(11-11-2019 10:39 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 09:55 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 08:28 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 05:47 PM)CapCityTiger Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 05:40 PM)G-Man Wrote:  An old article but interesting: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...id=6000134

Obviously the circumstances were different. But also obviously, Kentucky chose not to play him while appealing, because they didn't want any wins vacated. And they feared it more than allowing the kid to play and telling the NCAA to take a hike.

So, it is a BIG DEAL IMO, that Memphis is still choosing to play Wiseman AFTER the NCAA said he's "likely ineligible".

With that said, here's my two cents:

It won't matter whether the NCAA admitted they goofed.

They don't care about what's fair (like having said one thing, then stating they made a mistake--and how this would affect someone). They ARE saying that (regardless of if they're the ones at fault for it), it doesn't matter that an earlier determination of eligibility was wrong. They're "pretending" that it's all about the RULES being ULTIMATELY adhered to.

This is the NCAA we're talking about.

What do we know about the NCAA and "fairness"?

Simly this: They consistently STATE they ONLY care (albeit, inconsistently and often hypocritically) about abiding by the RULES: Like determining eligibility, and/or applying penalties FOR rules violations.

And if initially the rules were misinterpreted, EVEN IF it was the NCAA misinterpreted them, it won't matter. The issue they'll stick to their guns about is that the RULES MUST BE UPHELD, whenever and however they were finally correctly interpreted.

You can count on it, that Wiseman will NOT be treated fairly by the NCAA, because that's not what they care about, nor what they do. Instead, you ONLY can count on them to claim that they must enforce the rules.

The University of Memphis is a defendant in the case. The court ruling says they have to play him.

no, the school still doesn't HAVE to play him. He could sit on the bench...

Yes, they do HAVE to play him. If they don't play him, they are liable for damages.

No, you're wrong. They do not HAVE to play him. They only have to continue to allow him to be ELIGIBLE to play. BIG DIFFERENCE.

The coach decides which ELIGIBLE players start and/or plays for any team. Forget about this lawsuit for a second and consider that, for whatever reason, a coach can decide NOT to play a player who is eligible to play.

NO coach is compelled to start any player on his team. And no coach or school is liable for damages if they decide not to play a particular player who is eligible to play, for ANY reason.

There are OTHER players on Memphis' roster who don't get to play in every game. Would they NOT be discriminated against, if this lawsuit actually COMPELLED Memphis to play some other player, that forced them not to also be able to play minutes that this other player HAD to play?

You've misinterpreted the words "eligible to play" for "HAVING to play".

Yes, let's add contempt of court to the list and damages. Do you really believe what you are typing? I hope you don't and you are trolling because it is complete nonsense.

ooooooo, vacated games, so scary.

Gonna be honest. I know others feel differently but I don't give a damn about vacated games. Especially if I know the circumstances and believe that it was uncalled for.

I know 2008 happened and the vacated games don't make me feel otherwise. As far as I'm concerned we played in the championship that year.

If this drags on all year and we go to the Sweet 16 or beyond and that gets vacated? Well I'll still enjoy the ride the same either way.

You can take away the banner or the text in some record book. You can't take away the experience.

(11-12-2019 04:26 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 10:39 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 09:55 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Yes, they do HAVE to play him. If they don't play him, they are liable for damages.

No, you're wrong. They do not HAVE to play him. They only have to continue to allow him to be ELIGIBLE to play. BIG DIFFERENCE.

The coach decides which ELIGIBLE players start and/or plays for any team. Forget about this lawsuit for a second and consider that, for whatever reason, a coach can decide NOT to play a player who is eligible to play.

NO coach is compelled to start any player on his team. And no coach or school is liable for damages if they decide not to play a particular player who is eligible to play, for ANY reason.

There are OTHER players on Memphis' roster who don't get to play in every game. Would they NOT be discriminated against, if this lawsuit actually COMPELLED Memphis to play some other player, that forced them not to also be able to play minutes that this other player HAD to play?

You've misinterpreted the words "eligible to play" for "HAVING to play".

Yes, let's add contempt of court to the list and damages. Do you really believe what you are typing? I hope you don't and you are trolling because it is complete nonsense.

Using the exact text of the court document:

The TRO prohibits the UofM from withholding Wiseman from competition on the basis of the NCAA ineligibility decision, thereby authorizing and allowing the UofM to play Mr. Wiseman as the coaching staff deems appropriate.

In other words, if Wiseman (the #1 recruit in the country) were to sit through the Oregon game for absolutely no apparent reason other than this eligibility decision, it could very likely be ruled contempt of court. I don't care who tries to twist it any other way, that's just reality.