DGB's Oklahoma Request is Denied

#4
#4
That's what Stoops gets for getting so desperate and bringing in dgb. I mean I guess you could say he couldn't have know what was going to happen with mixon but he didn't need dgb's baggage. And they also lost their leading tackler from last year. Surprised they didn't scoop up Lane Kiffin while he was available.
 
#6
#6
vols-1 said:
Hello Auburn:clapping:
Click to expand...

He's already transferred into the University of Oklahoma. If anything, he'll either play for them next year or (more likely) just try to go to play professionally after this season.


He's not jumping schools again, especially before the season starts, unless he breaks the - as ESPN put it - "zero-tolerance" policy OU has him under over the next year...at which point he's just kicked out of that school (apparently, according to ESPN, he has to have continued rehabilitation and drug testing, and if anything negative happens - even a failed drug test - OU's said he'll be gone).
 
#8
#8
TrueOrange said:
apparently, according to ESPN, he has to have continued rehabilitation and drug testing, and if anything negative happens - even a failed drug test - OU's said he'll be gone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've got ocean side property in Oklahoma for anyone that believes that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
LSU-SIU said:
Lawsuit might be in order, I would consider this anti-trust in nature.
Click to expand...

How so? He was released from Mizzou with cause. That same cause is why the NCAA has denied DBG playing time this year. I can reason that the NCAA is the governing body but nobody is forcing OU to be a member of the NCAA.
 
#14
#14
KoachKletus said:
How so? He was released from Mizzou with cause. That same cause is why the NCAA has denied DBG playing time this year. I can reason that the NCAA is the governing body but nobody is forcing OU to be a member of the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Anti-trust, you need to look it up, matter of fact, the NCAA in large part just lost a suit on it a few weeks ago... countless others are in the pipeline, 100s more are going to be filed.

Nothing different between that suit, in a general larger sense and this situation... collusion and anti-trust behavior... not sure why a third party is telling a player whether or not he can play for a school.

He was released from Mizzou with cause.
Click to expand...
So, in theory he has no legal obligations to Missouri.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
LSU-SIU said:
Anti-trust, you need to look it up, matter of fact, the NCAA in large part just lost a suit on it a few weeks ago... countless others are in the pipeline, 100s more are going to be filed.

Nothing different between that suit, in a general larger sense and this situation... collusion and anti-trust behavior... not sure why a third party is telling a player whether or not he can play for a school.


So, in theory he has no legal obligations to Missouri.
Click to expand...

So you're perfectly okay with a player who broke team rules by smoking dope, shoved his way into an apartment and pushed a woman down a set of stairs playing football?

Did someone from the NCAA beat you up as a kid and steal your milk money? I've never seen such hatred before.
 
#16
#16
LSU-SIU said:
Anti-trust, you need to look it up, matter of fact, the NCAA in large part just lost a suit on it a few weeks ago... countless others are in the pipeline, 100s more are going to be filed.

Nothing different between that suit, in a general larger sense and this situation... collusion and anti-trust behavior... not sure why a third party is telling a player whether or not he can play for a school.


So, in theory he has no legal obligations to Missouri.
Click to expand...

I'm sure each conference and school sign a contract to adhere to the rules set forth and agreed upon by the NCAA. I'm sure they are obligated to follow it by contract law. You think you have some obtuse thinking process that these big revenues schools don't have as a resource from their big time members?
 
#17
#17
LSU-SIU said:
Anti-trust, you need to look it up, matter of fact, the NCAA in large part just lost a suit on it a few weeks ago... countless others are in the pipeline, 100s more are going to be filed.

Nothing different between that suit, in a general larger sense and this situation... collusion and anti-trust behavior... not sure why a third party is telling a player whether or not he can play for a school.


So, in theory he has no legal obligations to Missouri.
Click to expand...

NCAA clearing house?! Haha. They tell every of they can or can't play.
 
#18
#18
utvols88 said:
I'm sure each conference and school sign a contract to adhere to the rules set forth and agreed upon by the NCAA. I'm sure they are obligated to follow it by contract law.
Click to expand...

Anti-trust law does not care if you have a contract, matter of fact, the existence of a contract will be the basis of the suit, or could be in this case.

You think you have some obtuse thinking process that these big revenues schools don't have as a resource from their big time members?
Click to expand...

I think they are greedy scum which has affected their thinking process in running a moral, ethical and legal business.
 
#19
#19
SamQB7 said:
NCAA clearing house?! Haha. They tell every of they can or can't play.
Click to expand...

Of course, the question is why?
At this point he has damages, and he could possibly move for an preliminary injunction, however, courts really hate to do that in contested cases. Its a clear violation of existing anti-trust law, just like what they are doing in other cases.
 
#20
#20
Grand Vol said:
So you're perfectly okay with a player who broke team rules by smoking dope, shoved his way into an apartment and pushed a woman down a set of stairs playing football?
Click to expand...

