BH is leaving...again.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:36 pm

While I wouldn't doubt it, I'll believe it when I see it.

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic30146.php

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:53 pm

Interesting. I am interested to see how this will affect recruits. If the word isn't official until after signing day, then that could make for more dialogue about this.

ImagineSanta · Post by **ImagineSanta** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:02 pm

I'm..I'm..I'm all torn up inside right now. What will we do without BH?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:04 pm

I guess if a coach was to leave at this time of the year, that would probably be the best way to do it. If you announced you were leaving right in the middle of recruiting season, you pretty much screw the program. This way they could, in theory, bring in a solid recruiting class and once they were all signed up and binding, then and only then make it public that you were leaving.

You then probably need to do a whole lot of calls to each recruit to assure them that the next coach will live up to the promises made to them, yada, yada, yada.

I'm not assuming it's true at this point, but it does sound like a plausible scenario.

With the level of criticism other coaches have (rightfully) recieved for their less-than-ethical and bridge-burning activities when leaving one school for another, I suspect that taking the high road to the extent possible is strong in the mind of any up-and-coming coach like Hauck.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:08 pm

First of all, I have no idea how much truth there is to this, but....... if I was a recruit and I signed on Wednesday and Booby resigns on Thursday, and he knew he would be leaving and he did not tell me this I would be seriously pissed!!!

Post by **kmax** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:09 pm

mslacat wrote:First of all, I have no idea how much truth there is to this, but....... if I was a recruit and I signed on Wednesday and Booby resigns on Thursday, and he knew he would be leaving and he did not tell me this I would be seriously pissed!!!

Agreed. Isn't there some precedent with the NCAA of letting kids out of commitments in cases like this? Seems like I've heard of this before.

brucat5 · Post by **brucat5** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:10 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I guess if a coach was to leave at this time of the year, that would probably be the best way to do it. If you announced you were leaving right in the middle of recruiting season, you pretty much screw the program. This way they could, in theory, bring in a solid recruiting class and once they were all signed up and binding, then and only then make it public that you were leaving.

You then probably need to do a whole lot of calls to each recruit to assure them that the next coach will live up to the promises made to them, yada, yada, yada.

I'm not assuming it's true at this point, but it does sound like a plausible scenario.

I wonder if those recruits would be allowed out of their LOI's if they sign and then the coach leaves. Does anyone know if the NCAA has provisions for this sort of situation?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:22 pm

mslacat wrote:First of all, I have no idea how much truth there is to this, but....... if I was a recruit and I signed on Wednesday and Booby resigns on Thursday, and he knew he would be leaving and he did not tell me this I would be seriously pissed!!!

Yep, I agree.

Unless ... they already had the succession plan in place and they promoted from within. Phencie (sp?) as head coach?

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:26 pm

I would be willing to give up the entire recruiting class if Hauck left to UCLA. If that's what it takes.

Alas, he will be here for years and I will have to suffer with one and done in the playoffs.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:28 pm

kmax wrote:
mslacat wrote:First of all, I have no idea how much truth there is to this, but....... if I was a recruit and I signed on Wednesday and Booby resigns on Thursday, and he knew he would be leaving and he did not tell me this I would be seriously pissed!!!
Agreed. Isn't there some precedent with the NCAA of letting kids out of commitments in cases like this? Seems like I've heard of this before.

Once they sign a Letter of Intent they are committed, but the University they have signed with can grant them a release.

Example 1) Pepperdines Basketball Coach quit a couple weeks ago. Two of their fall recruits asked for and just received a release a release and are looking to sign elsewhere. Another example is Oregon State who just fired it's coach and a few of their recruits have asked for a release, but the AD has refused, saying he must protect the programs future.

Post by **rtb** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:28 pm

kmax and brucat5, you guys are on the same page on this one. You both must have hung out recently.

I just looked up the LOI rules with the NCAA and it states:

Is a National Letter of Intent binding if the coach of my sport leaves the institution?

