We just got some great publicity on SC. They had a several minute segment discussing the situation but also spent a lot of time highlighting the game against UIC and James Wiseman. Regardless of how this plays out I think the school and Penny coming out looking great to recruits and their families. They are refusing to the let the NCAA bully them and their players. Even Jay Bilas talked about not liking the rule. Memphis will absolutely win in the court of public opinion. Playing Wiseman tonight has put the NCAA in a very bad and uncomfortable spot while making Memphis look very pro-player. IMO this was a great move by the university and Penny regardless of what the final outcome is.

(11-09-2019 12:32 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  We just got some great publicity on SC. They had a several minute segment discussing the situation but also spent a lot of time highlighting the game against UIC and James Wiseman. Regardless of how this plays out I think the school and Penny coming out looking great to recruits and their families. They are refusing to the let the NCAA bully them and their players. Even Jay Bilas talked about not liking the rule. Memphis will absolutely win in the court of public opinion. Playing Wiseman tonight has put the NCAA in a very bad and uncomfortable spot while making Memphis look very pro-player. IMO this was a great move by the university and Penny regardless of what the final outcome is.

Yeah, saw that, and agree. NCAA looks very bad here, they did not calculate the backlash. Very amateurish in timing and public statements.

It was awesome listening to the in game commentator rip the NCAA for their hypocrisy.

Not all the facts were presented in the segment. And Bilas said that, essentially, UofM was taking a big chance in letting JW play tonite. It troubles me because the NCAA is not subject to the same rule of law that is prevalent in the legal system. They can choose to do what the f*ck the want to anytime they want to. The remedy to the situation is going to be how JW and his future earnings potential could be affected. It will boil down to a civil case, not criminal. That is where the NCAA can be hung out to dry.
I have a problem with the rulings by NCAA, decisions made by a human or humans, are not attached to a particular name or names. No way to track who made the decision. How to measure their consistency. No accountability.

I say, **** em. and let him play all season. He is gone next year anyway, and the NCAA can pound their chests after it's all over and take away the records and then go home to eat their dinners with their families. It's just numbers on a page in a record book. The rest of the world will remember what really happened. Maybe we need to get Eligha Straight involved so we can "change the world"...

I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and I've taken several graduate level law classes.

The by-law that Bilas referenced that states that if schools go for TRO or injunctions and then are later found to be based on incorrect information and then the NCAA can hammer them is unconstitutional and does not allow for due process.

That could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" policy which is the very purpose of TRO's and injunctions. There's a lot of legal room here, it may take months, if not years.

(11-09-2019 12:57 AM)mapdude Wrote:  Not all the facts were presented in the segment. And Bilas said that, essentially, UofM was taking a big chance in letting JW play tonite. It troubles me because the NCAA is not subject to the same rule of law that is prevalent in the legal system. They can choose to do what the f*ck the want to anytime they want to. The remedy to the situation is going to be how JW and his future earnings potential could be affected. It will boil down to a civil case, not criminal. That is where the NCAA can be hung out to dry.
I have a problem with the rulings by NCAA, decisions made by a human or humans, are not attached to a particular name or names. No way to track who made the decision. How to measure their consistency. No accountability.

I say, **** em. and let him play all season. He is gone next year anyway, and the NCAA can pound their chests after it's all over and take away the records and then go home to eat their dinners with their families. It's just numbers on a page in a record book. The rest of the world will remember what really happened. Maybe we need to get Eligha Straight involved so we can "change the world"...

Can you imagine if this team stays undefeated and looks like the best team in America or one of them at least and the NCAA denied them into the tournament? Maybe 20 years ago the NCAA could have gotten away with that but in today’s news and social media cycle it would be a all-out circus against the NCAA. The NCAA has never been in a weaker state than right now and it’s apt for University of Memphis and Wisemans lawyers to call their bluff

(11-09-2019 01:03 AM)ShilohTiger Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and I've taken several graduate level law classes.

The by-law that Bilas referenced that states that if schools go for TRO or injunctions and then are later found to be based on incorrect information and then the NCAA can hammer them is unconstitutional and does not allow for due process.

That could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" policy which is the very purpose of TRO's and injunctions. There's a lot of legal room here, it may take months, if not years.

"Due Process" and constitutionality typically only apply to state action and/or protected classes or behaviors. Unfortunately this is more of a contract law matter.

ETA: I haven't been in law school for a few years now.. but i believe the federal standard for a preliminary injunction was:
1) Have stated a cause of action with reasonable likelihood of winning;
2) will suffer irreparable harm if injunction not granted
3) the judge thinks the injunction is a good idea

The "reasonable likelihood of winning" on this one is hard. If the cause of action is "arbitrary and capitrious enforcement" thats a really, really high standard to meet. The NCAA will have to have done something really silly.

(11-09-2019 01:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 01:03 AM)ShilohTiger Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and I've taken several graduate level law classes.

The by-law that Bilas referenced that states that if schools go for TRO or injunctions and then are later found to be based on incorrect information and then the NCAA can hammer them is unconstitutional and does not allow for due process.

