Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailyne ... 27883.html

Could this be the reason nothing is resolved?

Although Ward may not have been surprised by Simmons’ release from North Carolina, there is still much to resolve in terms of his standout player’s future.

“We haven’t heard anything from North Carolina,” Ward said. “It is all over the Internet that Butch Davis said that he was releasing Delvon, but we haven’t got any word from them. Since he went public with it, I guess it is a done deal.”

“Everybody has room for him, trust me,” Ward said. “The schools I know that are involved with Delvon have scholarships open.”

But, North Carolina will still have some say in where Simmons will end up.

Part of the agreement to release Simmons was that Davis and his staff could potentially veto his selection.

After Simmons and Ward met with Davis earlier this month, the pair presented North Carolina with a list of schools, which are now considered his finalists. All of those programs are non-competing schools with the Tar Heels.

As of Wednesday, Ward had not heard back from Davis in regards to the list.

Hopefully North Carolina just really wants Simmons to be a Duck

I don't see any school on his possible list that really would cause significant conflicts with UNC since none are in the ACC or on the UNC schedule any time soon.

Schools should never have a say on were a kid chooses to transfer.

Boom wrote:Schools should never have a say on were a kid chooses to transfer.

Why shouldn't they? He signed a binding letter of intent to accept an athletic scholarship from UNC.

I'm not suggesting that this situation is entirely Simmons' fault, but to say that the school shouldn't have any rights in the matter isn't fair either. As soon Simmons put pen to that LOI he became a member of the UNC football team, and thus could have been privy to information (tape, playbooks, conversations with coaches, etc.) about competitiveness and strategy.

The school should at least have the right to look out for its own best interest since, technically it doesn't HAVE to release Simmons from that scholarship.

Now, if you want to get into the REALLY nitty gritty, it sounds pretty likely that there was some 'misinformation' (at best, probably closer to flat out lies) given to Simmons about his position coach, so if he wanted to make it a REALLY big deal to go to a school UNC would have otherwise not approved of, he would likely have a case in court if he could prove that he was purposely 'misinformed', BUT in general, I disagree with the notion that the school shouldn't be able to look out for its own well being with regards to a member of the team's future...

I do not have a problem with UNC having a say in where he can go. It should be limited to teams that would be in direct competition in the upcoming year only though. As pointed out, they do not have to grant the release, but should IMO.

glazeduck wrote:

Boom wrote:Schools should never have a say on were a kid chooses to transfer.

Why shouldn't they? He signed a binding letter of intent to accept an athletic scholarship from UNC.

I'm not suggesting that this situation is entirely Simmons' fault, but to say that the school shouldn't have any rights in the matter isn't fair either. As soon Simmons put pen to that LOI he became a member of the UNC football team, and thus could have been privy to information (tape, playbooks, conversations with coaches, etc.) about competitiveness and strategy.

The school should at least have the right to look out for its own best interest since, technically it doesn't HAVE to release Simmons from that scholarship.

Now, if you want to get into the REALLY nitty gritty, it sounds pretty likely that there was some 'misinformation' (at best, probably closer to flat out lies) given to Simmons about his position coach, so if he wanted to make it a REALLY big deal to go to a school UNC would have otherwise not approved of, he would likely have a case in court if he could prove that he was purposely 'misinformed', BUT in general, I disagree with the notion that the school shouldn't be able to look out for its own well being with regards to a member of the team's future...

Considering he hasn't even practiced with the team yet.... I really doubt that he could give an opposing team a competitive advantage. College teams already have access to all of the film anyways.... and after some scouting... you can get an idea of what there playbook is and what they like to run.

Besides this is cfb not the united states military... the NCAA already has a mandated 1 year sit out rule to discourage transfers.

The only time I think it's appropriate to block a school is if they were illegally recruiting him after the kid already signed.

Otherwise the Universities should allow the kids to pursue the best opportunity for themselves.

If teams can have coaches lure kids to the program with them thinking this great guy is going to be coaching me for the next fews years then that coach bails for greener pastures then kids should be able to leave and go wherever they want.

If/when Simmons is actually released from his LOI, he does not have to sit out a season, as it will not count as an actual transfer unless he attends a enrolls/attends UNC first.

What may happen is that things are delayed long enough to prevent him from signing with another program, forcing him to obtain an "academic aid" agreement, which lacks some of the advantages of a full ride scholarship. IIRC,that is how Masoli originally arrived on campus with the Ducks.

Boom wrote:

glazeduck wrote:

Boom wrote:Schools should never have a say on were a kid chooses to transfer.

Why shouldn't they? He signed a binding letter of intent to accept an athletic scholarship from UNC.

I'm not suggesting that this situation is entirely Simmons' fault, but to say that the school shouldn't have any rights in the matter isn't fair either. As soon Simmons put pen to that LOI he became a member of the UNC football team, and thus could have been privy to information (tape, playbooks, conversations with coaches, etc.) about competitiveness and strategy.

The school should at least have the right to look out for its own best interest since, technically it doesn't HAVE to release Simmons from that scholarship.

Now, if you want to get into the REALLY nitty gritty, it sounds pretty likely that there was some 'misinformation' (at best, probably closer to flat out lies) given to Simmons about his position coach, so if he wanted to make it a REALLY big deal to go to a school UNC would have otherwise not approved of, he would likely have a case in court if he could prove that he was purposely 'misinformed', BUT in general, I disagree with the notion that the school shouldn't be able to look out for its own well being with regards to a member of the team's future...

Considering he hasn't even practiced with the team yet.... I really doubt that he could give an opposing team a competitive advantage. College teams already have access to all of the film anyways.... and after some scouting... you can get an idea of what there playbook is and what they like to run.

