WAG Buckeye gymnast-- Go fund me

[Muddlethru]

Let me just clarify, NCAA rules and regulations are different and separate from the judicial/legal system. As I've tried to explain, while it may not be binding according to NCAA rules, it can be LEGALLY binding (as you are claiming it is not) and remedies are available within our judicial system. NCAA rules are not laws. All I am saying is many undermine the validity and enforceability of a verbal commitment. It is valid and as enforceable as you want it to be.

 

[skschlag]

there is little legal precedence at this time on verbal commitments... 2 cases, one which was settled,and one in which the students were older, already enrolled in the college, indicating a higher level of commitment. Nothing on a commitment at 14 not being honored or being changed. I am sure that someone will sue, and it will go to court. it will be interesting with kids committing so early and changes occurring in the years after the commitment.

I was surprised at the number of gymnasts that switch their commitments. I found 8 that had verbals to one school but switched to another school later, or went pro. Surprising....I think there are more, but that was just gymnasts graduating 2016-2019.

 

[skschlag]

I would think 1-2 lawsuits might end this ridiculous practice of verbal commitments to middle school children! LOL

 

[Muddlethru]

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/eligibility-center/what-verbal-commitment

According to the NCAA....Verbals are non legally binding on either side.

My point...again....14 is too young to do any commitment.

If you read your attached link closely, it specifically states "it is not binding" not "it is not LEGALLY binding." The NCAA does not govern our judicial system.

 

[skschlag]

Sorry. Bad use of words. Should not have said legally.
I guess that is more an issue with society suing than a verbal commitment thing. To me, not binding means that either party can end the agreement for any reason. And we have seen more of that from student athletes than colleges.

Sorry for hijacking. Still think a verbal at 14 is a bad idea.

 

[MILgymFAM]

If you read your attached link closely, it specifically states "it is not binding" not "it is not LEGALLY binding." The NCAA does not govern our judicial system.

Even if verbal contracts themselves are legally binding, can 12-14 year old minors even enter legal contracts?

 

[Muddlethru]

Even if verbal contracts themselves are legally binding, can 12-14 year old minors even enter legal contracts?

I'm not saying they are definitely legally binding but they can be and there are causes of actions and remedies within our legal system. And to answer your question, the parents can file a complaint on their behalf.

 

[MILgymFAM]

The parents can file a complaint on their behalf.

Even still, I didn't think kids that young could enter into contracts on their own? What court would hold an 18 year to a verbal contract they made at 12/13/14? This would all be moot if gymnastics would just follow the darn NCAA rules anyway.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

in both our legal systems (cause you started off with ours ) a contract is not legally binding unless both parties are "of age" which is 18 at the moment.

 

[flippin out]

I was surprised at the number of gymnasts that switch their commitments. I found 8 that had verbals to one school but switched to another school later, or went pro. Surprising....I think there are more, but that was just gymnasts graduating 2016-2019.

Some of those switches MAY not have been at the gymnasts prompting. I know Arizona verbaled a girl in 2013 as a freshman going into sophomore year) and Mizzou verbaled 1 in 2013 (a freshman) .....Last year Arizona dropped the 2016 and this past spring Mizzou dumped all but one their 2017's.

Now those girls have not actively been seeking recruitment and will have to begin again. When pulling up their info later though I'm sure that it will not say that the universities dumped them...it will either simply reflect their new commitment OR everyone will assume that they chose to not pursue gymnastics in college after all (if they can not find a new Team with an opening).

 

[skschlag]

Some of those switches MAY not have been at the gymnasts prompting. I know Arizona verbaled a girl in 2013 as a freshman going into sophomore year) and Mizzou verbaled 1 in 2013 (a freshman) .....Last year Arizona dropped the 2016 and this past spring Mizzou dumped all but one their 2017's.

Now those girls have not actively been seeking recruitment and will have to begin again. When pulling up their info later though I'm sure that it will not say that the universities dumped them...it will either simply reflect their new commitment OR everyone will assume that they chose to not pursue gymnastics in college after all (if they can not find a new Team with an opening).

I have no idea. The site just said that they signed with a different school.

 

[Muddlethru]

Even still, I didn't think kids that young could enter into contracts on their own? What court would hold an 18 year to a verbal contract they made at 12/13/14? This would all be moot if gymnastics would just follow the darn NCAA rules anyway.

First of all, colleges will unlikely sue. It will likely be the other way around. But for arguments sake, we have legal guardians that are either responsible for a minor or can act on a minor's behalf. Parents can file a complaint on behalf of their daughter and parents can be held liable for their minor child's actions. You are looking at lawsuits through a pinhole. Plaintiffs can name as many defendants as they want. They likely will not sue an under age child but can hold the parents or legal guardians accountable. If they are 15 years old and hit a car while driving, the insurance companies and/or the people they hit will seek damages from the parents. Civil lawsuits seeks the deepest pockets and you can always find someone to be held accountable, even if the alleged defendant is a minor.

Btw, this has gone way outside the original post. Further, lawsuits in these situations are not common. So, this argument has escalated more than it should. I just felt compelled to answer when my posts are questioned and merely to state that verbal commitments hold a lot more weight that many people make them out to be.

 

[gasrgoose]

there is little legal precedence at this time on verbal commitments... 2 cases, one which was settled,and one in which the students were older, already enrolled in the college, indicating a higher level of commitment. Nothing on a commitment at 14 not being honored or being changed. I am sure that someone will sue, and it will go to court. it will be interesting with kids committing so early and changes occurring in the years after the commitment.

I was surprised at the number of gymnasts that switch their commitments. I found 8 that had verbals to one school but switched to another school later, or went pro. Surprising....I think there are more, but that was just gymnasts graduating 2016-2019.

I'm not sure of the breakdown of numbers or for what period of time this covers but there is a world of difference between a girl going Pro and a girl verbally committing and switching to another school.

These girls, even at 13, are not just randomly committing to a school because they like the school colors. The PARENTS are very involved in the process. All these kids visit these schools at their own(parents) expenses. And since they can't drive I'm assuming (and personally know) the parents drive them. It's a 2 way street. If people don't like it they don't have to commit. If you are good enough (and in high enough demand) you don't have to commit until you are a senior because everyone will want you anyway. The commitment helps the school and the kid, and yes it hurts the school and the kid sometimes.