Elements of a failed out-of-court settlement mean nothing to a judge...

[OneEarWonder]

I don't ignore anyone--that's what an ostrich does with his head in the sand. And I'm not relinquishing any U of L real estate to slapd!cks. This is a U of L fan message board.

You're a slapd!ck not in name but--like all of you--by your actions You could have posted in this thread without issue except that you couldn't leave your slappy baggage at the door.

Ok, I'll play along. What "baggage" did I bring? What actions are "slappy"?

There is no insult or critique of U of L. There was NOTHING about UK anywhere until you went there. My comments were about our hometown team the the current situation and legal considerations. Which was the topic at hand. Unlike you, I prefer to stay on topic.

Your ego seems as fragile as your grasp on legal precedent. But I've been around long enough to not expect otherwise.

The thread history speaks for itself. If you want to get back to the topic at hand, great. Let's go there. Otherwise good night.

 

[Steelers2012]

Alright. Bring this to a stop please. You're both highjacking the thread.

 

[zipp]

Steelers, just keep the slappies at bay. They have no business being here on this subject, and you know I'm not the only guy who feels that way. You're at the controls, use them...

 

[gocds]

Alright. Bring this to a stop please. You're both highjacking the thread.

Steelers, with all due respect, wasn't zipp the OP? I don't think he's the one hijacking anything.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[NISMOZCARD]

Steelers, just keep the slappies at bay. They have no business being here on this subject, and you know I'm not the only guy who feels that way. You're at the controls, use them...

You really think that will happen zipp?!

 

[nccardfan]

I find it quite amusing that the OP purposely "baits" posters to debates only to cry foul and they don't belong here when they present logical points of views, albeit just different POV from his own.

 

[JohnKBA]

So you're saying that Kentucky's "48","49" and "51" titles are tainted as well (which they absolutely are), because of the point shavers and many, if not all players being provided impermissible benefits during that period, which lead to UK being denied permission to compete against SEC or NCAA competition in the "52-53" season. You know, the original "Death Penalty".

Sure. And nobody cares.

 

[zipp]

I find it quite amusing that the OP purposely "baits" posters to debates only to cry foul and they don't belong here when they present logical points of views, albeit just different POV from his own.

Please show me in the OP how I've baited slapd!cks to post in this thread. I know you personally have a tough time not replying to my threads, but you're supposedly not a slappy.

I'll concede that MY PRESENCE ALONE on a subject is sufficient to attract slappies. But that's theirs and the moderator's issue to deal with. I can post or start threads on just about any U of L subject I want to, and you and the slapd!cks will have to deal with that...

 

[JohnnyG22]

Amen

 

[OneEarWonder]

Back to the topic at hand, U of L is in a tough spot for several reasons:
(1) Since this has been ruled as "impermissible benefits" (it doesn't matter the monetary value), those student athletes are ruled ineligible.
(2) Since the players are ruled ineligible, those games are now forfeit. Not fair, but consistent with prior rulings
(3) This could include the NCAA Title in 2013. While there's never been an NCAA Men's Basketball title vacated, there are several examples of Final Four banners being removed as well as titles in other sports. So this too is consistent with past rulings.

The linchpin above is WHICH players are ineligible. That is really the only thing the Cards can fight over, IMO. But it also brings the question, is it worth it?

Also, working against the Cards favor:
(4) There is already an admission of wrongdoing, including the self-imposed penalties which were accepted as part of the total package.
(5) There are limited "future" penalties. There is no further post-season or monetary impact. Yes they have to pay back what was wrongfully gained (again, there is precedent here)... but they are not facing additional sanctions.

From a legal perspective:
(6) They would need to show damages from the NCAA ruling beyond what they self imposed
(7) They would need to show that those damages are unwarranted
(8) And/Or they would need to dispute the authority of the NCAA to impose the penalties

As for the last points, we need look no further than NCAA v. Tarkanian:

On a 5-4 vote, the high court said that the NCAA does not have to follow the same constitutional guidelines that cover government agencies in investigating violations of regulations. Because the NCAA is a private group, it may use its own enforcement methods and impose its own punishments, even if they do not provide coaches or colleges with full due process of the law, the court said.

