Per Dakich

[zipp]

Jurich never resisted cooperating with the NCAA. But Ramsey said clearly it was "my decision" to accept a voluntary postseason ban. Pitino and Jurich wanted nothing to do with it, and were ultimately proven right.

I heard Jurich interviewed on the radio shortly after the goons fired him. He said you "fight" at this point, i.e., go to court. Let's see if the goons we have now share that resolve...

 

[billoliver40]

The final act of UofL in re Pitino and Jurich actually has little to do with this appeal other than Pitinos suspension is a moot point. The FBI allegations have not been addressed by the NCAA, and very well may not be.....and THAT was listed as end cause for the termination.
Would a lawsuit if the appeal is denied be successful?
Could. Maybe not. It depends on what restitution UofL is looking for. Titles HAVE been vacated before, just not men's D1 basketball. The 15 M dollar fine could be debated since UofL had only a portion of the monies due to conference affiliation
Then again, Dakich may have been talking out his ass and the appeal was approved.

 

[Knucklehank1]

That's not completely true... If contested, the standard will also be WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. If there's precedent for much less severe penalties and/or restitution, that would be relevant in court or certainly asserted by U of L...

What Zipp said. The NCAA knew of one players involvement (presumably Mango) and they reinstated him after he performed community service.

Based on other situations, at most the players would’ve been suspended a few games and had to repay the “benefits”. No way those players would’ve been ruled ineligible for the whole season based on the ncaa’s own precedent.

 

[MikeMcCammon]

Ramsey said clearly it was "my decision" to accept a voluntary postseason ban. Pitino and Jurich wanted nothing to do with it, and were ultimately proven right.

I heard Jurich interviewed on the radio shortly after the goons fired him. He said you "fight" at this point, i.e., go to court....

Yeah he said that after he was already gone. Sorry bud, but he said numerous times he was all about 100% cooperation with the NCAA. You cannot spin that away.

 

[Knucklehank1]

What would be the legal basis for a lawsuit?

Excessive, punitive damages. Inconsistent application of rules.

 

[zipp]

Yeah he said that after he was already gone. Sorry bud, but he said numerous times he was all about 100% cooperation with the NCAA. You cannot spin that away.

Is that why Jurich ignored the NCAA's findings re. Clint Hurtt?

Like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Bud...

 

[MikeMcCammon]

Is that why Jurich ignored the NCAA's findings re. Clint Hurtt?

Like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Bud...

I am using Jurich's own words. Are you calling him a liar? Are you really comparing the NCAA findings for Hurtt to this? No way you are that dumb I hope.

 

[zipp]

I am using Jurich's own words. Are you calling him a liar? Are you really comparing the NCAA findings for Hurtt to this? No way you are that dumb I hope.

"[Jurich] was all about 100% cooperation with the NCAA..."

...are your words, and they don't leave much room for the exception which you are NOW trying to make with Hurtt.

Jurich would have filed suit over a denial, and the wimps you support will not. Your guys are OK with the banner coming down...

 

[MikeMcCammon]

"[Jurich] was all about 100% cooperation with the NCAA..."

...are your words, and they don't leave much room for the exception which you are NOW trying to make with Hurtt.

Jurich would have filed suit over a denial, and the wimps you support will not. Your guys are OK with the banner coming down...

There is nothing to file suit over and Jurich would tell you the same thing. Your problem is you disdain the people who were brought in to fix a mess while you adore the people who created it.

 

[zipp]

There is nothing to file suit over...

 

[MikeMcCammon]

There is nothing to file suit over and Jurich would tell you the same thing. Your problem is you disdain the people who were brought in to fix a mess while you adore the people who created it.

Again.

 

[nccardfan]

Is McCammon the guy on the other message board or is this poster using his name?

 

[eastwood45789]

Being mentioned in the same breath as Dakich, Powell and Sypher? Not funny. Kind of like Rick, Tom and Jim.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

He's right. You and I have had this discussion on the national board. There is no direct precedent, the entire sanction s based on player eligibility and there is no mechanism for retroactive eligibility. Remember, you bet me my perma ban against your post that you were wrong. That bets time is coming.

 

[CardX]

The past administration would have done the exact same thing.

Incorrect. Jurich said the title is worth fighting for. That meant exploring every option, including the court system.

 

[American Male]

The penalty is the norm. A player is found to be ineligible for receiving impermissible benefits. All games that any ineligible player participated in are then vacated.

Then why didn't Duke vacate the games that their players who received 'impermissible benefits' played in!?!?!?

Same goes for Miami!!!

 

[gobigblue812]

Because the NCAA is crooked.

 

[MikeMcCammon]

Incorrect. Jurich said the title is worth fighting for. That meant exploring every option, including the court system.

In context I believe he was referring to the appeal process. Has he ever specifically mentioned filing a lawsuit?

