U of W Not Releasing Redmon

[scoutnwhoops]

According to the Spokesman Review (Spokane, Wash.) the Washington Athletic Department is not going to release Katelan Redmon from her LOI. Her father is quoted in the Spokesman Review as saying there is no way she is going to Washington, zero chance.

This is not good publicity for the athletic department at all. How often do you see a school not release a kid after a coaching change?

[scoutnwhoops]

The truth is the players sign a contract with the university to exchange the cost of their education for their athletic skills to be on display with the school's team.

The unwritten rule I think is, since so many kids choose the school based on the coach that if there is a coaching change, you let the kid go. The thinking behind this is if they don't want to be here, we don't want them here. The counter is they need to honor their agreement and coaching changes is a part of life and in this case the coach did not have any additional years on her existing contract.

The next step is appealing to the NCAA, which I believe the article covers the process in summary. I doubt the NCAA will side with the player on this though. Perhaps after the appeal the school will have proved its point that they could make you sit for a year and lose a year of eligibility... then give the release anyways.

Maybe this goes to show that sometimes waiting until the late signing period is a good thing.

[ifyousayso]

Well if Redmon has to attend her freshman year at UW and then transfer she will get an extra year of hard earned "Free" education. She can have her masters degree in hand with summer school...at no cost.

[scoutnwhoops]

Well if Redmon has to attend her freshman year at UW and then transfer she will get an extra year of hard earned "Free" education. She can have her masters degree in hand with summer school...at no cost.

Someone read the quote to me and it was more along the lines of it being a zero chance of her ever going to Washington, even if not released. She can enroll in another institution but cannot play ball for a year.

It's a tough situation. I hope it works out for both sides. This just reinforces what Glenn wrote in the prospect watch, that kids value the coach in their decision more than many other factors.

[YourCrimsonNightmare]

Practically speaking, if your administration follows a policy of not releasing recruits from LOI's pursuant to a coaching change, then you are just committing recruiting suicide. Good luck for Washington to get the number of good recruits they'd like to get in the future if that is the case. If recruits know that you will be punished by not wanting to play at a school after a coaching change, how many will be willing to take the risk of signing a letter with you, when the deciding factor was in fact the way you connected with the head coach? Some will, but a lot more won't even consider your school in the first place.

Stupid and vindictive decision for Washington. It's one thing if a player has been integrated into the team and then wants to leave. This is another thing entirely. And how will that player respond, knowing that she's being held in bondage to a team after she decided she no longer wanted to join?

[CannonVol]

in the undercurrents here?

Since June Daugherty has taken over the reins at WSU, and there exists a rather heated rivalry between those two schools, is it possible that UW is concerned about Redmon following Daugherty to WSU?

If so, a release with restrictions seems to be a possibility, although if I were the player involved (or in my case, more likely, the parent) I don't think I would be satisfied with any restrictions. Especially if the reason for asking for the release is because of the coaching change.

One other possibility that exists (at least on the men's side) is the route of going to a prep school for a year. This negates the LOI and doesn't result in a loss of a year of eligibility. Does anyone know if there are any restrictions on the women's side that don't exist for the men?

Jim

[likewbb]

Lawyers write clauses in all types of contracts. I've wondered if a player could commit to attend School X based on the Coach being there when the player arrives. Otherwise the commitment is voided.

Yes, we know the NCAA walks, talks and acts within and outside of normal legal contracts. But I don't know why a university would not be willing. Some schools restrict releasing a player to not enroll within the same conference. Tennessee released a player last year without restrictions and she enrolled at Georgia,

All can add many examples of the game of not giving another an edge,of winning and not losing, of gamesmanship, and of just negativity.

[glenn]

I guess I don't understand why people insist that the university assume all the risks. If the player gets hurt, underperforms, loses interest in academics, etc., the university still has to honor the contract. Fact is, the situation at Washington was crystally clear to anyone who followed the program even nominally. And what actually happened was what was assumed would happen. Under such circumstances, as Chris points out, this probably was a situation where the prospect might have waited until the late signing period. Instead, she opts for the "security" of having a scholarship under her belt, but wants to have it both ways.

What about the program and the new coach? They now are faced with the task of replacing this player when the options are not nearly as numerous as when she committed. What about the other members of the signing class who are sticking with their commitment and may have signed, partially based on this prospect's presence in the class? As always, one's decisions may be viewed only in one's own perspective, but the consequences touch many.