A slapd!ck doesn't understand history and statistics. It's why they continue hoping...
What do you guys think of this suit filed by players?
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
I wish I was that young. And you want the entire word spelled out for you?...
SLAPD!CK
At least that's how Petrino spells it...
You're wrong as usual. If there's any risk that the person's testimony could be used against him in a criminal matter/prosecution, he can't be compelled to testify. Unless the local jurisdiction gave him immunity from prosecution--which ain't happening--his lawyer would simply have to demonstrate to a judge that there's a risk. Has nothing to do with the NCAA case being a civil matter.
Stick to basketball which is what you know best...
Not every question would be protected, you have no idea if the local DA has any interest in AM and finally, will the statute of limitations have expired.
Well then your stupider than I gave you credit for. A firm as well known as Morgan and Morgan, even if they are gimmicky wouldn’t take a case with zero chance. Chew on that for awhile.
We'll see. M&M are high gloss ambulance chasers, nothing more. They purport to be for the little guy, helping David fight Goliath - for the people and all that. From a marketing perspective, this is a perfect case for them. They dont have to win for it to be profitable.
Last edited:
Hey Blue- maybe “hiding” isn’t the best word.
There are several reasons not to talk. The pressure of the courtroom/ case/ combatants are easily considered intimidating and not conducive to open/safe dialogue.
The last time i got pulled over there were 3 cops asking questions until i stomped my foot and said 1 at a time. i have ptsd.
He couldn’t handle being an assistant coach. How’s he gonna do as a witness?
There are several reasons not to talk. The pressure of the courtroom/ case/ combatants are easily considered intimidating and not conducive to open/safe dialogue.
The last time i got pulled over there were 3 cops asking questions until i stomped my foot and said 1 at a time. i have ptsd.
He couldn’t handle being an assistant coach. How’s he gonna do as a witness?
Philadelphia lawyer Matt Haverstick who represented state senator Jake Coleman in a lawsuit against NCAA thinks U of L players may have a case. That’s more than zero percent.
Good points. If all has been discovered. Then I agree the Ncaa would make a mistake to fight..but the one guy i would worry about, has not said a word..Mcgee..and if it goes to court. I would think he would go into survival mode. And no telling what that guy may rattle off to save his but.
McGee is a good point as they could subpoena him, however he would just plead the fifth.
Like i said. You hide in. The social media world. And if you are a adult man? Then grow up. Were I'm from..only cowards hide behind childish name calling on a web site. No way would you ever play these kid games if standing in front of another grown man. If any poster on here actually met and knew me. And knew my background. We would become friendly and probably friends..I would never stoop to the childish cowardly level of calling another grown man a asshole or slapdick who I've never met. I have to much respect for myself, and other adults working there buts off in this world. Grow up. And get some self respect.
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Basketball_Tournament_Most_Outstanding_Player
Funny, don’t see any asterisks next to Luke’s name.
Keep showing your stupidity. Makes our day!
Still zero and for the reasons Haverstick cited. What he actually said was this "If I were those young men and I thought the investigation was done improperly or unfairly as to me or I thought the punishment was arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not the way the NCAA is supposed to administer punishment — yeah, I’d think I had a case."
In the Penn St. case, the NCAA acted without due process, outside their jurisdiction and outside of normal sanction parameters. They didn't do anything right. That isn't the case for UL and it wasn't the case for Syracuse or Notre Dame. The NCAA has been very careful in their actions since the Penn St. case. They act very slowly, carefully and deliberately. They came to a simply conclusion. Some players received impermissible benefits making them ineligible and that simple fact caused games to be forfeited.
With Penn St., the NCAA settled because they didn't have a leg to stand on. That simply isn't the case here.
So again, what other University was told to take their championship banner down on the basis of ineligible players?
It would have happened to any other school who had players declared ineligible. How could they avoid it?
So he didn’t lose his MOP recognition? That’s cool actually. I could have sworn that was part of it. I felt bad for him about that.
Are you that dense? The point is that other teams have had ineligible players but U of L is the only one to have a banner stripped. What Haverstick is saying is that the NCAA punished U of L differently because of the moral implications of hookers being involved.
Ok, I must be dense. What other team had players ruled ineligible who played in and won a title?
Clueless as usual...
A misdemeanor is STILL A CRIME--who said it takes a felony?. That gets McGee 5th Amendment protection if he's at risk.
Slappies are hilarious when they try to get cerebral...
At least someone try to teach the Slappy the meaning of "your" and "you're". Amazingly, he keeps trying to use the words to prove he can't...
Even when you're proven wrong you still refuse to admit it. In Kentucky, a misdemeanor has a 1 year statute of limitation, which means, AM can't be at risk.
I'm not fighting it, I just believe it will fail and stirring things up is horrible for your program.
Again dense. Rashad MCCants admitted that he didn’t take take courses or did appropriate term papers to retain eligibility. However, the NCAA did not void their NC.
So how could they not vacate their championship if he technically wasn’t eligible? Therein lies the precedent that U of L was treated differently because it was a moral issue not a academic one. The NCAA does not make a separate distinction between the two.
The champions of 1948-1951 were proven to have had multiple players being paid by gangsters to shave points. Clearly impermissible benefits, and far in excess (adjusted for inflation) of the Louisville case. The players were banned for life from either college or pro basketball, but the banners are still up for those schools. Kentucky flies three of those banners, as well as banners honoring several of those players, in Rupp Arena.
Maccants was never ruled ineligible by the NCAA. See how that works? A better comparison would be Memphis , who played an ineligible player and lost a banner for it.
As far as pesidence you sort of made the point yourself. There is presidense for vacation as a result of playing ineligible players. UL’s was of a moral nature which is treated the same. Should unc burn? You bet, but the NCAA cleared them. So there’s no comparison here
Last edited:
Was he ever declared ineligible? I dont disagree with you on him but it's not the same at all.
Yes. A final four banner. I edited my last post with more thoughts on your points about the McCants parallel
Last edited:
I don't believe the NCAA did retroactive penalties back then and the players weren't ruled ineligible during those years. The only penalty from the NCAA was the single season ban.
Similar threads