The ruling was seen as a crucial victory for the organization, which enforces an elaborate code of rules on athlete recruiting and other facets of the 960 member-colleges' programs.​

In Summary, we should be prepared for the worst. But even if the Banner comes down, so what. It impacts the record books, it impacts bragging rights, but we all know what happened. We saw it. We were there. Yes it may impact recruiting, but no more or less than the damage already done.

Maybe the University can negotiate a middle ground. That is not uncommon either. But IMO, this is going to be used to set precedent to bring the hammer down on UNC. Or maybe not... the NCAA is not always consistent either.

 

[zipp]

Back to the topic at hand, U of L is in a tough spot for several reasons:
(1) Since this has been ruled as "impermissible benefits" (it doesn't matter the monetary value), those student athletes are ruled ineligible...

Not if it's legitimately Level 3 which will have to be argued. Your points (2) and (3) and "which players" question flow from that, and are thus irrelevant at this point...

...Also, working against the Cards favor:
(4) There is already an admission of wrongdoing, including the self-imposed penalties which were accepted as part of the total package...

Also irrelevant if taken in context--as terms of an an out-of-court settlement...

...(5) There are limited "future" penalties. There is no further post-season or monetary impact. Yes they have to pay back what was wrongfully gained (again, there is precedent here)... but they are not facing additional sanctions...

The not-enough-otherwise argument doesn't hold water... There shouldn't be significant penalties beyond a postseason ban for a Level 3 violation.

...From a legal perspective:
(6) They would need to show damages from the NCAA ruling beyond what they self imposed
(7) They would need to show that those damages are unwarranted
(8) And/Or they would need to dispute the authority of the NCAA to impose the penalties...

All U of L needs to show is that the NCAA was arbitrary in its handling of this case. That the NCAA either didn't follow precedent or that it legislated on the run. I think both arguments have merits.

...As for the last points, we need look no further than NCAA v. Tarkanian:

On a 5-4 vote, the high court said that the NCAA does not have to follow the same constitutional guidelines that cover government agencies in investigating violations of regulations. Because the NCAA is a private group, it may use its own enforcement methods and impose its own punishments, even if they do not provide coaches or colleges with full due process of the law, the court said.

The ruling was seen as a crucial victory for the organization, which enforces an elaborate code of rules on athlete recruiting and other facets of the 960 member-colleges' programs....​

Nothing in there that says the NCAA can do what it wants. It simply has to follow its own precedents or policies. Those will be the arguments.

...In Summary, we should be prepared for the worst. But even if the Banner comes down, so what. It impacts the record books, it impacts bragging rights, but we all know what happened. We saw it. We were there. Yes it may impact recruiting, but no more or less than the damage already done...

"WE"??? Who are you speaking for, slapd!ck?

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[OneEarWonder]

Not if it's legitimately Level 3 which will have to be argued. Your points (2) and (3) and "which players" question flow from that, and are thus irrelevant at this point...

Agreed. Level 1 vs Level 3 is the key, but I doubt U of L can win this argument. Even the NCAA own wording is open to interpretation in this matter.

Also irrelevant if taken in context--as terms of an an out-of-court settlement...

Again, that is not so. If we were transitioning between Civil and Criminal, yes. But since this is all Civil, and the University both admitted fault and self-imposed sanctions, it will be impossible for them to go back on that.

The not-enough-otherwise argument doesn't hold water... There shouldn't be significant penalties beyond a postseason ban for a Level 3 violation.

Possibly. This hinges in the Level 1 vs Level 3 argument. If the infractions were reduced, then I would agree that anything extra would be excessive.

All U of L needs to show is that the NCAA was arbitrary in its handling of this case. That the NCAA either didn't follow precedent or that it legislated on the run. I think both arguments have merits.

