(10-04-2022 08:44 AM)fishman6581 Wrote: The university would have been held in contempt had they sat Wiseman.
I should have sued CBHS so Coach Luckett would give me some playing time.
Difference being, Wiseman was the #1 HS kid and #2 NBA prospect.
The only way he doesn't play is injury, team discipline, or NCAA.
He wasn't injured, nor under disciplinary punishment.
And he had a TRO against the NCAA.
He had to play, or else.
During his time with the NCAA, Todd also completed a master's degree with the Butler University College of Education. Todd lives in Indianapolis with his wife, Heather, their son Kameron, daughter Maddie and a rotating menagerie of cats, dogs, fish, bunnies and chickens.
I just had a Fatal Attraction flashback
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2022 12:32 PM by k2tigers.)
(10-04-2022 08:44 AM)fishman6581 Wrote: The university would have been held in contempt had they sat Wiseman.
As an attorney I think that's a bridge too far. I find it hard to believe any court has the power to force a coach/school admin to play a player against their wishes. That's a slippery slope unless you're talking about protected class discrimination. If a coach wants to sit a player because they have a bad attitude, etc. then I think most courts would say that's totally up to the coach. Think the school would have a decent argument that as a voluntary NCAA member they are beholden to its rules and regs so if Wiseman had a case it'd be with NCAA not school. The school would only be enforcing the rules they signed up to play under. Not to mention Wiseman chose to play at a NCAA school so he also voluntarily chose to operate under their rules and enforcement. Don't get me wrong, I hate the NCAA just as much as the next guy so super glad we won I just don't think any contempt charge against the school would have stuck.
This is the correct take. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the court would step into the day to day operational decision making of a member of a private association (the NCAA). The court could not force the school to even have Wiseman on the roster, let alone play him in the game.
(10-04-2022 08:44 AM)fishman6581 Wrote: The university would have been held in contempt had they sat Wiseman.
This almost certainly untrue. Less than 1% chance
I'm just telling you how we would have proceeded. It's easy to sit here years after and say you know better than the people who were actually in the room having those discussions. Oh well.
The difference in how this was handled from other colleges is Penny. Obviously, the unique nature of an alum who donated a building, becoming a grassroots coach, high school coach, then being hired by his alma mater as head coach.
But beyond that, most coaches are too concerned about their own coaching careers to defy the NCAA in such an overt, public way. They are not willing to potentially sacrifice their own careers in support of one of their players' future careers. Penny is different. His career as a college coach is not what defines him, it's not how he's earned his money. So, he was willing to take a stand in support of one of his players against the NCAA in spite of the fact that it was potentially detrimental to his job.
I really hope that he uses that in his recruiting pitch. Probably no other coach in America can say with evidence that he is willing to stand up for his players like coach Penny.
Who were the other 2 players mentioned in the IARP? Wiseman was Student Athlete #1. Who were #2 and #3? I assume one of those was Alo. Was the other another former HS player: Malcolm Dandridge, Ryan Boyce, DJ (Team Penny), or the Lawson brothers?
(10-06-2022 09:11 AM)micman Wrote: Who were the other 2 players mentioned in the IARP? Wiseman was Student Athlete #1. Who were #2 and #3? I assume one of those was Alo. Was the other another former HS player: Malcolm Dandridge, Ryan Boyce, DJ (Team Penny), or the Lawson brothers?
Mr Easterwood had mentioned that Penny had helped the Lawsons.
(10-04-2022 08:44 AM)fishman6581 Wrote: The university would have been held in contempt had they sat Wiseman.
This almost certainly untrue. Less than 1% chance
That is 100% true. On what planet do you have to disobey a court order because of something the NCAA told you to do? Are you frigging kidding?
What is also a fact, is that the NCAA's fascist rules, say that as a player, even if you have a court order, you are still liable for penalties if you play against NCAA rules, regulations and recommendations.
So aside from the complete bull**** of the entire situation, the onus is on the player to obey the NCAA; not the school.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier, because I think some of y'all read it the wrong way. Had the school held Wiseman out, we would have filed for contempt. Would it have been wise? Meh. Would it have won on the merits? I really don't know. James made the decision to take back the lawsuit AFTER the NCAA made assurances that he would be treated "in a fair manner." They showed what they meant by fair with 12 games.
(10-06-2022 09:11 AM)micman Wrote: Who were the other 2 players mentioned in the IARP? Wiseman was Student Athlete #1. Who were #2 and #3? I assume one of those was Alo. Was the other another former HS player: Malcolm Dandridge, Ryan Boyce, DJ (Team Penny), or the Lawson brothers?
Mr Easterwood had mentioned that Penny had helped the Lawsons.
Yeah, a few jumped on that and said over and over that a Lawson could never play for Penny at Memphis. We have 2, I think.
/
Basketball sanctions announcement at 11am
