MICHAEL SAMS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY (2013)

ORDER

This claim arises as the result of an alleged breach of a contract between Claimant, Michael J. Sams, and the Respondent, Board of Trustees of Illinois State University (ISU). Claimant was recruited to play basketball on scholarship for Illinois State University. He alleges that Respondent breached an express contract contained in ISU's Student Athlete Handbook by not renewing his scholarship after his freshman year. Specifically, he alleges that ISU's Student Athlete Handbook and Tom Richardson and Kirk Sarff, who were the head the coach and assistant coach who recruited Claimant, promised that his scholarship would be renewed unless he was in academic trouble, engaged in misconduct or was a detriment to the team. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $52,420.04. Respondent denies that any contract existed to renew Claimants scholarship and that, as such, no contract was breached.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Claimant was a student athlete at Illinois State University where he played basketball on scholarship during the 2003-2004 season. At the conclusion of his freshman season (2003-2004), Claimant was advised by Coach Porter Moser that the coaching staff would recommend that his Financial Aid Package not be renewed. Illinois State University did then notify Claimant that his Financial Aid Package would not be renewed. The Financial Aid Package for which Claimant signed to participate on the ISU basketball team was for one year, and it is Claimant's position that the University breached an expressed contractual agreement to renew the financial package because he complied with the criteria to obtain a renewal of the scholarship. The University's position is that the scholarship was for one year, according to NCAA rules, and that the University had the option of renewing the scholarship or not renewing the scholarship based on many criteria, including the player's contribution to the success of the team.

At trial, the parties stipulated the following facts:

• Claimant was a student athlete who was recruited by Head Coach Tom Richardson and Assistant Coach Kirk Sarff to play for the Illinois State University Men's Basketball Team.

• After Claimant was recruited by Head Coach Richardson and Assistant Coach Sarff to play for the Illinois State University basketball team, he was provided with a copy of the ISU Student Athlete Handbook.

• After Claimant was recruited and agreed to attend ISU as a student athlete on the ISU Men's Basketball Team and had accepted the Student Athlete Financial Aid Package, Coaches Richardson and Sarff were terminated by the University and a new coaching staff led by Head Coach Porter Moser coached the ISU Men's Basketball Team for the 2003-2004 academic year.

• At the conclusion of the 2003-2004 basketball season, Coach Moser told Claimant that his Student Athlete Financial Aid Package would not be renewed for the coming academic year.

• The basis for the decision for the non-renewal was that the coaching staff determined that Claimant did not significantly contribute to the success of the team, and not his academic performance or his behavior off the court.

• A letter from Janna Albrecht was sent to Claimant on March 12, 2004, which advised Claimant that his Student Financial Aid Package would not be renewed.

• A hearing was requested on behalf of Claimant before the Athletic Appeals Committee and a hearing was held on March 29, 2004. On March 30, 2004, Claimant's appeal to the Athletic Appeals Committee was denied.

Coach Richardson and Assistant Coach Sarff recruited Claimant from Mt. Zion High School in 2002 to play basketball on scholarship at Illinois State University. Kirk Sarff testified that he was an Assistant Men's Basketball Coach at ISU under Head Coach Tom Richardson during the 2002-2003 season. He was involved in the recruiting of players for the ISU basketball team during the summer and fall of 2002, including Claimant Michael Sams. Sarff testified that the decisions by the University to offer student athlete scholarships for basketball players were made by the coach staff. Sarff testified that the Athletic Department and Administration, outside of the basketball coaching staff, played no role in the evaluation of players and would be involved in the scholarship process only as to compliance with NCAA academic requirements. Sarff testified that a student athlete scholarship was a one year renewable scholarship. Sarff testified, however, that there was a custom and practice across the country among Division I basketball coaches to not say that “this is a one year renewable scholarship” while recruiting. Sarff testified that, in order to obtain renewal, according to the ISU Student Athlete Handbook, a student athlete must demonstrate responsible team membership by (a) meeting academic standards, (b) demonstrating good citizenship, (c) maintaining a commitment to superior training and physical conditioning, and (d) contributing to team success. Coach Sarff testified that in his 16 years of coach Division I Mens basketball, he had never been involved in a single situation where the coaching staff made a decision that a player was not going to be renewed because they wanted a better player. Sarff testified that, while recruiting Claimant, there was a discussion with Claimant and his family about this being a one year renewable scholarship and that the discussion centered around the provisions of the Student Athlete Handbook terms for non-renewal. It should be noted that former Coach Sarff, at the time of trial, was employed by New Horizons Marketing in Decatur, Illinois, which is a company owned by Claimant's father.