I disagree here. There is precedent for the punishments (assuming Level 1 holds)

"WE"??? Who are you speaking for?

Aww Zipp, you were doing so well for there for a minute... Yes, WE. I live in Louisville, do you? I'm a local, born and raised, are you? I'm a tax payer that feeds the University system, are you? I support the Cards. I rooted them on. I cheer their success. So yes, WE.

As for you lame attempt at childish insults, we'll just let those speak for themselves. Just because not everyone is as fanatical as you does not make their opinion any less valuable. Now, I am happy to keep this on topic, can you?

 

[zipp]

All I gotta do is look at your "likes" to know the truth. Not many Card fans, but plenty of slapd!cks. Slime tends to stick to slime.

Just keep saying "level 1, level 1, level 1..." to yourself to feel better.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Crankdatmustard]

From reading the ENTIRE report, the NCAA backs up each sanction handed down by showing which by law that Louisville breached.

In a court of law they have proof from their bylaws that they punished accordingly and didn't waver from what they are allowed to do.

Don' think Louisville stands much of a chance on appeal or in court or even what they will be arguing as the COI applied the sanctions accordingly from their own rules/bylaws.

Wasted money IMO.

 

[zipp]

From reading the ENTIRE report, the NCAA backs up each sanction handed down by showing which by law that Louisville breached...

Where does it provide the conditions for increasing the severity of the violation from Level 3 to Level 1? And where in those conditions is "repugnance" mentioned? Link your reference with page and paragraph number.

If you can't, it's game on.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Crankdatmustard]

Among some determining factors listed which make an offense Level I in the NCAA bylaws are:

(d) Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I;

(f) Cash payment or other benefits provided by a coach, administrator or representative of the institution’s athletics interests intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a prospective student athlete;

(h) Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA Constitution and bylaws.

The NCAA argues that each of those prior paragraphs applies in the case of McGee’s actions.


The NCAA sets in its bylaws prescribed penalties for violations of the various levels, but it allows for enhanced penalties (and in this case, the vacating of records is an enhanced penalty) if there are aggravating factors – and gives a list, which ends with the ambiguous “other facts warranting a higher penalty range,” which pretty well can include anything the committee on infractions wants.

In addition, there’s a bylaw that allows the committee to depart from the prescribed penalties. Entitled “Departure from Level I and Level II Core Penalties,” Bylaw 19.11.6 says, “Upon a finding of extenuating circumstances, the hearing panel may depart from the core penalties . . . provided the panel explains in its decision the basis for its prescription of core penalties different from those set forth.”

__________________________________________________________________


Long story short.......What is Louisville appealing here? Everything they are charging/sanctioning Louisville with is within their standard process.

 

[zipp]

I didn't say give me your words with emphasis. I said give me one or more LINKS with page and paragraph numbers. You didn't do that, and what you posted you did out of context.

Thanks, but I can read for myself, and I don't need your analysis...

 

[Crankdatmustard]

What I posted was directly from Eric Crawfords article, which the exeprts where directly from the Infraction release/NCAA Bylaw rule book.

 

[zipp]

What I posted was directly from Eric Crawfords article, which the exeprts where directly from the Infraction release/NCAA Bylaw rule book.

I couldn't care less anymore what Eric Crawford says on most subjects.

Like I said, LINK the NCAA references and the applicable parts of the NCAA findings. In detail, please, as the accusers in our great nation have to do.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Crankdatmustard]

Page 14-
The former operations director's actions violated NCAA inducement, benefit and ethical conduct legislation. These are severe violations, regardless of any dollar amounts assigned to them. The conduct violated Bylaws 10, 13 and 16 and caused the institution to violate Bylaws 13 and 16.