Not up to what I think, its up to what Oklahoma thinks, they are the ones offering the employment.

Did someone from the NCAA beat you up as a kid and steal your milk money? I've never seen such hatred before.
Click to expand...

I can't say I hate much in life, you don't know me. As far as the present business model, its immoral, unethical, and illegal business practices. I would say those are just about facts at this point.

Getting mad at me for pointing out the obvious is really not going to solve the problems of the schools, the NCAA will not even exist in it's current form in 10 years.
 
#21
#21
LSU-SIU said:
Anti-trust, you need to look it up, matter of fact, the NCAA in large part just lost a suit on it a few weeks ago... countless others are in the pipeline, 100s more are going to be filed.

Nothing different between that suit, in a general larger sense and this situation... collusion and anti-trust behavior... not sure why a third party is telling a player whether or not he can play for a school.


So, in theory he has no legal obligations to Missouri.
Click to expand...

That 3rd party is the governing body. The school signed on to allow that 3rd party to be the governing body. The governing body also contains moral clauses that the schools must abide by. Oklahoma can opt out of being part of the NCAA and perhaps it is time for schools to begin opting out.
 
#22
#22
KoachKletus said:
That 3rd party is the governing body. The school signed on to allow that 3rd party to be the governing body. The governing body also contains moral clauses that the schools must abide by. Oklahoma can opt out of being part of the NCAA and perhaps it is time for schools to begin opting out.
Click to expand...

The contract and agreements are proof of the anti-trust violation/s by the NCAA and schools, they are admitting to the their illegal behavior see their testimony in the O'bannon case. For some reason, they think they get a free pass.... those days are coming to an end.

The schools are not going to have the choice to opt out as the entire system is in the process of being destroyed, why the schools are not acting at this point is just beyond stupid.... the longer they wait... the more $$$ it will cost them in the long run.

As far as topic, DGB has an excellent case at this point, he is definitely being damaged.... not sure why the NCAA thinks they can determine where someone is hired and why they can't be held liable for their actions... stupid is what stupid does.
 
#23
#23
LSU-SIU said:
The contract and agreements are proof of the anti-trust violation/s by the NCAA and schools, they are admitting to the their illegal behavior see their testimony in the O'bannon case. For some reason, they think they get a free pass.... those days are coming to an end.

The schools are not going to have the choice to opt out as the entire system is in the process of being destroyed, why the schools are not acting at this point is just beyond stupid.... the longer they wait... the more $$$ it will cost them in the long run.

As far as topic, DGB has an excellent case at this point, he is definitely being damaged.... not sure why the NCAA thinks they can determine where someone is hired and why they can't be held liable for their actions... stupid is what stupid does.
Click to expand...

I don't see what this case has to do with the O'Bannon one.
 
#24
#24
MemphisCanes said:
I don't see what this case has to do with the O'Bannon one.
Click to expand...

The ruling nothing directly to do with other this other than the NCAA has been found to be in violation of anti-trust law.

Anti-trust. Which includes a whole range of federal and state law covering anti-competition, collusion, blacklisting, etc.

Not sure what there is to understand, the NCAA should not be involved in the process of determining a players status for the University of Oklahoma, when the mob does it, we call it collusion and racketeering.

Technically, the NCAA is denying DGB compensation as to the stripend as defined in the O'Bannon ruling. Not sure how or why they are determining employment for 3rd parties. Oh I know its in their rules, but why? Oh because they want to collude with other to maximum profits... anti-trust comes to mind in a broad sense.

If the NCAA was setting up rules and enforcing what goes on officially between the four corners of the field... I generally don't see a problem with that... when they are operating outside of the four corners of the field, in general their actions are very suspect.

You are witnessing the end of the current NCAA.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
LSU-SIU said:
The contract and agreements are proof of the anti-trust violation/s by the NCAA and schools, they are admitting to the their illegal behavior see their testimony in the O'bannon case. For some reason, they think they get a free pass.... those days are coming to an end.

The schools are not going to have the choice to opt out as the entire system is in the process of being destroyed, why the schools are not acting at this point is just beyond stupid.... the longer they wait... the more $$$ it will cost them in the long run.

As far as topic, DGB has an excellent case at this point, he is definitely being damaged.... not sure why the NCAA thinks they can determine where someone is hired and why they can't be held liable for their actions... stupid is what stupid does.
Click to expand...

Technically he isn't being hired. O'Bannon ruled upon making money outside of football no? So, I'm not sure where you're getting at there.

Governing parties are everywhere in the country from workers compensation to professional sports. Are you implying that the NFL is breaching antitrust by suspending a player for conduct? Who are they to tell the Dallas Cowboys or new Orlean saints who can or cannot play? The governing body has the power to make those choices ie the NFL, nba, etc.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top