(10-13-2021 01:07 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 12:00 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 08:43 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

Kind of apples and oranges. A coach is a dictator and I doubt you’ll find any case law (barring protected class discrimination) where a court ruled that a coach HAD to insert a player into a game. Maybe there is some out there but I’m not aware of it. Courts are loathe to get involved in any type of situation that takes place “between the lines” so to say.

Maybe, I get they are not exact parallels but in this instance there is not really any way to draw an exact parallel for the sake of a real world comparison. But as the sole owner of my business I am just as much of a dictator as the head coach of a college basketball team...

Like say, I am not a lawyer and it sounds like the ruling by the IARP is pretty much made so we will see how it all shakes out.

Think at this point if its anything that's not a postseason ban you take it and run.

This we completely agree on!

(10-13-2021 01:16 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 01:07 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  Think at this point if its anything that's not a postseason ban you take it and run.

This we completely agree on!

Anything other than this and we burn a car in Indy in front of the NCAA home office.

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

A coach can play whoever he wants. Period. Penny can play an entire game with walkons and bench players.

(10-12-2021 09:39 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:37 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  If we get penalized it won't be so much because of the Wiseman payment thing. It will be because the school played him when the NCAA said not to. We basically gave them the middle finger. We will pay for that. JMO.

We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

So what you are saying is that they should have ignored it. Common sense isn't buying whatever tripe you are selling.

There was nothing to ignore. The court order said he must be allowed to play. It didn’t compel Penny to play him. Every player on the team is allowed to play based on if the coach wants to play them. The coach decides which players get to play not a court. Can you imagine a court dictating which specific players on a team must see action and which ones can’t play? Get real, Stammers. Common sense says there’s a difference between the definition of something allowed to happen, vs it being forced to happen. You’re spinning half truths about this like you have from the onset.

(10-13-2021 11:27 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 09:51 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 08:57 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 04:20 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the concept of the court injunction and the concept of allow him to play. He is a player. A court injunction allowing him to play means that you can't sit him on the bench.

By that logic could a court also require him to play "x" amount of minutes? I just don't think any court's jurisdiction covers any type of in-game decision like who plays and who doesn't. But hey, agree to disagree. I recently left litigation work for transactional work so I might be itching to argue for argument's sake. haha

The court's injunction would require the coach to treat the player as if he had not been declared ineligible. If he is not ineligible, as the best player in the gym, he is going to play. If you don't play him, then you are, in practice, suspending him - which the court disallowed.

But again, I doubt the NCAA rules this way - as they do their own thing. But in a court of law, I would think the Tigers have a strong case that allowed him to be played during the TRO or injunction (can't recall which it was).

Just for argument's sake I'll counter that talent is not the only reason why a player plays or doesn't play in a game. Its among a number of factors that a coach must weigh when making that decision. I agree with you though that the NCAA is going to do whatever the hell they want to do and in this case due to the IARP's setup there's no appeal process, right?

There is no appeal process to the NCAA/IARP. However, it could still be taken to court. Not that it would, but the NCAA can't prevent it.

It's just hard to imagine that the court TRO would say Wiseman cannot be suspended, but Penny goes ahead and IN PRACTICE suspends him - which would no doubt be the case for a healthy student/athlete of his caliber. That would be trying to circumvent the court order, and the court would not favorably view that.

But it's a moo point, if what Browning Hall found above is in play. We are dead in the water.

(10-13-2021 05:10 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:39 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:37 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  If we get penalized it won't be so much because of the Wiseman payment thing. It will be because the school played him when the NCAA said not to. We basically gave them the middle finger. We will pay for that. JMO.

We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

So what you are saying is that they should have ignored it. Common sense isn't buying whatever tripe you are selling.

There was nothing to ignore. The court order said he must be allowed to play. It didn’t compel Penny to play him. Every player on the team is allowed to play based on if the coach wants to play them. The coach decides which players get to play not a court. Can you imagine a court dictating which specific players on a team must see action and which ones can’t play? Get real, Stammers. Common sense says there’s a difference between the definition of something allowed to happen, vs it being forced to happen. You’re spinning half truths about this like you have from the onset.

The court says he is allowed to play and he meets every criteria known to man to play the most minutes of anyone on the team, but Penny should risk putting the school in the position of being liable by not playing him?