As a foundational core for institutional staff members, Bylaws10.01.1 and 10.1 generally require all staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner,
which includes representing the honor and dignity of the high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. Further,as basic, important principles, Bylaws 13.2.1 and 16.11.2.1 preclude an institution and any institutional employee from
providing any inducements or benefits to prospects, enrolled student-athletes or their friends, unless the benefits or inducements are expressly permitted by NCAA
legislation. Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(e) specifically prohibits institutional staff members from providing cash to prospects.

Page 15
However, the panel considers other factors besides monetary value in determining the level of violations. Int his instance, the panel need not ascertain an exact value of the activities. The nature of the violations themselves, without
more, elevates them to Level I. The types of activities that occurred
in this case were repugnant and threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, regardless of any precise dollar value assigned to them.

Straight from the NCAA Rule Book

The NCAA sets in its bylaws prescribed penalties for violations of the various levels, but it allows for enhanced penalties (and in this case, the vacating of records is an enhanced penalty) if there are aggravating factors – and gives a list, which ends with the ambiguous “other facts warranting a higher penalty range,” which pretty well can include anything the committee on infractions wants.

The COI has the ability to enhance Violation levels, according to their bylaws for aggravating factors, which includes "other factors warranting a higher penalty range".

That basically allows them to enhance anything they deem excessive.

 

[zipp]

...The types of activities that occurred in this case were repugnant and threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, regardless of any precise dollar value assigned to them...

Now show me the precedents for meting out this penalty for the same or a similarly "repugnant" transgression.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Now show me the precedents for meting out this penalty for the same or a similarly "repugnant" transgression.

"Elite program," my a$$...

Straight from the report:

"The COI has not previously encountered a case like this." (page 1)

"The COI has not previously dealt with a case like this." (page 26)

Also, as the poster above detailed, the NCAA rules very clearly allow Level II and III violations to be classified as Level I for a variety of reasons, including "collective Level II and Level III violations," as well as "Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I" and "Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws."

In other words, the NCAA bylaws provide the COI with discretion to upgrade violations, for example in cases where the violations were "repugnant."

 

[zipp]

Straight from the report:

"The COI has not previously encountered a case like this." (page 1)

"The COI has not previously dealt with a case like this." (page 26)

Also, as the poster above detailed, the NCAA rules very clearly allow Level II and III violations to be classified as Level I for a variety of reasons, including "collective Level II and Level III violations," as well as "Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I" and "Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws."

In other words, the NCAA bylaws provide the COI with discretion to upgrade violations, for example in cases where the violations were "repugnant."

Well then, find me the word "repugnant" in the policies or any precedents, slapd!ck.

And while you're at it, square that with Sandusky serving as DC on the Penn State football team when they won TWO national championships.

Make sure to bring more slapd!cks with you on your response because slappy opinions matter.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Well then, find me the word "repugnant" in the policies or any precedents, slapd!ck.

And while you're at it, square that with Sandusky serving as DC on the Penn State football team when they won TWO national championships.

Make sure to bring more slapd!cks with you on your response because slappy opinions matter.

"Elite program," my a$$...

Anyway, the entire point of my post was to demonstrate that there doesn't need to be "repugnant" in the bylaws. There are several "catchalls" in the bylaws, which are legal mechanisms that give the body subjective discretion to upgrade violations for things they deem especially bad.

Also, this case is apples and oranges from the Penn St. and UNC case. Penn St. had nothing to do with NCAA bylaws. That was literally just the NCAA saying it was messed up what happened, but there was no cheating or impermissible benefits. Hell, it didn't even involved players or recruits. And UNC (who I hope gets nailed) is a really weird situation that will test the NCAA's jurisdiction, and it appears from emails that UNC approached their scheme with that potential loophole in mind.

 

[zipp]

...There are several "catchalls" in the bylaws, which are legal mechanisms that give the body subjective discretion to upgrade violations for things they deem especially bad...

Gonna be fun watching the NCAA argue in court that "unprecedented, subjective catchalls" are a legitimate governing mechanism.