Besides this is cfb not the united states military... the NCAA already has a mandated 1 year sit out rule to discourage transfers.

The only time I think it's appropriate to block a school is if they were illegally recruiting him after the kid already signed.

Otherwise the Universities should allow the kids to pursue the best opportunity for themselves.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but these kids are VERY knowledgeable about the process and understand that their Letter of Intent is a binding contract. By that very definition, and by virtue of the fact that the kids signing the contract thoroughly understand that definition, the school needs at least SOME rights retained. Take away those rights and you'll open up a lot of other cans of worms that the NCAA doesn't want. You think recruiting is dirty now?

Imagine if there was nothing keeping Lache here, or Taj Boyd at Clemson. You can bet that star recruits not seeing immediate playing time will be quietly contacted about better opportunities from all over the place, likely as or even more persistently than high school kids are recruited. You'd have these highly touted recruits pulling Carmello Anthony stuff and forcing schools to play them or risk them leaving to a rival.

Is it a perfect system? No. Is it maintaining a semblance of control? If you assume the above examples really aren't that far-fetched in the world that you're suggesting, I think it's doing a decent job.

I think the bottom line is that when teams recruit, they're making investments. When they land a recruit, it's the investment paying off. It needs to be looked at as an acquired asset that they have the right to protect.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but these kids are VERY knowledgeable about the process and understand that their Letter of Intent is a binding contract. By that very definition, and by virtue of the fact that the kids signing the contract thoroughly understand that definition, the school needs at least SOME rights retained. Take away those rights and you'll open up a lot of other cans of worms that the NCAA doesn't want. You think recruiting is dirty now?

So it's ok for a coach to get close to a kid telling him he's looking forward to caoching him for the next few year just to bail on him right after they get his signature? I agree that there should be something in place to deter these kids from jumping ship everytime they don't get their way but there also should be some protection involved when schools decieve them into signing with them.

JTinKC wrote:

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but these kids are VERY knowledgeable about the process and understand that their Letter of Intent is a binding contract. By that very definition, and by virtue of the fact that the kids signing the contract thoroughly understand that definition, the school needs at least SOME rights retained. Take away those rights and you'll open up a lot of other cans of worms that the NCAA doesn't want. You think recruiting is dirty now?

So it's ok for a coach to get close to a kid telling him he's looking forward to caoching him for the next few year just to bail on him right after they get his signature? I agree that there should be something in place to deter these kids from jumping ship everytime they don't get their way but there also should be some protection involved when schools decieve them into signing with them.

No it is not, that is why he should be granted the release from his LOI!

JTinKC wrote:

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but these kids are VERY knowledgeable about the process and understand that their Letter of Intent is a binding contract. By that very definition, and by virtue of the fact that the kids signing the contract thoroughly understand that definition, the school needs at least SOME rights retained. Take away those rights and you'll open up a lot of other cans of worms that the NCAA doesn't want. You think recruiting is dirty now?

So it's ok for a coach to get close to a kid telling him he's looking forward to caoching him for the next few year just to bail on him right after they get his signature? I agree that there should be something in place to deter these kids from jumping ship everytime they don't get their way but there also should be some protection involved when schools decieve them into signing with them.

No it's not ok for that to happen, but the onus cannot be placed completely on the kid OR the coach.

The kid needs to be doing his homework, asking the right questions, and when all is said and done, making his decision based on the totality of things, INCLUDING who his position coach is currently and the likelihood of that staying that way for his college career. I have no inside information on whether that UNC coach completely lied to him or if Simmons simply didn't ask the question, the fact of the matter is he chose to go to UNC.

As I said in my initial response, if he had some proof that UNC outrightly lied to him about this, then he'd have a good court case on his hands if he weren't granted a full release. I agree with that premise, but failing some watertight evidence to that, you have to assume that both parties were at least somewhat responsible. It's ironic to me that we were supposedly his choice the night before NLI day and some of our coaches have been together for decades, he ditches us for another school and his position coach is gone the week later.

I am, in no way arguing FOR UNC here. The kid chose them based on what he perceived his circumstances to be, those circumstances almost instantaneously changed, and now he wants a do-over. I understand all of that and have sympathy for him, all I'm arguing, is that because he signed his letter of intent with UNC, they deserve to have some control over his next move. Like it or not, thats how the world works.

No it's not ok for that to happen, but the onus cannot be placed completely on the kid OR the coach.

The kid needs to be doing his homework, asking the right questions, and when all is said and done, making his decision based on the totality of things, INCLUDING who his position coach is currently and the likelihood of that staying that way for his college career. I have no inside information on whether that UNC coach completely lied to him or if Simmons simply didn't ask the question, the fact of the matter is he chose to go to UNC.


As I said in my initial response, if he had some proof that UNC outrightly lied to him about this, then he'd have a good court case on his hands if he weren't granted a full release. I agree with that premise, but failing some watertight evidence to that, you have to assume that both parties were at least somewhat responsible. It's ironic to me that we were supposedly his choice the night before NLI day and some of our coaches have been together for decades, he ditches us for another school and his position coach is gone the week later.

I am, in no way arguing FOR UNC here. The kid chose them based on what he perceived his circumstances to be, those circumstances almost instantaneously changed, and now he wants a do-over. I understand all of that and have sympathy for him, all I'm arguing, is that because he signed his letter of intent with UNC, they deserve to have some control over his next move. Like it or not, thats how the world works.


It's obvious that these kids should be doing ther homework but there's only so much that they can do. Who cares if the kids didn't ask that question? Obviously Simmons felt decieved or he wouldn't be bailing before he gets started. The coaches that recruit these kids develope relationships that are a big part of why they may choose to go somewhere.

Which is why (supposedly) the school is allowing him out of his LOI.