minute, if there's not a board then we would have taken a commitment from Hendrix in May. The goal is to go down the list and get the top guys to commit before the lower ranked guys if possible. Plus, I would say that the coaches would prefer certain positional commits before others, especially if it's a position of need. That's my understanding or it. They do have a war room with such a board in it, if I have been told correctly.
Click to expand...

I think you are both correct. I read some of the offers the link provided(thanks by the way) and if the position is filled then that would mean on the board it says we are taking two for example. If two have accepted then you no longer have an offer.
 
#1,090
#1,090
Jewbaccah said:
I think you are both correct. I read some of the offers the link provided(thanks by the way) and if the position is filled then that would mean on the board it says we are taking two for example. If two have accepted then you no longer have an offer.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true. You still have the offer, it's just not one you can commit with at that point.
 
#1,094
#1,094
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Wait a minute, if there's not a board then we would have taken a commitment from Hendrix in May. The goal is to go down the list and get the top guys to commit before the lower ranked guys if possible. Plus, I would say that the coaches would prefer certain positional commits before others, especially if it's a position of need. That's my understanding or it. They do have a war room with such a board in it, if I have been told correctly.
Click to expand...

The big board is not a board of what order we want people to commit in.
 
#1,095
#1,095
There is some sort of board or pecking order or something. Hendrix was not allowed to commit even though he was offered. Heaps would have been allowed. The staff likes Rees better than Rettig. Rees was offered first...
 
#1,096
#1,096
Jewbaccah said:
In legal terms that means you do not have an offer.
Click to expand...

there is nothing legal about recruiting at all. nothing

recruits can change commitments and do (about 15% per year.)

Coaches can drop commitments or LOI signings and do (see CPF with DeShaun Barnes)

Coaches can direct committed players elsewhere and do (See CLK during last class).

Coaches can refuse tot ake commitments and do..

Nothing legal. now maybe you were jerking Eric's chain. :)
 
#1,098
#1,098
LWSVOL said:
there is nothing legal about recruiting at all. nothing

recruits can change commitments and do (about 15% per year.)

Coaches can drop commitments or LOI signings and do (see CPF with DeShaun Barnes)

Coaches can direct committed players elsewhere and do (See CLK during last class).

Coaches can refuse tot ake commitments and do..

Nothing legal. now maybe you were jerking Eric's chain. :)
Click to expand...

Are you saying coaches are above the law?:eek:hmy:

Half jerking/Half just trying to figure out how the system works
 
#1,099
#1,099
Back to Rettig just a reminder for those who think he is going to BC,

Does Rettig have a favorite?

“I would have to say Tennessee,” Rettig said. “It’s such a good fit for me, the offense and I are a perfect fit. I have a stronger relationship with this coaching staff than anyone else.”
 
#1,100
#1,100
Jewbaccah said:
Are you saying coaches are above the law?:eek:hmy:

Half jerking/Half just trying to figure out how the system works
Click to expand...

The offer/contract can't be signed until February based on the NCAA rules and the language of the offer. Based on the language that I read in the contracts on the qbforce website, it is very explicit that the offeror (UT/coaches) retains the ability to revoke at any point prior to acceptance (signing). Similarly, the offeree (recruit) can revoke his oral acceptance at any time prior to acceptance. This follows standard contract law.

Considering that the bar is two weeks away, I should be able to do a much a better job of laying out the requirements. But since I spend so much damn time on here, it looks like I'm destined to be nothing more than a paralegal with a JD.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top