Saddiq Moore & Jace Whiting

[kcoolhand]

Coaching staff pulled his scholarship because they felt he wasn’t good enough based on his high school season

I'm not sure about this, but a scholarship is a one year commitment by both the player and the school. Once the letter of intent has been signed, both the school and the player are obligated to honor that commitment (hence scholarship) for one year.

If both the player and the school agree it is in the best interest of both the player and the school, then by mutual agreement [assuming all conditions of the contract are still met] the school and player will no longer be required to honor the contract.

The coaching staff could not just decide they will not honor the contract made by the letter of intent if the player does not agree to it. The school and player are obligated to honor the contract unless it is mutually agreed to by both parties to cancel it.

If somebody with greater knowledge on this than I could comment, it would be appreciated.

 

[oldrunner]

team rosters can be at 15 all on scholarship). Would I be shocked if another guy joined the team? No.

That is all up in the air right now. The way I understood it was that you still would have the 13 grants, but would be able to split them, like they do in football, to get to a max of 15 roster spots. The kicker on that is that schools who have the NIL money could possibly make up the difference with that additional money. To me, that is still 15 scholarship spots, just a backwards way to get there. That is all contingent on how all of the court cases shake out. It could end up giving the schools more control of the NIL processes and money. Right now, the whole NIL process is supposed to be outside of the University's umbrella.

 

[BigWaldO]

I'm not sure about this, but a scholarship is a one year commitment by both the player and the school. Once the letter of intent has been signed, both the school and the player are obligated to honor that commitment (hence scholarship) for one year.

If both the player and the school agree it is in the best interest of both the player and the school, then by mutual agreement [assuming all conditions of the contract are still met] the school and player will no longer be required to honor the contract.

The coaching staff could not just decide they will not honor the contract made by the letter of intent if the player does not agree to it. The school and player are obligated to honor the contract unless it is mutually agreed to by both parties to cancel it.

If somebody with greater knowledge on this than I could comment, it would be appreciated.

You are absolutely correct but most of you think too literal. All of this stuff comes down to conversations, ethical and a lot of unethical dealings (if you don’t think this staff breaks compliance rules then you are naive to college sports). They can convince you to void your signing. If the staff tells you that you aren’t good enough anymore and won’t play you will obviously agree and relinquish your scholarship. Same with the Nigel Burris situation except he is deciding to stay. Staying gives the staff all the reason to impact the players development in a negative way, basically not help them at all. For a young player like Melchi it matters more than the senior Burris.

LCA’s head coach isn’t dumb either, he coached under Rick Pitino. He isn’t going to subject his player to potential abuse if Melchi held the staff hostage and stayed.

My thoughts are if Melchi was a bad recruit why did they offer him and why should we trust their evaluation of these other players. How many of our other players under Dufts tenure have “panned” out over a full career (excluding Dillon)?