Yes. The National Letter of Intent you signed with an institution is valid if the coach who recruited you leaves the institution with which you signed. When you sign a National Letter of Intent you sign with an institution and not with a coach or a specific team.

Looks like UM could keep all the people that sign, but in most cases I think the precedence set is that the school will release you for this circumstance.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:56 pm

The ONLY good thing about this (if it happens) is that the rest of the staff would stay (I would guess Paulson would get the job) so there would be continuity. Otherwise, the timing would suck.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:17 pm

rtb wrote:kmax and brucat5, you guys are on the same page on this one. You both must have hung out recently.

I just looked up the LOI rules with the NCAA and it states:

Is a National Letter of Intent binding if the coach of my sport leaves the institution?

Yes. The National Letter of Intent you signed with an institution is valid if the coach who recruited you leaves the institution with which you signed. When you sign a National Letter of Intent you sign with an institution and not with a coach or a specific team.
Looks like UM could keep all the people that sign, but in most cases I think the precedence set is that the school will release you for this circumstance.

If a kid feels he's been deceived by a coach who leaves after he's signed the LOI it's probably wise if the school signs the release if requested by the athlete- he/she likely isn't going to all out for the school in that situation.

kstack · Post by **kstack** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:53 pm

Man, I really don't want a UM guy at UCLA, especially someone like Hauck. Now I have to support him,

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:42 pm

mslacat wrote:First of all, I have no idea how much truth there is to this, but....... if I was a recruit and I signed on Wednesday and Booby resigns on Thursday, and he knew he would be leaving and he did not tell me this I would be seriously pissed!!!

I would be too!

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:25 pm

BTW: Even if an a group of athletes were granted a release it still puts them in a tough spot.

Imagine (and again I am using Montana and this rumor as an example with out knowing if any of it is true) I Booby did leave and a fairly decent number (1/3 or more of the class) of recruits asked and received a release. Now kids from California might not have a problem hooking up with new schools, but kids from Montana, Idaho , and maybe even Washington could be screwed. Remember the announcement would come after signing day. How many open scholarships would be available, to your second choices. What if 3 or so Montana kids decided they would rather go to the Cat's if they did not know who the Montana coach was going to be. A month or so ago we could offered a scholarship, but now we have signed our class and might have very few if any scholarships open. Not very many schools recruit Montana it usually comes down to UM, MSU maybe the Idaho schools and that is about it for all but the most talented group.

Even if a school changed coach after signing day and granted releases to those who asked, at that late date there most likely would be very few options for a lot of athletes.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:29 pm

Perhaps I'm naive, but if anyone did the least bit of due-dillegence before making their selection, they would have had to realize there was a very good chance that Hauck wasn't going to be at Montana more than a year or two anyway. I'm not saying there wouldn't be a few upset kids, but I just don't think it would be a huge issue. I believe most kids choose their school for reasons other than the name on the head coach's door.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:30 pm

mslacat wrote:BTW: Even if an a group of athletes were granted a release it still puts them in a tough spot.

Imagine (and again I am using Montana and this rumor as an example with out knowing if any of it is true) I Booby did leave and a fairly decent number (1/3 or more of the class) of recruits asked and received a release. Now kids from California might not have a problem hooking up with new schools, but kids from Montana, Idaho , and maybe even Washington could be screwed. Remember the announcement would come after signing day. How many open scholarships would be available, to your second choices. What if 3 or so Montana kids decided they would rather go to the Cat's if they did not know who the Montana coach was going to be. A month or so ago we could offered a scholarship, but now we have signed our class and might have very few if any scholarships open. Not very many schools recruit Montana it usually comes down to UM, MSU maybe the Idaho schools and that is about it for all but the most talented group.

Even if a school changed coach after signing day and granted releases to those who asked, at that late date there most likely would be very few options for a lot of athletes.

Then they should have signed with the Cats in the first place!

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:35 pm

But most players want to win.......................

Gus · Post by **Gus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:34 pm

...just not in the playoffs