Marist sues ex-coach and wins, implications could be far reaching

In 2008, Matt Brady was doing a bang up job of coaching the men’s basketball team at Marist.  The 2007-08 edition of the Red Foxes finished 18-14, marking the third straight season in which Brady had led the team to 18 wins or better.  At a school like Marist, numbers like that are positively Rupp-ian.

That’s because Brady’s predecessor, Dave Magarity, had a very uneven 18-year stint as Marist’s coach.  Two of Magarity’s teams eclipsed the 20-win plateau, but he also had two teams that failed to crack the 6-win barrier.  He never had a three year run of success like the one Brady put together and ended his time at Marist with a 253-259 record.

Suffice it to say that Marist was more than a little pleased with Brady’s efforts.  So in March of 2008, the school happily negotiated a new four-year deal with him.  But the very next month, Brady took off to become the new coach at James Madison.

Not only did he take his entire staff south to Virginia with him, but once at JMU he signed four players that he had offered scholarships to while still at Marist: Trevon Flores, Alvin Brown, Andrey Semenov and Julius Wells.

Prior to Brady leaving, Marist athletic director Tim Murray had conversations with his JMU counterpart, Jeff Bourne, regarding JMU’s interest.  But at no point did Murray grant written permission for Brady to interview with JMU, and the language of Brady’s new contract with Marist (on which the ink was barely dry) forbade him from recruiting any player he initially sought to bring to Marist.

So what did Marist end up doing as a result?  They filed a civil suit in July of 2009, and yesterday the judgement became public.  Here’s Ken McMillan of the Times Herald-Record providing the details:

In a decision sure to reverberate throughout college athletics, Marist College has won its case against James Madison University and the Commonwealth of Virginia in its breach of contract suit involving former men’s basketball coach Matt Brady.

In a June 30 decision released Monday, New York state Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood ruled in favor of Marist’s motion for default judgment against James Madison and Virginia, and damages will be assessed. Lawyers for all three parties are scheduled to appear in a conference before Wood on July 26 in Poughkeepsie.

“Contracts should be legally binding on coaches as well as on colleges and universities,” said Marist lawyer Paul Sullivan.

Wood ruled that the state Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case, rejecting the argument from James Madison that the case should be heard in Virginia. He also ruled James Madison had engaged in “tortious interference” with a contract, causing damages to Marist. (Times Herald-Record)

Marist lawyer Paul O. Sullivan chimed in with this reaction:

“Contracts should be legally binding on coaches as well as on colleges and universities,” said Marist attorney Paul O. Sullivan. “Coach Brady could have continued under the terms of his old contract but specifically requested a renegotiated four-year agreement to reinforce his commitment to the college. We would have preferred to have settled this matter much more amicably and avoid court, but it was obvious that JMU was not interested. Now, the court has forced JMU to take the steps that should have been taken two years ago.” (Marist Public Affairs)

JMU put together a 21-15 effort in Brady’s first season back in 2008-09, advancing to the CollegeInsider.com Tournament semis.   But last year the Dukes fell off the pace, finishing 13-20.  McMillan provides the background on how the four players who followed Brady to JMU have fared:

Wells, a 6-foot-5 forward, has become a Colonial Conference all-star, averaging 16.3 points and 5.1 rebounds last season. Flores, a 6-11 forward, averaged a meager 3.8 points and three rebounds. Semenov, a 6-7 forward, played in just four games after suffering a back injury and earned a medical redshirt. Brown averaged four minutes in 12 contests and is no longer on the roster. (Times Herald-Record)

While Brady deals with the aftermath of a sub-.500 record, the program he left behind is doing just a little bit worse.  Last season, Marist (now under the direction of former Memphis assistant Chuck Martin) finished with a mindbogglingly bad record of 1-29.

The Red Foxes’ lone victory was at home on January 2 against MAAC rival Manhattan.  A month later they got creamed on the return trip by a 72-47 count.

So when damages are assessed in the case, how much of a factor will Marist’s free fall into hoops oblivion be in determining the amount of compensation that the state of Virginia is on the hook for?  I’m sure Marist will argue that the current sorry state of its basketball team is tied to Brady having jumped ship.

If so, you gotta feel for Martin, the guy who’s currently trying to pull Red Fox hoops from the rubble.  If Marist does use the current team’s record as a basis for damages, doesn’t that on some level imply that Brady is a lot better coach than the guy they currently have?

That’s something that Martin can’t possibly feel great about.  But if he is insulted, I know one thing: he’d better get written permission to interview somewhere else before he even thinks about leaving Poughkeepsie.

I’m wondering if the outcome of this case will once and for all clear up the following question:  Can a recruit follow a coach to a school if his recruitment was started when the coach was employed somewhere else?  In Marist’s case, a clause barring Brady from doing so was written into the contract he signed in 2008.

But is it fair (or even legal) for a school to put in a stipulation like that?  If a player really likes a coach and can’t see himself playing for someone else, shouldn’t he have the right to do so?  After all, none of the four players Brady took to JMU had signed binding letters of intent with Marist.

However, I can see the other side of this as well.  If Brady was using Marist’s resources to nurture relationships with recruits, was it fair to Marist if he then signed some of those same players at his new school?

I for one am VERY interested to see what comes out of next week’s court proceedings in this case.  The three-sided relationship between schools, coaches and players could be radically changed depending on how this shakes out.