The court injunction wasn't for a scrub to be allowed to sit on the bench. Only in Memphis will fans try and argue that we should have sat him, and we somehow deserve punishment. Any other fanbase would argue that the court cleared him, and the NCAA's actions should not factor in the fact that he played in the 3 games. Everything except that, because there was a COURT INJUNCTION.

The NCAA is saying he might not be eligible to play. Your logic says that the NCAA's word can overrule a court injunction. This is mind boggling.

(10-12-2021 02:25 PM)bbqtiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 02:23 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 02:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

And you would lose...

Because I would point to the previous precedent (Tarkanina case) where the NCAA had the same situation where they didn't punish the school for following the court order.

I doubt the NCAA would have initiated this whole thing if the answer were as simple as that. Also, betting on NCAA to rely on precedent is shaky ground at best. They've been more than willing to shirk precedent to make a point.

Such as 'Strict Accountability?'

True...

But this is a good example...

According to the NCAA Memphis played an ineligible player...Who the NCAA notified was being investigated during the season.

What was the punishment for that...Games vacated he played in...No suspensions or future sanctions.

Why in the world would you think the Wiseman situation would be worse.

(10-13-2021 06:04 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 05:10 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:39 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

So what you are saying is that they should have ignored it. Common sense isn't buying whatever tripe you are selling.

There was nothing to ignore. The court order said he must be allowed to play. It didn’t compel Penny to play him. Every player on the team is allowed to play based on if the coach wants to play them. The coach decides which players get to play not a court. Can you imagine a court dictating which specific players on a team must see action and which ones can’t play? Get real, Stammers. Common sense says there’s a difference between the definition of something allowed to happen, vs it being forced to happen. You’re spinning half truths about this like you have from the onset.

The court says he is allowed to play and he meets every criteria known to man to play the most minutes of anyone on the team, but Penny should risk putting the school in the position of being liable by not playing him?

The court injunction wasn't for a scrub to be allowed to sit on the bench. Only in Memphis will fans try and argue that we should have sat him, and we somehow deserve punishment. Any other fanbase would argue that the court cleared him, and the NCAA's actions should not factor in the fact that he played in the 3 games. Everything except that, because there was a COURT INJUNCTION.

The NCAA is saying he might not be eligible to play. Your logic says that the NCAA's word can overrule a court injunction. This is mind boggling.

By this “logic” Penny is taking on liability (of being sued) by any player on the team who hires an attorney to create a legal document saying the player must be allowed to play at Memphis—IF after being presented with said “decree” Penny chooses not to play him.

And if the NCAA said that the player who hired the attorney was ineligible, then the only liability Penny takes on is the probability of the university incurring NCAA sanctions IF Penny ignores the NCAA and chooses to play him.

It’s incredible you think Penny would’ve brought some imaginary liability upon the university if he’d not played Wiseman, vs the real liability he did bring on the university by defying the NCAA.

If for any reason the IARP process felt there was no case for punishment of playing Wiseman they would have either not accepted the case or dismissed the case long before now.
We are in the "what is our punishment" phase for playing Wiseman.

Any other narrative trying to be painted is simply burnin' oxygen and bumpin' their gums.

We have a the President of the University who supported this process - leaving his post early...
We have an AD trying to get out of here (He tried to get the Missouri Job)
From three or four years ago - things have changed

Folks who are waiting on the outcome at the university: believe the University will receive a punishment as well as the Coach will receive a punishment - what that is we do not know.
Keep in mind the University knows what the charges are, so they exist.
NOTE: There is a lot of smoke around additional allegations around other players, was there about four or so months ago and has picked up steam. That's all that has been said about this.

Let's hope for something minor regarding the University's punishment - something that is not a NCAA and Conference Tourney ban
Let's hope for some limited games for Penny suspension

When you are hoping, it's only because the outcome is expected to be something less than stellar.

I do believe there is still hope for the IARP to recognize these are "changed times" and here is an opportunity for the IARP process to "re-imagine" what the NCAA could not as far as outcomes. That is what I am hoping for. I do think this is a legitimate path more so than six or so months ago. I think this path and this case could be used as a springboard for what the "re-imagined" NCAA could be like.

If not, I think this will be severe.

(10-14-2021 03:18 AM)griffin Wrote:  We have a the President of the University who supported this process - leaving his post early...

It sounds like you are implying there's a connection between the case and Rudd leaving early.

Rudd appointed to NCAA BOD

(10-14-2021 03:18 AM)griffin Wrote:  If for any reason the IARP process felt there was no case for punishment of playing Wiseman they would have either not accepted the case or dismissed the case long before now.
We are in the "what is our punishment" phase for playing Wiseman.