Claimant testified that he chose to play basketball at ISU because it was close to his home, his friends and family would be able to watch him play, ISU was in the same conference as Indiana State (where his brother played basketball), he had watched ISU basketball while growing up, and that his mother, father, and sister all attended ISU. Claimant testified that he knew that his contribution to the team's success would be determined by the “coaching staff who worked with us every day” and that his athletic ability and performance would be factored into that determination. He also testified that he understood that there was no guarantee that Coaches Richardson and Starff would be the ones making the decision. In November, 2002, Claimant signed a one year Grant-in-Aid, which promised him free tuition, room and board, and books for his freshman year of playing basketball. However, the ISU basketball team won only 8 games during the 2002-2003 season and finished last in the conference and Coaches Richardson and Starff, who had recruited Claimant, as well as ISU's athletic director, were fired shortly after the season ended. Coach Porter Moser was hired to turn around the losing team.

Claimant did not play much during his freshman year. He testified though that he did get along well with Coach Moser. Although Claimant did not play much, he was on the scout team and practiced. During games, he saw his role as being to encourage and keep other players motivated. Claimant denied that he had any difficulty picking up what the scout team was doing and that at no time did Coach Moser or any other coach question his ability to pick up what the other team was doing. Claimant did recall that Coach Moser had asked him if he could raise his GPA higher to help the team's overall GPA average. According to Claimant, Coach Moser never said anything to him to indicate that he wasn't doing well in practice or as a scout player, and that none of the coaches ever questioned his conditioning, his effort, his attitude, his ability to help the team during practice, or his ability to pick up what the other team was doing. Claimant testified that he heard from his father, after the basketball season was over, that his scholarship was not going to be renewed and that he then met with Coach Moser. According to Claimant, Coach Moser gave him no clear reason for the non-renewal. Claimant testified that he previously received the Student Athlete Handbook and he was familiar with the wording in it about what the student athlete needed to do to obtain renewal of his scholarship.

Claimant's father, Jeffrey Sams, testified that during the recruiting process he was not only the Claimant's father but he was also his high school basketball coach. He testified that he was familiar with the recruiting process due to the fact that both he and Claimant's older brother played basketball in college. Mr. Sams testified that, as a fellow coach, he was allowed by Coach Moser to come to practice at ISU and would talk to him after the games. According to Mr. Sams, Coach Moser or his staff never gave indication that there was a problem, in any way, shape or form, involving Claimant; no coach ever questioned Claimant's conditioning, effort, attitude, ability to help the team during practice or his basketball smarts, or ability to pick up what the other team was doing. Mr. Sams testified that, after Claimant's freshman season, he received a call from Coach Moser who told him that Claimant's scholarship was not going to be renewed.

Coach Porter Moser testified by way of evidence deposition. Coach Moser was the ISU Men's Basketball Coach for four years commencing in the fall of 2003, which was Claimant's freshman year. Coach Moser identified NCAA Rule 15.3.3, which provides that the length of a student athletes scholarship for Division I student athletes was for one year. Coach Moser testified that he decided who would play in the games based on the player's production during practice. Claimant was assigned to the “scout team” whose job it was to simulate the offense of their upcoming opponent during practice. Coach Moser testified that at the end of the 2003-2004 basketball season, he personally evaluated each player and decided not to renew Claimant's scholarship. According to Coach Moser, the players were evaluated based on off-the-court conduct, which includes being a good citizen, student, and teammate, as well as playing ability and performance. Specifically, Coach Moser testified that he evaluated whether the player would be able to succeed and make a substantial contribution to the team. Although a player can contribute to the team in ways other than playing in games, he wanted to see effort, focus and off-court conduct. He testified that Claimant did not have a negative attitude or a negative personality. However, he said that his assistant coaches told him of their frustration of Claimant not picking up what the other team was doing. Also, players who did not have scholarships out-played the claimant during practice. Claimant had trouble picking up what the opponent's offense was going to be and simulating it, and the assistant coaches in charge of the scout team sometimes had to “pull Michael.” Moser also “didn't see a huge commitment to superior training.” Additionally, in his opinion, Claimant was too small to be a power forward, and was not athletic enough and did not possess the ball-handling skills necessary to be a small forward or guard. Additionally, Coach Moser did not see evidence of potential for improvement in Claimant. In short, Moser chose “who I believed was going to give us the best chance to win,” and he felt that Claimant had not and would not contribute to the team's success. His main reservation about Claimant was essentially the level of his playing ability. Coach Moser acknowledged that the ISU Student Athlete Handbook provided the criteria for non-renewal of scholarships, and to obtain renewal of a scholarship, the student athlete must demonstrate responsible team membership. The four things to demonstrate responsible team membership were: (1) meeting academic standards, (2) good citizenship, (3) maintaining a commitment to superior training and physical conditioning, and (4) contributing to team success. Coach Moser agreed that this was part of the understanding between the student athlete and the University in terms of the renewal of financial aid.

