The ruling in the Marist v. Matt Brady case may end up hurting recruits the most

In March of 2008, Matt Brady, then the coach of the Marist Red Foxes of the MAAC, left the Poughkeepsie, NY, school for the head job at James Madison University. (Random Note: I was working at the Poughkeepsie Journal during my last semester in college at this time.) Brady landed a five-man recruiting class in his first year at JMU. Four of those players -- 6'10" center Trevon Flores, 6'9" power forward Alvin Brown, 6'7" small forward Andrey Semenov, and 6'6" small forward Julius Wells -- he recruited while still at Marist, and Semenov had actually verbally committed to the school.

Usually, there is nothing wrong with this. It is actually a common practice. I've said this before and I'll say it again, college basketball recruits aren't choosing schools based on the education they will receive. They pick a school based on the coach. If that coach gets a better job, and he wants to bring along the players he had been recruiting, there is a good chance they will tag along.

But this was a problem for Brady.

Matt Brad brought four players to JMU he recruited while at Marist. This violated his contract.
(photo credit: Boston.com)

You see, Brady was replacing Dave Magarity, who had spent 18 years at the helm of the Red Foxes. Marist didn't want to become a program that coaches used as a stepping stone; they wanted some longevity and a commitment to the school and the program. So when Brady negotiated a contract in 2007, Marist added two clauses to try and deter him from jumping when a better job came along.

• Brady was not allowed to negotiate a contract with another university or leave for that position without written permission from Marist.


• Brady was also not allowed to continue recruiting any kids that he had recruited while at Marist.
  

It doesn't take Stephen Hawking to figure out that Brady breached his contract in his dealings with JMU and his first recruiting class.

So as any employer would do to an employee in breach of contract, Marist sued Brady and JMU last July. For those more fluent in Legalese than me, the Sports Law Blog explains it like this:

In its complaint, Marist alleged that Brady, with JMU’s full knowledge and encouragement, contacted Marist recruits in order to entice them to join JMU’s basketball team. The complaint also alleged that JMU offered scholarships to four of the Marist basketball recruits who were on The List. One of those recruits had already committed to play for Marist. JMU moved to dismiss the case on a number of grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Believe it or not, Marist actually won. Earlier today, New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood ruled in favor of Marist:

Judge Wood found that Marist had properly stated the existence of a valid contract with a third party, (the) defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional and improper procuring of a breach, and damages. The judge noted Marist's claims that Brady had an enforceable contract in effect when he discussed leaving Marist to coach at JMU, that JMU knew of the contract's existence, that JMU intentionally induced Brady to violate his fiduciary obligations under the contract, and that Marist suffered damages as a result of the breach of those obligation.

Court will reconvene of July 26th as actual damages will be assessed. Its tough to determine exactly how much damages in this situation are, but think about this: Marist made the 2007 NIT the year they award Brady with his four year contract. This past season, they went 1-29. One of the players Brady recruited -- Julius Wells -- averaged 16.6 ppg and 5.2 rpg for the Dukes.

You think he could have helped Marist?

Julius Wells was recruited by Brady at Marist.
(photo credit: Basketball Forum)

For those in and around the world of collegiate athletics, this will be interesting to follow. Most of the reaction you will see likely is going to center around contract enforcement. Coaches leave midway through contracts all the time when a better job becomes available. The reason that most don't go to court is because buyouts are incorporated into the contract.

But what you need to remember is that Marist didn't sue because Brady left. They sued because Brady snagged one committed recruit and three other players interested in Marist when that was explicitly forbidden in the contract he signed, and because JMU approved, and even encouraged, this behavior.

And now a Supreme Court Judge has upheld Marist's "No-Contact-With-Recruits" clause.

To be honest, I don't think Brady necessarily did anything wrong. He formed a relationship with these kids. The kids wanted to play for him, and he wanted to coach them. When he found a better job -- and no matter how you slice, a job as a head coach in the CAA is better than being a head coach in the MAAC -- he took the better job, as 99.9% of you reading this would do. (If you were a server at Friday's, and a position opened up at The Palm, would you take it? If you were pushing papers at a small investment firm, and JP Morgan offered you a position, what would your answer be?) And when he got to that better job, he brought some of those kids along with him.

The way I see it, Brady didn't do something out of the ordinary. He certainly didn't do something that I would consider morally or ethically wrong. His only mistake was being dumb enough to sign a contract with a "No-Contact-With-Recruits" clause in it. (And to Marist's credit, they didn't try to punish the players -- that must be a Big East thing -- because they didn't want to go to Marist. They went after Brady and JMU. They deserve to be acknowledged for that.)

The more important question, if this ruling does, in fact, stand up, is going to be whether or not a "No-Contact-With-Recruits" clause will become more popular and prevalent in collegiate coaching contracts.

Its no secret that people hate the NCAA and the people running it. There are many legitimate reasons for that, but what irks me the most is how few rights these players have, especially when it comes to choosing a school. We've written plenty on the issues with LOI's and the absurdity of a school's abiliy to determine where a player is not allowed to transfer.

Now player's can have their options for where to attend school and play basketball because of a contract a potential coach signed with a previous school? Like I said, Marist did the right thing in not trying to prevent the kids from being allowed to play at JMU. But what if this happens at a big-time school?

Let's pretend Billy Donovan, the head coach at Florida, has a clause like this in his contract. Now let's pretend he left Gainesville to take the Oregon job. Is there any chance that he doesn't try and bring Austin Rivers and Bradley Beal, both top five recruits in the Class of 2011, along with him? The bigger question -- would Florida attempt, or be able, to file an injunction to prevent Rivers and Beal from going to Oregon because Donovan recruited them at Florida?

I dread the day that a school can have any influence on where a kind is allowed to play because a coach spurned that school.

Its a scary thought.

Its also fairly unlikely. Coaches that get jobs where they are capable of landing McDonald's All-Americans are probably smart enough, or have smart enough representation, that they won't sign a contract with a clause like that. And schools that don't land McDonalds All-Americans probably don't have the money to throw around for a legal case like that.

But you never know. The NCAA Tournament was supposed to be 96 teams, and the Big XII wasn't supposed to exist anymore.

Stranger things have happened.