...Also, this case is apples and oranges from the Penn St. and UNC case. Penn St. had nothing to do with NCAA bylaws. That was literally just the NCAA saying it was messed up what happened, but there was no cheating or impermissible benefits...

And more interesting to hear the argument that Sandusky was "just messed up." Maybe a child molestation victim or two will be within earshot.

And obviously the most fun seeing slapd!cks on Sandusky's side of the argument.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[zipp]

Zipp, this guy is getting under your skin, you're off your game. I've not seen you on the ropes like this before. Snap out of it.

How so, my man? I like it when your old pals keep trying to use their overpowering acumen on me!

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Gonna be fun watching the NCAA argue in court that "unprecedented, subjective catchalls" are a legitimate governing mechanism.

And more interesting to hear the argument that Sandusky was "just messed up." Maybe a child molestation victim or two will be within earshot.

And obviously the most fun seeing slapd!cks on Sandusky's side of the argument.

"Elite program," my a$$...

Not even going to address your second and third points because that is a gross mischaracterization and uncalled for.

As for your first point, that is absolutely a legitimate and entirely necessary method of governing that is used at all levels of government. It is not possible to cover every situation when drafting laws. You have to have laws that are flexible and can account for unique circumstances, otherwise people would easily get around the law by making the same argument you are making.

In the end, I am not sure what point you are really trying to make. Is it that all impermissible benefits are created equal and you don't see how this is any worse than giving an underage recruit a few hundred dollars? Or do you agree that it is worse but want to find a loophole to not receive heightened punishment? Either way, good luck.

 

[zipp]

Not even going to address your second and third points because that is a gross mischaracterization and uncalled for...

Of course you're not because a slapd!ck can't.

...As for your first point, that is absolutely a legitimate and entirely necessary method of governing that is used at all levels of government. It is not possible to cover every situation when drafting laws. You have to have laws that are flexible and can account for unique circumstances...

Fine. Then show me an example of a couple laws that are written in such a general and open-ended way that a judge can dole out widely different penalties for the same category of crime/offense. Oughta be easy since it's at
"all levels of government."

...In the end, I am not sure what point you are really trying to make. Is it that all impermissible benefits are created equal and you don't see how this is any worse than giving an underage recruit a few hundred dollars? Or do you agree that it is worse but want to find a loophole to not receive heightened punishment? Either way, good luck.

My point is easy to understand... You can't find a parallel in any past case to what the NCAA did for this offense and/or you can't find a place in their regulations for this specific penalty. It ain't there except for legislate-on-the-fly language that will be readily challenged in court.

BUT I've decided to compromise with the LPT mouth-breathers on this subject... As I understand, your basketball program had a number of players in the 40s and 50s receive impermissible benefits from point-shaving during championship years. If slappies wanna forego their banner or banners in those years, I'll adapt my POV on U of L's situation. I mean, old banners in the past really don't matter that much anyway, and we're wasting a lotta bandwidth arguing when there's an easy compromise. OK, slappies??

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Crankdatmustard]

NCAA said themselves that their is no precedent for this case due to the Magnitude. They basically set the standards moving forward.

 

[gocds]

NCAA said themselves that their is no precedent for this case due to the Magnitude. They basically set the standards moving forward.

I do not normally say anything when someone misuses the "Queen's English" but in your case I'll oblige you. It's "there" not "their" in your comment. But since you are a cayuts fan your misuse of the English language isn't surprising, in fact, expected.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[zipp]

...They basically set the standards moving forward.

We'll find out how a judge views that process of "setting standards" while in motion.

And you didn't answer my question of reciprocal banner removal...