After deciding not to renew Claimants scholarship, Coach Moser called Claimant's father to tell him that Claimant's scholarship would not be renewed. Coach Moser also offered to help Claimant find a school that would be better suited for Claimant and his abilities and where he could have a good basketball career.

Claimant appealed Coach Moser's decision to the Athletic Appeals Committee, to which a student may appeal if he believes the non-renewal decision did not comply with University policies. During a hearing before the Athletic Appeals Committee, Claimant admitted that he was told that the scholarship was for one year and subject to renewal, that he was not guaranteed a scholarship for four years, and that he understood that his playing ability would play a role in determining whether his scholarship would be renewed. At the hearing before that Athletic Appeals Committee, Coach Moser testified that Claimant's skills and playing abilities did not rise to the standards needed to play in the Missouri Valley Conference, that he had an obligation to the other players in addition to Claimant, and that allowing Claimant to renew his scholarship would not be fair to other players whose ability was greater but had no scholarship. Coach Moser also told the Appeals Committee that he notified Claimant in March that his scholarship would not be renewed, even though the deadline for doing so was July 1st, because he wanted to give Claimant more time to explore his options for the following year. The Athletic Appeals Committee upheld Coach Moser's decision.

Scholarships at all universities governed by the NCAA are one year contracts that can be renewed each year. ISU's basketball coach had no authority to waive that rule. Each player signs a one year grant-in-aid which stipulates that, in exchange for playing basketball for ISU that year, the player would get free tuition, room and board, and books. At the end of each season, the Universitys coaching staff evaluates each player and determines whose scholarship will be renewed. Cynthia Harris is the University's Associate Athletic Director, whose office is responsible for enforcing NCAA rules and recruiting at ISU. She testified that it is not unusual for a player not to have his or her scholarship renewed. Ms. Harris testified that she was familiar with the Student Athlete Handbook and that it was put out by the University and provided to all student athletes. The University issues a Student Athlete Handbook each year, which summarizes information that new student athletes might want to know about the University. Associate Athletic Director Harris testified that the Handbook is not part of the scholarship agreement and is not intended as a policy statement of the university but its contents are consistent with NCAA rules. The Handbook states that in order to have a scholarship renewed, a student athlete must “demonstrate responsible team membership” and then lists four broad areas on which the athletes will be evaluated. These include “(a) meeting academic standards; (b) demonstrating good citizenship; (c) maintaining a commitment to superior training and physical conditioning; and (d) contributing to team success”. This language is not included in the grant-in-aid signed by the athlete. Coaches Starff and Moser and Associate Athletic Director Harris all testified that it is up to the coaching staff to determine whether each athlete has met those criteria and will have his or her scholarship renewed for the following season. All also agreed that “contributing to team success” includes athletic ability and production.

Other paragraphs contained in the same section of the Student Athlete Handbook state that a scholarship can be reduced or canceled if the athlete becomes ineligible for athletic competition, fraudulently misrepresents any information on an application, engages in serious misconduct, or voluntarily withdraws from sport participation for personal reasons. This language is contained in the grant-in-aid that the athletes sign. However, those paragraphs address the revocation or reduction of the scholarship during the period of the award, not renewal of the scholarship at the end of the year.

