Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 27,017
- Like
- 39,476
If a clause in an adhesion contract is illegal, immoral or unenforceable, it doesn't matter that the other party signed contract.Simpler terms, The guy, Cameron Johnson graduated from Pitt and chose to continue his basketball development at another school. The Pittsburgh head coach, Stallings refuses to sign off on him going to a same conference (UNC). I believe that the school and the players have a one year contract (not 4 years) (scholarship) for each year the player is at the school which is renewable by the school. So, I assume that there is a stipulation in the scholarship/contract that states the school/coach can limit where the student can transfer to.
If the player willingly signed this agreement to receive this scholarship, then he is obligated to honor the agreement. It stinks in my eyes that your coach would not sign off. As we all know that Pittsburgh is in hell of trouble because Stallings is there. Johnson graduated and he is screwed by his coach. Wondered if he can enroll at UNC and play as a walk-on?
Bad language in such contracts is narrowly construed and is always held against the drafter and in the light most favorable to the non-drafter.
I believe that the restriction on transfers is illegal. It also has a disproportionate disparate impact on African Americans. If challenged, I believe a court throws it out.
The NCAA should tread lightly. It cannot reasonably say it exists for the best interest of the student, but it imposes restrictions on the student because he is an athlete.
IMO, the NCAA screws itself by letting non-revenue sports atheltes transfer unimpeded.