Lee and Lewis Need an Attorney

[zipp]

There are a lotta non-lawyers in this space practicing law--or trying to--including me. I realize we may have a lawyer or two, but even a lawyer is just giving you an opinion at this point since I doubt there is case law precedent.

With that caveat...

L&L clearly made their intentions known when they enrolled at U of L, to play in the NCAA tourney. And IIRC, that was openly acknowledged on multiple occasions by Pitino who is a key university representative. We didn't deny their admissions on the possibility that we would decline an NCAA invitation. (Obviously, we couldn't guarantee anyone that we would be good enough to be invited.)

In my opinion, that constitutes the essence of a contract or prior agreement, and it could be argued that U of L is trying to break it. If the NCAA imposed this penalty, that would be another matter. But U of L voluntarily took this step when it had other good options such as a ban next season. I'd argue--and already have--that irrespective of this "contract", a voluntary ban next year is a better option anyway.

It's irrelevant whether Ramsey has the authority to ban the basketball team today. If authority is an issue, it's probably whether someone in authority recognized the essence of a contract when L&L enrolled. My guess is that it can be easily argued that Ramsey and Jurich were both aware of their enrollment and the basis for it. What happens with U of L basketball is very visible and important in this community.

A lawyer today may be able to argue a technical point why such a lawsuit isn't possible. Short of that, I don't think a lawyer can accurately predict the outcome other than give you the odds of success. And again, the objective isn't success, it's getting a stay of the decision long enough to participate in the tourney...

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

There are a lotta non-lawyers in this space practicing law--or trying to--including me. I realize we may have a lawyer or two, but even a lawyer is just giving you an opinion at this point since I doubt there is case law precedent.

With that caveat...

L&L clearly made their intentions known when they enrolled at U of L, to play in the NCAA tourney. And IIRC, that was openly acknowledged on multiple occasions by Pitino who is a key university representative. We didn't deny their admissions on the possibility that we would decline an NCAA invitation. (Obviously, we couldn't guarantee anyone that we would be good enough to be invited.)

In my opinion, that constitutes the essence of a contract or prior agreement, and it could be argued that U of L is trying to break it. If the NCAA imposed this penalty, that would be another matter. But U of L voluntarily took this step when it had other good options such as a ban next season. I'd argue--and already have--that irrespective of this "contract", a voluntary ban next year is a better option anyway.

It's irrelevant whether Ramsey has the authority to ban the basketball team today. If authority is an issue, it's probably whether someone in authority recognized the essence of a contract when L&L enrolled. My guess is that it can be easily argued that Ramsey and Jurich were both aware of their enrollment and the basis for it. What happens with U of L basketball is very visible and important in this community.

A lawyer today may be able to argue a technical point why such a lawsuit isn't possible. Short of that, I don't think a lawyer can accurately predict the outcome other than give you the odds of success. And again, the objective isn't success, it's getting a stay of the decision long enough to participate in the tourney...

That's a more reasoned approach than the previous posts, however, there is still no contract, actual or implied. Just because the desires of the players were known doesn't force the school to make sure they are met. Again, a judge does not have the authority to force UL into the tournament. UL has already made its intentions known to the ACC and NCAA. Who would the judge be issuing a stay against? I don't think you'll see a lawyer take on the case. Crazier things have happened though, I could be totally wrong.

 

[fredburgcard]

There are a lotta non-lawyers in this space practicing law--or trying to--including me. I realize we may have a lawyer or two, but even a lawyer is just giving you an opinion at this point since I doubt there is case law precedent.

With that caveat...

L&L clearly made their intentions known when they enrolled at U of L, to play in the NCAA tourney. And IIRC, that was openly acknowledged on multiple occasions by Pitino who is a key university representative. We didn't deny their admissions on the possibility that we would decline an NCAA invitation. (Obviously, we couldn't guarantee anyone that we would be good enough to be invited.)

In my opinion, that constitutes the essence of a contract or prior agreement, and it could be argued that U of L is trying to break it. If the NCAA imposed this penalty, that would be another matter. But U of L voluntarily took this step when it had other good options such as a ban next season. I'd argue--and already have--that irrespective of this "contract", a voluntary ban next year is a better option anyway.

It's irrelevant whether Ramsey has the authority to ban the basketball team today. If authority is an issue, it's probably whether someone in authority recognized the essence of a contract when L&L enrolled. My guess is that it can be easily argued that Ramsey and Jurich were both aware of their enrollment and the basis for it. What happens with U of L basketball is very visible and important in this community.

A lawyer today may be able to argue a technical point why such a lawsuit isn't possible. Short of that, I don't think a lawyer can accurately predict the outcome other than give you the odds of success. And again, the objective isn't success, it's getting a stay of the decision long enough to participate in the tourney...

The problem with breech of an implied contract is that when Lee and Lewis came to Louisville each signed a scholarship agreement where they agreed to play basketball for UofL and the school agreed to give them a scholarship for the costs of their education. I doubt that agreement contained any language about the NCAA tournament. Courts are loath to imply agreements between parties when there is already a written agreement. There may even be a provision in the scholarship agreement where the parties agree that the written agreement is the extent of the agreement between the parties and that there are no other provisions not articulated in the agreement.