...I've decided to compromise with the LPT mouth-breathers on this subject... As I understand, your basketball program had a number of players in the 40s and 50s receive impermissible benefits from point-shaving during championship years. If slappies wanna forego their banner or banners in those years, I'll adapt my POV on U of L's situation. I mean, old banners in the past really don't matter that much anyway, and we're wasting a lotta bandwidth arguing when there's an easy compromise. OK, slappies??​

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[zipp]

...I've decided to compromise with the LPT mouth-breathers on this subject... As I understand, your basketball program had a number of players in the 40s and 50s receive impermissible benefits from point-shaving during championship years. If slappies wanna forego their banner or banners in those years, I'll adapt my POV on U of L's situation. I mean, old banners in the past really don't matter that much anyway, and we're wasting a lotta bandwidth arguing when there's an easy compromise. OK, slappies??...

Not in the habit of quoting myself, but these damn crickets are driving me crazy.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Rockfly78]

Not in the habit of quoting myself, but these damn crickets are driving me crazy.

"Elite program," my a$$...

Bump

 

[zipp]

Answer it slappy...that "bumps" it too.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[nookam]

Maybe the NCAA budges a little on appeal, but I very seriously doubt any involved want to be on the stand under oath and chance perjury. Once the appeal is over, the best move is to move forward and live with it. UL will still be listed as the champion with an asterisk that it was vacated.

 

[zipp]

So one question about THEIR banners sends all of the interloping slapd!cks scrambling for cover?

"Elite program," my a$$... (But cheatin', you betcha...)

 

[meeksfor3]

I hope it goes to court and we drag that slut Powell and her slut daughters back into court. I hope we get a judge who doesn't think a mother prostituting her under age daughters is a victim.

Are you sure going to court is what you really want? Let's say, hypothetically speaking, what she said did happen and players like Russ, Harrell, etc. knew about it. Do you think they will commit perjury while under oath, risk going to jail and take the fall just for the good of the program? Right now they can deny without repercussions but once it goes to trial and recruits and their fathers are telling the same story to the court that they did to the NCAA then some guys could see the risk involved and flip their story to save their own necks.

 

[zipp]

Are you sure going to court is what you really want? Let's say, hypothetically speaking, what she said did happen and players like Russ, Harrell, etc. knew about it. Do you think they will commit perjury while under oath, risk going to jail and take the fall just for the good of the program?...

Ever heard of he-said, she-said? How are you gonna prove anyone in this situation is committing perjury? That's what makes the "evidence" so weak. All parties can lie without consequences.

I realize that's not what a slapd!ck wants to hear. But how about those LPT banners won with players who were point shaving? How repugnant is throwing a game?

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[Atwood8665]

Ever heard of he-said, she-said? How are you gonna prove anyone in this situation is committing perjury? That's what makes the "evidence" so weak. All parties can lie without consequences.

I realize that's not what a slapd!ck wants to hear. But how about those LPT banners won with players who were point shaving? How repugnant is throwing a game?

"Elite program," my a$$...

If it does actually go past the internal NCAA appeal and to a civil court, the judge isn't going to be looking at the case de novo, he will review the NCAA bylaws to determine whether the voluntary organization acted out of line with its own bylaws. Courts have no interest in stepping into the territory of a private organization in which membership is voluntary, so as long as the NCAA wasn't arbitrary or capricious in its determination, the court will just let the NCAA punishment stand. Also, the threshold to prove that is really high. If the hypothetical he said-she said situation happens, the court is not going to find enough evidence to change the status quo. If the case goes this far, it will be on Louisville to prove the NCAA was a bad actor, not on the NCAA to show it was right. That burden will be difficult to satisfy.

 

[zipp]

...Courts have no interest in stepping into the territory of a private organization in which membership is voluntary, so as long as the NCAA wasn't arbitrary or capricious in its determination, the court will just let the NCAA punishment stand...

Nothing arbitrary or capricious about unprecedented penalties, the absence of a single "repugnance" reference in its regulations, and universities successfully defeating penalties on behalf of child molesters. Nothing at all.

Private organizations have leeway to manage fairly and equitably. Otherwise, they do not. No court is gonna foster arbitrary elements of justice.

And where's an answer to my point-shaving-and-banners question, slapd!ck??

"Elite program," my a$$...