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

[Atwood8665]

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$$...

I'm not saying that the court won't find the actions of the NCAA to be arbitrary and capricious, I'm just pointing out that at that point the burden is all on Louisville, and that the threshold is very high. At that point, a "he said, she said" situation won't change the status quo, or overturn the ruling. Private organizations have a lot more leeway than you think, especially when they are "voluntary." I agree that in reality, there is nothing voluntary about the NCAA, but it technically is. As far as Sandusky goes, there was a great injustice in how the NCAA handled the whole situation, and Sandusky deserves the worst punishment imaginable. But, these are two different situations, and just because the NCAA screwed that one up, doesn't mean a court is going to assume they screwed this one up.

I'm really just here for the law discussion, and honestly, I haven't paid much attention to events that happened almost 70 years ago, so I can't say one way or the other whether those banners should come down. If they were proven to have cheated in those seasons, and their actions were against NCAA rules, then yes, the titles should go back. That being said, I don't think the NCAA should have taken away the 2013 banner, and I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

 

[zipp]

I'm not saying that the court won't find the actions of the NCAA to be arbitrary and capricious, I'm just pointing out that at that point the burden is all on Louisville, and that the threshold is very high. At that point, a "he said, she said" situation won't change the status quo, or overturn the ruling. Private organizations have a lot more leeway than you think, especially when they are "voluntary." I agree that in reality, there is nothing voluntary about the NCAA, but it technically is. As far as Sandusky goes, there was a great injustice in how the NCAA handled the whole situation, and Sandusky deserves the worst punishment imaginable. But, these are two different situations, and just because the NCAA screwed that one up, doesn't mean a court is going to assume they screwed this one up.

I'm really just here for the law discussion, and honestly, I haven't paid much attention to events that happened almost 70 years ago, so I can't say one way or the other whether those banners should come down. If they were proven to have cheated in those seasons, and their actions were against NCAA rules, then yes, the titles should go back. That being said, I don't think the NCAA should have taken away the 2013 banner, and I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

So, your studied legal opinion is that an appeal may work out or it may not. Glad I'm not paying you $300/hour for that counsel.

You also don't get to pick your points for debate...

Along with U of L's situation, I'm good with reveiwing a lot of NCAA cases involving impermissible benefits and "repugnant" behavior. LPT faced a postseason ban for using players who had previously shaved points, so there's little question how the NCAA weighed the involvement of those players. The only question now is were the right penalties levied. Not sure at all when banners were involved.

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

 

[Atwood8665]

So, your studied legal opinion is that an appeal may work out or it may not. Glad I'm not paying you $300/hour for that counsel.

You also don't get to pick your points for debate...

Along with U of L's situation, I'm good with reveiwing a lot of NCAA cases involving impermissible benefits and "repugnant" behavior. LPT faced a postseason ban for using players who had previously shaved points, so there's little question how the NCAA weighed the involvement of those players. The only question now is were the right penalties levied. Not sure at all when banners were involved.

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

The great and interesting thing about the law is that there is no such thing as sure thing. Yes, Louisville may win in court, but it would take a lot. Basically to the point of Powell admitting that she made it all up and that no one was ever paid to have sex with recruits.

The fact that the NCAA doesn't have the word "repugnant" defined or mentioned in its bylaws is irrelevant. If all laws and bylaws had to define every word they could possibly use when describing an action, they would have to write a separate dictionary for each law.

As far as your attempt to insult me with the $300/hr joke, walk into any firm in the country, and you will get some variation of my answer. They may say 60/40, 90/10, or 50/50, but there will always be a chance you lose. If anyone gives you a guarantee, they're committing malpractice.

I can pick any points of debate I want. I don't know the details of the situation, so I can't make an argument either way. Regardless, the NCAA did not take them away from Kentucky in the 40s and 50s, so it really doesn't matter, nor is it relevant to the current topic.

 

[zipp]

...The fact that the NCAA doesn't have the word "repugnant" defined or mentioned in its bylaws is irrelevant. If all laws and bylaws had to define every word they could possibly use when describing an action, they would have to write a separate dictionary for each law...

The problem for an LPT lawyer in this case is that word was also accompanied by an unprecedented penalty. So it wasn't just a case of semantics. Put "disgusting" or "immoral" or any other word in there--that is the TYPE of offense that will have to defended, and not just a game of Scrabble.