Even if Lee and Lewis could find an attorney to bring the suit and were successful in getting a Circuit Court judge to issue an injunction against the University the University would immediately appeal to the Court of Appeals. They would likely seek an expedited hearing which would likely be granted. There is no way a three judge panel on the Court of Appeals would continue the injunction.

 

[zipp]

The problem with breech of an implied contract is that when Lee and Lewis came to Louisville each signed a scholarship agreement where they agreed to play basketball for UofL and the school agreed to give them a scholarship for the costs of their education. I doubt that agreement contained any language about the NCAA tournament. Courts are loath to imply agreements between parties when there is already a written agreement. There may even be a provision in the scholarship agreement where the parties agree that the written agreement is the extent of the agreement between the parties and that there are no other provisions not articulated in the agreement.

Even if Lee and Lewis could find an attorney to bring the suit and were successful in getting a Circuit Court judge to issue an injunction against the University the University would immediately appeal to the Court of Appeals. They would likely seek an expedited hearing which would likely be granted. There is no way a three judge panel on the Court of Appeals would continue the injunction.

Or that might be just the cover needed for U of L to say "OK, we'll do it next year". Look at the fallout it's already created.

Your point in the first paragraph is technical and may be exactly what U of L needs to get a suit thrown out. Unless you know about what they signed, we're both just speculating. And absent an out like that, who knows?...

 

[zipp]

To fred's point, I found this as an example of an athletic scholly agreement: Link

Looks like there isn't language as to the school's performance under the "contract". Of course, that doesn't mean that the school has no obligations...

 

[roguemocha]

For those who think the wrong players are being punished, if you could trade the 2013 season and championship to get these kids the chance to play in the NCAA tournament this year, would you do it? That would be punishing those who were involved and not those who weren't.

 

[Knucklehank1]

For those who think the wrong players are being punished, if you could trade the 2013 season and championship to get these kids the chance to play in the NCAA tournament this year, would you do it? That would be punishing those who were involved and not those who weren't.

Penalties shouldn't work on some sort of bartering system, so this is kind of a ridiculous question

 

[RationalCard]

I heard someone on Deener say the issue would be a procedural issue and a due process issue.

Since they are a state institution, they have to go by guidelines to enforce a penalty. There has to be certain procedural effects to happen, notice, hearing, chance to defend the claim, etc.

Since they were denied all of this, they were denied due process that is afforded to them being a state institution. The penalty occurred without due process, which you cant do.

Not sure it holds water, but not a contractual issue.

 

[roguemocha]

Penalties shouldn't work on some sort of bartering system, so this is kind of a ridiculous question

So there should be no punishment? Or what would you recommend? Honest question.

 

[zipp]

I heard someone on Deener say the issue would be a procedural issue and a due process issue.

Since they are a state institution, they have to go by guidelines to enforce a penalty. There has to be certain procedural effects to happen, notice, hearing, chance to defend the claim, etc.

Since they were denied all of this, they were denied due process that is afforded to them being a state institution. The penalty occurred without due process, which you cant do.

Not sure it holds water, but not a contractual issue.

Heard that too, and I think the guy was an attorney...

 

[zipp]

For those who think the wrong players are being punished, if you could trade the 2013 season and championship to get these kids the chance to play in the NCAA tournament this year, would you do it? That would be punishing those who were involved and not those who weren't.

Should be considered if the eligibility of players involved is or would have been at issue. If the 2013 banner turns out to be an embarrassment, do you want it hanging in your arena?...

 

[JohnKBA]

I'd take a vacated season over a future penalty. You can't erase memories. This isn't Total Recall.

 

[Deli owl]

Universities can choose not to participate at any time and they can also at any time shut down their programs. Those kids did have 3 years to play in the tourney. There's also about 250 teams full of players that can't play in it. Those schools should sue the NCAA for not allowing everyone to participate. Maybe they could give out participation awards. smh

 

[Knucklehank1]

Universities can choose not to participate at any time and they can also at any time shut down their programs. Those kids did have 3 years to play in the tourney. There's also about 250 teams full of players that can't play in it. Those schools should sue the NCAA for not allowing everyone to participate. Maybe they could give out participation awards. smh

Aside from your post being ridiculous, do you not realize that this team will have met the requisite requirements to compete in the tourney? Try again

 

[Deli owl]

Aside from your post being ridiculous, do you not realize that this team will have met the requisite requirements to compete in the tourney? Try again

You really should read my post again since you stated nothing that I posted as is. I never said any single word about them not meeting any single requirement. There's no lawsuit here as there is no "right" to any tourney guaranteed by anyone. Smh. Read the words, not what you want to see that's not there.

 

[BBBLazing]

Heard that too, and I think the guy was an attorney...

He was a bad attorney then.

 

[zipp]

He was a bad attorney then.

Anyone know any good LPT attorney jokes?

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

 

[JohnKBA]

Anyone know any good LPT attorney jokes?

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

Matt Jones.


That's the joke.