Ms. Harris described the appeal process for non-renewal of scholarship before the Athletic Appeals Committee. The Athletic Appeals Committee consists of a panel of people from the University that reviews the case and has the power to overrule the decision of the coach. Harris also testified that the athletic director also has the power to overrule the decision of the coach on non-renewal. Neither was done in Claimant's case.

The following fall after Claimant's non-renewal, Claimant attended Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville (SIUE) on a full basketball scholarship. SIUE is a Division II College, which meant that Claimant would not have to sit out a year before competing. However, after one season at SIUE, Claimant transferred to Millikin University where he chose not to play basketball. The cost of Claimant attending Millikin University for his junior and senior years was $52,420.00, which is the amount he seeks in damages.

ISSUES

Did an express contract exist between Claimant and Respondent to renew Claimant's scholarship beyond one year; and, if so, was said contract breached?

ANALYSIS

Under certain circumstances, courts have ruled that a university's catalog and bulletins create a contractual relationship with its students. Frederick v. Northwestern University Dental School, 247 Ill.App.3d 464 (1st Dist. 1993). However, extrinsic evidence of terms not contained in the written instrument is not admissible unless the court determines that the written contract is ambiguous or that essential terms of the agreement were not embodied in the writing. Moreover, even if the court determines that the evidence of additional terms is admissible, the evidence cannot contradict or vary the written instrument. Cochran v. Cochran, 27 Ill. 244 (1919); Tolbird v. Howard, 43 Ill.2d 357 (1969); K's Merchandise Mart, Inc. v. Northgate LP, 359 Ill.App.3d 1137 (4th Dist. 2005).

In the instant case, Claimant signed a one year grant-in-aid scholarship, which stipulated that in exchange for playing basketball for Illinois State University that year, Claimant would receive free tuition, room and board, and books. Scholarships at all universities governed by the NCAA are one year contracts that can be renewed each year. The Illinois State University Student Athlete Handbook stated that in order to have his scholarship renewed, Claimant must “demonstrate responsible tem membership,” and then listed four broad areas on which the Claimant would be evaluated: (a) meeting academic standards, (b) demonstrating good citizenship, (c) maintaining a commitment to superior training and physical conditioning, and (d) contributing to team success, the last of which was relied upon by Coach Moser in not renewing Claimant's scholarship.

It is without question that Claimant met or exceeded in the other areas in which athletes are evaluated for renewal. Coach Moser considered many factors, including Claimant's athletic ability, in relying upon whether Claimant contributed to the team's success in making his decision not to renew Claimant's scholarship. Claimant alleges that the Student Athlete Handbook, as well as Coaches Richardson's and Sarff's promises that his scholarship would be renewed unless he got in academic trouble, engaged in misconduct or was detrimental to the team, is extrinsic evidence that comprises of additional terms of the contract. However, this Court cannot take such a leap.

The only language in the Handbook that refers to scholarship renewals contains no promise to renew Claimant's scholarship. The Handbook states that in order to have his scholarship renewed, the student athlete must “demonstrate responsible team membership by (a) meeting academic standards; (b) demonstrating good citizenship; (c) maintain a commitment to superior training and physical conditioning; and (d) contributing to team success.” The promises allegedly made by Coaches Richardson and Sarff and the language that Claimant alleges guaranteed him renewal unless he got in academic trouble, engaged in misconduct, or was a detriment to the team, are contained in the area of the Student Athlete Handbook lists the reasons why an athlete's scholarship could be reduced or canceled during the period of the award. That language does not concern factors taken into consideration in the renewal of the scholarship. Consequently, the Student Athlete Handbook makes no promise to renew Claimant's scholarship. The language contained in the Student Athlete Handbook is not ambiguous to justify the promises allegedly made by the coaches during the recruitment process as additional terms of the one year scholarship contract.