Look I think the NCAA is acting based on the fact that they get a ton of money through their ESPN contract from Nike which is one of the top 3 sources of revenue for ESPN. UK and now North Carolina get away with murder. Any player who took those phony classes at UNC should be declared ineligible retroactively just like ours have been. The problem is I don't know that there is any legal standing to sue them since they apparently can apply their rules however they want. It sucks and is another reason why we should have gone with Nike instead of Adidas. Then we could cheat just like the Nike schools.

 

[zipp]

In context I believe he was referring to the appeal process. Has he ever specifically mentioned filing a lawsuit?

Look I think the NCAA is acting based on the fact that they get a ton of money through their ESPN contract from Nike which is one of the top 3 sources of revenue for ESPN. UK and now North Carolina get away with murder. Any player who took those phony classes at UNC should be declared ineligible retroactively just like ours have been. The problem is I don't know that there is any legal standing to sue them since they apparently can apply their rules however they want. It sucks and is another reason why we should have gone with Nike instead of Adidas. Then we could cheat just like the Nike schools.

A court doesn't allow anyone to arbitrarily apply their own "rules". Organizations like the NCAA are sued all of the time over how they make decisions. Precedents and standards for equity are always going to apply.

Jurich would have found lawyers to make those arguments. My prediction is these goons will not--for other reasons...

 

[zipp]

He's right. You and I have had this discussion on the national board. There is no direct precedent, the entire sanction s based on player eligibility and there is no mechanism for retroactive eligibility. Remember, you bet me my perma ban against your post that you were wrong. That bets time is coming.

It's not about mechanism... It's about whether the punishment fit the crime and whether permanent ineligibility would have been the prescribed remedy. There's precedent in this instance alone that answer was "no".

I don't know WTH you're talking about on the last part. But you're a slapd!ck, so why should I?....

 

[zipp]

Is McCammon the guy on the other message board or is this poster using his name?

He's a poser...

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

It's not about mechanism... It's about whether the punishment fit the crime and whether permanent ineligibility would have been the prescribed remedy. There's precedent in this instance alone that answer was "no".

I don't know WTH you're talking about on the last part. But you're a slapd!ck, so why should I?....

No, the one player got his eligibility back but you don't know all the circumstances and as I said before, he still had eligibility so they had something to work with. The others had no remaining eligibility. There is no precedent for retroactive eligibility and the punishment is simply the consequences of playing someone who was ineligible. We made our bet on the national board. Do I need to dig it up for you?

 

[zipp]

No, the one player got his eligibility back but you don't know all the circumstances and as I said before, he still had eligibility so they had something to work with. The others had no remaining eligibility. There is no precedent for retroactive eligibility and the punishment is simply the consequences of playing someone who was ineligible. We made our bet on the national board. Do I need to dig it up for you?

Dig up whatever the hell you want. Slappies get no benefit of the doubt from me.

The punishment must fit the crime. That will be a valid argument. A technicality like you're trying to make will be considered in that light. "Oh, we didn't have the opportunity to punish him the same way!..."

 

[MikeMcCammon]

A court doesn't allow anyone to arbitrarily apply their own "rules". Organizations like the NCAA are sued all of the time over how they make decisions. Precedents and standards for equity are always going to apply.

Jurich would have found lawyers to make those arguments. My prediction is these goons will not--for other reasons...

Actually courts do allow organizations to arbitrarily apply their own rules in most situations. Just because they applied the rules and punished us while spending a couple of years figuring out how they could avoid doing the same to North Carolina does not mean we have a basis for suing them. You better have something a lot more creative than just claiming unfair treatment.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Dig up whatever the hell you want. Slappies get no benefit of the doubt from me.

The punishment must fit the crime. That will be a valid argument. A technicality like you're trying to make will be considered in that light. "Oh, we didn't have the opportunity to punish him the same way!..."

No, it won't. Unless there is an issue like a lack of due process, a judge has no standing to intercede in the private interactions between a private group and a voluntary member of that group. You'll see.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Dig up whatever the hell you want. Slappies get no benefit of the doubt from me.

The punishment must fit the crime. That will be a valid argument. A technicality like you're trying to make will be considered in that light. "Oh, we didn't have the opportunity to punish him the same way!..."

ok, https://forums.rivals.com/threads/louisville-files-appeal-full.749453/page-4#post-21827650

 

[CardsFirst]

"[Jurich] was all about 100% cooperation with the NCAA..."

...are your words, and they don't leave much room for the exception which you are NOW trying to make with Hurtt.

Jurich would have filed suit over a denial, and the wimps you support will not. Your guys are OK with the banner coming down...

There is nothing to file suit over and Jurich would tell you the same thing. Your problem is you disdain the people who were brought in to fix a mess while you adore the people who created it.

And they can’t add more penalties during the appeals process. So you’re correct it doesn’t add up.

 

[CardsFirst]

Dig up whatever the hell you want. Slappies get no benefit of the doubt from me.

The punishment must fit the crime. That will be a valid argument. A technicality like you're trying to make will be considered in that light. "Oh, we didn't have the opportunity to punish him the same way!..."