...As far as your attempt to insult me with the $300/hr joke, walk into any firm in the country, and you will get some variation of my answer. They may say 60/40, 90/10, or 50/50, but there will always be a chance you lose. If anyone gives you a guarantee, they're committing malpractice...

I've already heard plenty of legal opinions on this subject, and they're all over the place. Which tells me that you're here for free, and mostly just flapping your gums.

...I can pick any points of debate I want. I don't know the details of the situation, so I can't make an argument either way. Regardless, the NCAA did not take them away from Kentucky in the 40s and 50s, so it really doesn't matter, nor is it relevant to the current topic.

Sure you can. Just like I can point out that you're dodging the debate with a flimsy "doesn't matter" answer. History sets the precedent, whether it's five years or fifty years, unless the NCAA has clarified that the rules have changed. You're just responding like a typical slapd!ck with an opinion I'm supposed to respect. Good luck with that.

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

 

[Atwood8665]

The problem for an LPT lawyer in this case is that word was also accompanied by an unprecedented penalty. So it wasn't just a case of semantics. Put "disgusting" or "immoral" or any other word in there--that is the TYPE of offense that will have to defended, and not just a game of Scrabble.

I've already heard plenty of legal opinions on this subject, and they're all over the place. Which tells me that you're here for free, and mostly just flapping your gums.

Sure you can. Just like I can point out that you're dodging the debate with a flimsy "doesn't matter" answer. History sets the precedent, whether it's five years or fifty years, unless the NCAA has clarified that the rules have changed. You're just responding like a typical slapd!ck with an opinion I'm supposed to respect. Good luck with that.

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

My ultimate point is that the NCAA will not truly have to defend itself the way you describe. Louisville will have to prove its case.

Look at it this way, if it were a criminal matter, the NCAA is the defendant and Louisville is the prosecutor. The NCAA is innocent until proven guilty, and Louisville has to meet a high burden to prove guilt. The way the court would see this case is very similar. There is a strong presumption that the actions of a private, voluntary organization are valid, and Louisville will have to show the court otherwise.

It's fine if you don't care about my legal opinion or give it any credence, based simply on the fact that I wear a blue t-shirt to watch a bunch of dudes throw a ball through a hoop, just wanted to offer my knowledge and experience in the law.

 

[zipp]

My ultimate point is that the NCAA will not truly have to defend itself the way you describe. Louisville will have to prove its case.

Look at it this way, if it were a criminal matter, the NCAA is the defendant and Louisville is the prosecutor. The NCAA is innocent until proven guilty, and Louisville has to meet a high burden to prove guilt...

Great lawyering... It ain't criminal, so the burden of proof is much lower--as in a simple 51/49 preponderance of evidence. U of L fans will take that gambit, slapd!ck.

And I figgered you would use a hoops analogy for who you are.

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

 

[Atwood8665]

Great lawyering... It ain't criminal, so the burden of proof is much lower--as in a simple 51/49 preponderance of evidence. U of L fans will take that gambit, slapd!ck.

And I figgered you would use a hoops example for who you are.

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

If that's the standard you think Louisville has to meet, you are mistaken.

 

[zipp]

If that's the standard you think Louisville has to meet, you are mistaken.

From the slappy lawyer who may or may not know. Classic.

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

 

[Atwood8665]

The only thing I don't know is whether or not Louisville can meet the burden. I am well aware of how significant that burden is. It is quite a bit higher than 51/49.

 

[zipp]

The only thing I don't know is...

You've filled in that blank quite nicely with your last 27 posts, thank you.

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

 

[Atwood8665]

You've filled in that blank quite nicely with your last 27 posts, thank you.

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

There's the Zipp we all know and love. Instead of having an intelligent conversation, insult the other guy, that'll work. Goodnight all.

 

[OneEarWonder]

Zipp, you keep saying this is unprecedented, but it's not. The NCAA has vacated wins and taken down banners in the past. The punishment isn't new.

None of us know the final outcome, U of L still has appeals. I doubt it'll go to court, even if it does the onus is on the Cards. So the outcome does not look promising. Even getting Level 1 charges reduced is unlikely.

This is not good for the University or CRPs legacy, regardless of final outcome damage has been done. I'm all for fighting but I'm also aware of the probable outcome. It may be time to move on.