Any other narrative trying to be painted is simply burnin' oxygen and bumpin' their gums.

We have a the President of the University who supported this process - leaving his post early...
We have an AD trying to get out of here (He tried to get the Missouri Job)
From three or four years ago - things have changed

Folks who are waiting on the outcome at the university: believe the University will receive a punishment as well as the Coach will receive a punishment - what that is we do not know.
Keep in mind the University knows what the charges are, so they exist.
NOTE: There is a lot of smoke around additional allegations around other players, was there about four or so months ago and has picked up steam. That's all that has been said about this.

Let's hope for something minor regarding the University's punishment - something that is not a NCAA and Conference Tourney ban
Let's hope for some limited games for Penny suspension

When you are hoping, it's only because the outcome is expected to be something less than stellar.

I do believe there is still hope for the IARP to recognize these are "changed times" and here is an opportunity for the IARP process to "re-imagine" what the NCAA could not as far as outcomes. That is what I am hoping for. I do think this is a legitimate path more so than six or so months ago. I think this path and this case could be used as a springboard for what the "re-imagined" NCAA could be like.

If not, I think this will be severe.

Why straddle the fence -- Will it be minor "re-imagined" or severe ?

(10-14-2021 01:03 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 03:18 AM)griffin Wrote:  If for any reason the IARP process felt there was no case for punishment of playing Wiseman they would have either not accepted the case or dismissed the case long before now.
We are in the "what is our punishment" phase for playing Wiseman.

Any other narrative trying to be painted is simply burnin' oxygen and bumpin' their gums.

We have a the President of the University who supported this process - leaving his post early...
We have an AD trying to get out of here (He tried to get the Missouri Job)
From three or four years ago - things have changed

Folks who are waiting on the outcome at the university: believe the University will receive a punishment as well as the Coach will receive a punishment - what that is we do not know.
Keep in mind the University knows what the charges are, so they exist.
NOTE: There is a lot of smoke around additional allegations around other players, was there about four or so months ago and has picked up steam. That's all that has been said about this.

Let's hope for something minor regarding the University's punishment - something that is not a NCAA and Conference Tourney ban
Let's hope for some limited games for Penny suspension

When you are hoping, it's only because the outcome is expected to be something less than stellar.

I do believe there is still hope for the IARP to recognize these are "changed times" and here is an opportunity for the IARP process to "re-imagine" what the NCAA could not as far as outcomes. That is what I am hoping for. I do think this is a legitimate path more so than six or so months ago. I think this path and this case could be used as a springboard for what the "re-imagined" NCAA could be like.

If not, I think this will be severe.

Why straddle the fence -- Will it be minor "re-imagined" or severe ?

Yes

(10-14-2021 01:08 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 01:03 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 03:18 AM)griffin Wrote:  If for any reason the IARP process felt there was no case for punishment of playing Wiseman they would have either not accepted the case or dismissed the case long before now.
We are in the "what is our punishment" phase for playing Wiseman.

Any other narrative trying to be painted is simply burnin' oxygen and bumpin' their gums.

We have a the President of the University who supported this process - leaving his post early...
We have an AD trying to get out of here (He tried to get the Missouri Job)
From three or four years ago - things have changed

Folks who are waiting on the outcome at the university: believe the University will receive a punishment as well as the Coach will receive a punishment - what that is we do not know.
Keep in mind the University knows what the charges are, so they exist.
NOTE: There is a lot of smoke around additional allegations around other players, was there about four or so months ago and has picked up steam. That's all that has been said about this.

Let's hope for something minor regarding the University's punishment - something that is not a NCAA and Conference Tourney ban
Let's hope for some limited games for Penny suspension

When you are hoping, it's only because the outcome is expected to be something less than stellar.

I do believe there is still hope for the IARP to recognize these are "changed times" and here is an opportunity for the IARP process to "re-imagine" what the NCAA could not as far as outcomes. That is what I am hoping for. I do think this is a legitimate path more so than six or so months ago. I think this path and this case could be used as a springboard for what the "re-imagined" NCAA could be like.

If not, I think this will be severe.

Why straddle the fence -- Will it be minor "re-imagined" or severe ?

Yes

LOL--As is usually the case --I think you are right my fellow TIGER friend .

There will be a punishment...

Forfeiting the games that Wiseman played.

This is all assuming nothing new is found.