This case involves a written contract, being the one year grant-in-aid, which stipulated that in exchange for playing basketball for the University for that year, Claimant would get free tuition, room and board, and books. At the end of each season, the coaching staff would evaluate Claimant and determine whether or not his scholarship would be renewed. Because the terms of said contract are not ambiguous, no alleged oral promise should be read into it. Moreover, Coach Sarff testified that he and Coach Richardson gave Claimant and his parents a copy of the Student Athlete handbook and advised them that the one year scholarship that was being offered was renewable based on the terms for renewal contained in the Handbook. That Handbook clearly states that in order to have his scholarship renewed, he must demonstrate responsible leadership by, inter alia, contributing to the success of the team (emphasis added). Claimant himself testified that he understood that whether he sufficiently demonstrated responsible team leadership would be decided by whomever coached the team during the season, and that his athletic ability and performance would be factors in that determination. Further, Claimant knew that whether he met the criteria in the Handbook would be determined by whoever coached the team during that season and that his athletic ability and performance would be a factor in that determination. Claimant cannot now claim otherwise. Finally, even if Coaches Richardson and Sarff made statements or promises to Claimant that his scholarship would be renewed unless he got in academic trouble, engaged in misconduct, or was a detriment to the team, such oral promises contradict the language contained in the written grant-in-aid scholarship, as well as the language contained in the Student Athlete Handbook. The language contained in the Student Athlete Handbook's scholarship section indicates that it is intended to give student athletes specific reasons why scholarships could be revoked during the seasons, while providing only broad categories on which they will be evaluated by the coaching staff in deciding whether a scholarship will be renewed for the following year. Accordingly, this Court cannot allow any statements made by Coaches Richardson and Sarff which contradict the terms of the written contract contained in the Handbook to become part of the contract. As such, this Court cannot find that Claimant's contract with Respondent University for a one year grant-in-aid scholarship to play basketball was breached.

Nonetheless, this Court is not able to review Coach Moser's decision not to renew Claimant's scholarship. Respondent rightfully analogizes the Claimant's situation to that of academic decisions, which are not reviewable by the Court. Although any contractual relationship between a university and its students can be judicially enforced, this Court cannot review Coach Moser's adverse decisions to renew Claimant's scholarship unless there was evidence that the decision was made arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith. Frederick, supra at 471. However, to prove a breach of such contract, Claimant must show that the decision was “without any discernible rational basis” Id. at 471-2. Courts have adopted this deferential standard because they are reluctant to interfere with academic affairs and regulation of student conduct. Id. at 472. A Court may not override the academic decision of a university “unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment.” Raethz v. Aurora University, 346 Ill.App.3d 728, 732 (2nd Dist. 2004). In Raethz, a student challenged her discharge from the school's master's program because she failed to successfully complete field instructions. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment because she had not established that the university's decision was arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. In so ruling, the court concluded, “What would make the university liable for breach of contract in the student university setting is not that the university exercised its academic judgment unwisely, by allegedly failing to comply with the Field Instruction Manual, but that it did not exercise its academic judgment at all, instead acting arbitrarily or in bad faith in its treatment of plaintiff” Id. at 733.

In this case, ISU's contract with Claimant consisted of the grant-in-aid that Claimant signed and the Student Athlete Handbook. The terms of these documents clearly establish that the contract was for one year, and that it could be renewed each year. The terms, as well as Claimant's understand of the terms, also established that Claimant knew that the coaching staff during his freshman year would decide whether to renew his scholarship based on the criteria for scholarship renewal contained in the Student Athlete Handbook, and that his athletic ability and performance would be included in that evaluation. Claimant has not alleged or presented any evidence that would support a conclusion that Coach Moser's decision was “arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith.”

Coach Moser was hired to turn around a basketball team that finished last in its conference and it is the coach's job to put the best players he can find on the team. At the end of the 2003-2004 season, Coach Moser evaluated each player to determine whether they sufficiently contributed to the team's success, and he decided that Claimant did not. Although Claimant was a good student and Coach Moser had no complaints about Claimants off-court performance, he was expected to contribute to the team's success in other ways. Coach Moser recited various reasons and factors that he used to determine that claimant's playing ability was not up to the level necessary to play for the University and saw no potential for improvement. Coach Moser's decision regarding the non-renewal of Claimant's scholarship was based on his evaluation of the areas contained in the Student Athlete Handbook, and it was made following a deliberative process. Additionally, the Athletic Appeals Committee, whose job it was to determine whether the non-renewal decision complied with University policies, upheld Coach Moser's decision. Consequently, Coach Moser's decision cannot be considered arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Claimant has failed to meet his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a binding contract to renew Claimant's grant-in-aid scholarship beyond one year and, ergo, there was no breach of contract by Respondent.

Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Respondent and Claimant's Claim is hereby denied.

STEFFEN, J.