And we all know your obsession with UK. You keep bringing them up when no one else does. But whatever happened 60-70 years ago is immaterial. It has no relevance or bearing on this case. Yes those titles are tainted. I'm sure there are other tainted titles too. None of that excuses it, and none of it applies here.

Just like there are plenty of schools that provide "entertainment" for recruits and players. But we got pinched for it. Others doing it also isn't an excuse.

 

[OneEarWonder]

There's the Zipp we all know and love. Instead of having an intelligent conversation, insult the other guy, that'll work. Goodnight all.

Par for the course. Insult, move the goalposts, change topics... standard formula. When in doubt, throw in a few straw men.

 

[zipp]

Zipp, you keep saying this is unprecedented, but it's not. The NCAA has vacated wins and taken down banners in the past. The punishment isn't new.

None of us know the final outcome, U of L still has appeals. I doubt it'll go to court, even if it does the onus is on the Cards...

Here's the bottom line.... Slappies like you and Atwood have ZERO credibility on this subject with U of L fans--your main audience here--and we don't give a damn whether any of you have served on the Supreme Court. You're biased, and it appears you're all saying it could go either way. Which is on par with the news that we will have some type of weather tomorrow. That is, you're not adding anything of substance to the debate, which is what you SAY you're trying to do. Stop trying.

Also, if you don't like the way you're treated, why are you here? Do you think I would expect hospitality on a slapd!ck message board? You're getting equal treatment because we don't discriminate.

And the subplot, no slappy wants to TOUCH the issue of whether your own banners should come down for repugnant, impermissible benefits in your sordid past--further undermining your credibility (if it could get any lower).

So do you NOW understand where you and your opinions rank? (...He asked rhetorically.)

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

 

[gocds]

OF COURSE HE'S BIASED!!! This is a UofL board. WTH I'm biased too. There are a good many uahkay fans on this board that continue to post here. Our mods are very nice to you guys. Please go to ANY of your boards to see how many UofL fans are even ALLOWED to continue posting there. Your post would get any of us banned immediately over there in your sewer. They are NOT interested in anything that resembles the TRUTH.

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

 

[zipp]

That's what was said...Level 3 if not "repugnant".

The banner question ain't moot... Does your fanbase not count banners from 66 years ago?

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

 

[zipp]

I'm pretty good and can do both--insult AND debate on point. I might argue it's the former that gets me such "love" on your message boards and this one.

But to come here and not expect it from me is ridiculous. Kinda like sending your kid to play for Bobby Knight and whining about he's treated. You're kidding, right?

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

 

[zipp]

It sure is an "open message board", and I have no issues with your posting privileges. My issue is slappies coming here with expected biases and similarly expecting some sort of kid glove treatment. That's either a joke or insanity.

You earn what you get... There's one or two of you (but not many) who post here just fine and whom I largely leave alone. They left their LPT baggage at the door. The rest of you--generally with names like "blue" this or "cat" that--I trash routinely as you should be trashed. If you can't leave your baggage at the door, either accept how you're treated or leave.

Whining ain't getting you anywhere.

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

 

[Steelers2012]

OF COURSE HE'S BIASED!!! This is a UofL board. WTH I'm biased too. There are a good many uahkay fans on this board that continue to post here. Our mods are very nice to you guys. Please go to ANY of your boards to see how many UofL fans are even ALLOWED to continue posting there. Your post would get any of us banned immediately over there.

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

This can not be emphasized enough.

 

[CaliforniaCatFan58]

It sure is an "open message board", and I have no issues with your posting privileges. My issue is slappies coming here with expected biases and similarly expecting some sort of kid glove treatment. That's either a joke or insanity.

You earn what you get... There's one or two of you (but not many) who post here just fine and whom I largely leave alone. They left their LPT baggage at the door. The rest of you--generally with names like "blue" this or "cat" that--I trash routinely as you should be trashed. If you can't leave your baggage at the door, either accept how you're treated or leave.

Whining ain't getting you anywhere.

Whining? Really? How many times have we debated here Zipp? You have trashed me only in your mind. We have agreed to disagree for at least 15 years. You introduce a point. I refute your point with widely accepted data, or accept your point and concede you are correct ( I do not post). Nothing more...Nothing less. However, fact is not opinion. When someone counters your thought process with another viable outcome, or undeniable conflicting data accept the facts without insult, or deleting the data.

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