No, it won't. Unless there is an issue like a lack of due process, a judge has no standing to intercede in the private interactions between a private group and a voluntary member of that group. You'll see.

You can sue anyone for anything you’ll see

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

You can sue anyone for anything you’ll see

You can file it but this would be federal court, they won't hear just any case that's filed. It isn't automatic.

 

[zipp]

No, it won't. Unless there is an issue like a lack of due process, a judge has no standing to intercede in the private interactions between a private group and a voluntary member of that group. You'll see.

That's bull$hit, and I know from personal experience. To defend itself legally, any business, organization, or group comprised of individuals must have rules and policies that it tries to enforce. They must be spelled out, and they must be consistently enforced. They can't make ish up as they go along. And if there's evidence that the entity is trying to do that, they can and do get sued.

Not sure what you THINK you know, but don't assume you know anything...

 

[zipp]

ok, https://forums.rivals.com/threads/louisville-files-appeal-full.749453/page-4#post-21827650

If Jurich gets to decide this, I feel pretty safe in that bet...

 

[CardsFirst]

You can sue anyone for anything you’ll see

You can file it but this would be federal court, they won't hear just any case that's filed. It isn't automatic.

I think there’s plenty of information out there to more than prove the NCAA passes out punishment without sticking to their own rules. And once it gets into the court system you nor I have any idea how it will go. I think there’s plenty of individuals in the legal system that are also fed up with the NCAAs antics and would love to see what’s in the closet.

 

[CardsFirst]

You can sue anyone for anything you’ll see

You can file it but this would be federal court, they won't hear just any case that's filed. It isn't automatic.

And more importantly why do you even care? I normally don’t respond to blue fans. Because I could careless what’s going on over there. I have more important things to worry about.

 

[billoliver40]

All kinds of interesting ideas.
The result of appeal isn't official yet.
UofL may have "won".
We respond because it's a Perry Mason drama.....figuring out NCAA decisions is similar to betting on which rat wins a maze race.
Mainly just sports conversation.
UofL is betting the NCAA reconsiders and determines the punishment is excessive.
The dollar amount for what? Three /four years of NCAA appearances, two final fours and a national title....15 mill may be correct. Voiding a TITLE in men's basketball is unprecedented, as we all know voiding final fours is not.
Despite argument against, the rules are not new, and the rules are agreed upon by fellow members.
As far as 'unprecedented' goes....decisions are made all the time.
That's where precedents come from.
If you lose the appeal should you go to court? Completely your choice. Anyone can sue. It would be a calculated risk as to whether six more months to two years of the words Louisville and prostitution being linked are worth the banner being salvaged. Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Rockfly78]

I think there’s plenty of information out there to more than prove the NCAA passes out punishment without sticking to their own rules. And once it gets into the court system you nor I have any idea how it will go. I think there’s plenty of individuals in the legal system that are also fed up with the NCAAs antics and would love to see what’s in the closet.

How did they not stick to their own rules here?

 

[HRTheCard]

All I'm saying that if what Dakich was said were true, you would think it'd been publicized either today or tomorrow. The longer nothing is released, the less value his claim is worth.

 

[CardsFirst]

I think there’s plenty of information out there to more than prove the NCAA passes out punishment without sticking to their own rules. And once it gets into the court system you nor I have any idea how it will go. I think there’s plenty of individuals in the legal system that are also fed up with the NCAAs antics and would love to see what’s in the closet.

How did they not stick to their own rules here?

The punishment we received would be for a Level 1 violation. We didn’t receive a Level 1 Violation.,When asked a board member (A women on the board. Can’t remember her name) why the harsh punishment. She stated morality as the reason, because juvenileS were involved. The NCAA doesn’t rule on morality. And if it was severe enough to take the banner it would have been a Level 1 violation. They ruled outside of the structure established by the NCAA and that is what’s wrong with the NCAA.

And then there’s Pitino’s punishment. Five game suspension. Really? He was the responsible party per the NCAA “Coaches will be held responsible for their program”. No not really. Just innocent players and fans. If they thought it was worth taking the banner you would think the coach would have gotten a stiffer penalty.

The system is a farce. And until some University takes the NCAA to court this will not get straightened out.

What happened here was disgusting and wrong, but worth taking a banner.....no.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

That's bull$hit, and I know from personal experience. To defend itself legally, any business, organization, or group comprised of individuals must have rules and policies that it tries to enforce. They must be spelled out, and they must be consistently enforced. They can't make ish up as they go along. And if there's evidence that the entity is trying to do that, they can and do get sued.

Not sure what you THINK you know, but don't assume you know anything...

Lol, an HOA is a bit different than the NCAA.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If Jurich gets to decide this, I feel pretty safe in that bet...

He doesn't. Are you backing out now?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I think there’s plenty of information out there to more than prove the NCAA passes out punishment without sticking to their own rules. And once it gets into the court system you nor I have any idea how it will go. I think there’s plenty of individuals in the legal system that are also fed up with the NCAAs antics and would love to see what’s in the closet.

OK but how did they stray from their rules with the UL sanctions?