That could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" policy which is the very purpose of TRO's and injunctions. There's a lot of legal room here, it may take months, if not years.

"Due Process" and constitutionality typically only apply to state action and/or protected classes or behaviors. Unfortunately this is more of a contract law matter.

Agreed, but bylaw 19.13 basically states that an "individual" or "institution" is not allowed to use the courts for injunctions or temporary restraining orders, because if it does then that individual or institution will be penalized, effectively removing that avenue in the court system.

(11-09-2019 01:15 AM)ShilohTiger Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 01:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 01:03 AM)ShilohTiger Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and I've taken several graduate level law classes.

The by-law that Bilas referenced that states that if schools go for TRO or injunctions and then are later found to be based on incorrect information and then the NCAA can hammer them is unconstitutional and does not allow for due process.

That could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" policy which is the very purpose of TRO's and injunctions. There's a lot of legal room here, it may take months, if not years.

"Due Process" and constitutionality typically only apply to state action and/or protected classes or behaviors. Unfortunately this is more of a contract law matter.

Agreed, but bylaw 19.13 basically states that an "individual" or "institution" is not allowed to use the courts for injunctions or temporary restraining orders, because if it does then that individual or institution will be penalized, effectively removing that avenue in the court system.

Ehh i read it differently - actual bylaw includes this clause: "and said injunction is voluntarily vacated, stayed or reversed or it is finally determined by the courts that injunctive relief is not or was not justified"

Seems very clearly to be a clause intended to clarify that IF a received injunction is later lifted the NCAA still has to right to penalize, not that the filing itself triggers a penalty

Oh this is def going to get ugly for sure...I’d say play him and f the ncaa.

UPDATE: The University is a DEFENDENT with the NCAA. This case is filed by Wiseman against both the University and the NCAA. The TRO forces the University to play Wiseman. This is not a case where a TRO from a University complaint is used to put a player on the court. I don't think the bylaw applies to us at all.

(11-09-2019 01:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 01:03 AM)ShilohTiger Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and I've taken several graduate level law classes.

The by-law that Bilas referenced that states that if schools go for TRO or injunctions and then are later found to be based on incorrect information and then the NCAA can hammer them is unconstitutional and does not allow for due process.

That could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" policy which is the very purpose of TRO's and injunctions. There's a lot of legal room here, it may take months, if not years.

"Due Process" and constitutionality typically only apply to state action and/or protected classes or behaviors. Unfortunately this is more of a contract law matter.

ETA: I haven't been in law school for a few years now.. but i believe the federal standard for a preliminary injunction was:
1) Have stated a cause of action with reasonable likelihood of winning;
2) will suffer irreparable harm if injunction not granted
3) the judge thinks the injunction is a good idea

The "reasonable likelihood of winning" on this one is hard. If the cause of action is "arbitrary and capitrious enforcement" thats a really, really high standard to meet. The NCAA will have to have done something really silly.

Let’s say it gets granted. Can it be held up In court for the remainder of the season or is there a time limit? Kind of brilliant actually naming the UofM also. Now they can just say their hands are tied due to the court ruling and must play him.

I don't know about al that squid pro bowl stuff, but ESPN just changed the ticker from

"Wiseman plays despite being declared ineligible by the NCAA"

to

"Wiseman plays despite NCAA eligibility concerns"

(11-09-2019 09:14 AM)cmt Wrote:  I don't know about al that squid pro bowl stuff, but ESPN just changed the ticker from

"Wiseman plays despite being declared ineligible by the NCAA"

to

"Wiseman plays despite NCAA eligibility concerns"

maybe we shifted to the ohio state side of ncaa discipline

"potential NCAA issue"

Well the NCAA said he was "likely ineligible", not ineligible.

So they still have not decided.

(11-09-2019 08:03 AM)Claw Wrote:  UPDATE: The University is a DEFENDENT with the NCAA. This case is filed by Wiseman against both the University and the NCAA. The TRO forces the University to play Wiseman. This is not a case where a TRO from a University complaint is used to put a player on the court. I don't think the bylaw applies to us at all.

Smart.

(11-09-2019 10:17 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Well the NCAA said he was "likely ineligible", not ineligible.

So they still have not decided.

That sounds like a NCAA CYA, IMHO.

If university is a defendant then it feels like they have to treat him as they normally would.

(11-09-2019 12:32 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  We just got some great publicity on SC. They had a several minute segment discussing the situation but also spent a lot of time highlighting the game against UIC and James Wiseman. Regardless of how this plays out I think the school and Penny coming out looking great to recruits and their families. They are refusing to the let the NCAA bully them and their players. Even Jay Bilas talked about not liking the rule. Memphis will absolutely win in the court of public opinion. Playing Wiseman tonight has put the NCAA in a very bad and uncomfortable spot while making Memphis look very pro-player. IMO this was a great move by the university and Penny regardless of what the final outcome is.

Very well said!