Bediko declared ineligible

#26
#26
JohnnyJava said:
Alabama is safe officially. There will be no repercussions for playing him. Unofficially, it will be interesting to see if the committee drops them a seed or two, or places them in very undesirable brackets/matchups.
Click to expand...

This is where the NCAA can make Alabama pay the piper. The whole tournament selection process is only slightly less corrupt and subject to bias than the one for the CFP, and only because there are 68 schools selected is there less outrage for 'snubs'. I can easily see Alabama getting a less favorable seeding and draw when it's all said and done.
 
#27
#27
The idiotic thing about all of this is how easy the fix is - five years to play four starting upon HS graduation, but if you leave college, enter the draft, and sign an NBA contract, you're done.

The tricky part will be the Baylor and international player situations, where the kid never played in college. They could still do the five year window to prevent 25-26 year old int'l players from being recruited, but I'm sure there will be lawsuit after lawsuit unless and until something concrete is established. Good times.
 
#29
#29
S.C. OrangeMan said:
The NCAA can't take any punitive action against either Bama or the NCAA per the terms of the initial TRO.
Click to expand...

They could raise a legal argument those terms were null and void because it was issued by Bama athletic booster judge...

Not an attorney but it goes against judicial rules in every state to rule when you have a blatant conflict of interest like that
 
#30
#30
BigOrangeMojo said:
They could raise a legal argument those terms were null and void because it was issued by Bama athletic booster judge...

Not an attorney but it goes against judicial rules in every state to rule when you have a blatant conflict of interest like that
Click to expand...
If you're told by the judge that you can go free, then the state appeals your case and you lose and are then told to report to be locked up, should you be charged with "escape" because you were released by the other judge?

C'mon. He was told he could play and he played. What should he have done?
 
#31
#31
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
If you're told by the judge that you can go free, then the state appeals your case and you lose and are then told to report to be locked up, should you be charged with "escape" because you were released by the other judge?

C'mon. He was told he could play and he played. What should he have done?
Click to expand...

The issue isnt with him.

Bama literally got an athletic department booster to give a ruling that made him temporarily eligible and gave school blanket immunity for playing him.

If the NCAA wanted to challenge this and vacate the immunity portion of the ruling, they would win in a heartbeat...
 
#32
#32
BigOrangeMojo said:
The issue isnt with him.

Bama literally got an athletic department booster to give a ruling that made him temporarily eligible and gave school blanket immunity for playing him.

If the NCAA wanted to challenge this and vacate the immunity portion of the ruling, they would win in a heartbeat...
Click to expand...
They can go after the judge, in Alabama, if they wish but not after the player or Alabama.

They legally filed and legally got a judgement saying he could play. That's their part of the issue.

You can't blame and punish a person brought up before a corrupt judge for the judge's corrupt opinion.

He did it right. He went to court and Alabama abided by the first ruling and now they are abiding by the second ruling.

C'mon. They aren't responsible if the judge is corrupt.
 
#33
#33
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
They can go after the judge, in Alabama, if they wish but not after the player or Alabama.

They legally filed and legally got a judgement saying he could play. That's their part of the issue.

You can't blame and punish a person brought up before a corrupt judge for the judge's corrupt opinion.

He did it right. He went to court and Alabama abided by the first ruling and now they are abiding by the second ruling.

C'mon. They aren't responsible if the judge is corrupt.
Click to expand...

Entire Legal rulings get vacated all the time because of a judge's conflict. If the NCAA wanted to challenge the immunity provision, they could. I think both sides have an understanding not to press this case anymore legally.

And NCAA has precedent for going after schools for playing with an injunction after ruled ineligible. See James Wiseman and Memphis...



As a booster, one could argue the judge gave the player an impermissable benefit....
 
#34
#34
BigOrangeMojo said:
Entire Legal rulings get vacated all the time because of a judge's conflict. If the NCAA wanted to challenge the immunity provision, they could. I think both sides have an understanding not to press this case anymore legally.

And NCAA has precedent for going after schools for playing with an injunction after ruled ineligible. See James Wiseman and Memphis...



As a booster, one could argue the judge gave the player an impermissable benefit....
Click to expand...
The NCAA can't vacate play that a judge said was okay, that's my point. Alabama did it legally and I'm sure they asked the NCAA if that ruling meant he could play until their appeal.

You realize it's extremely likely Joey A filed in Knoxville for the same exact reason of hoping for a favorable judge. If, at the end of the season, the NCAA gets his eligibility overturned, would you support the Vols vacating any wins?

I know the answer.

Calling balls and strikes equally for everyone would say Joey A is likely hoping his judge is a UT fan, if not a donor. So why wouldn't the Vols vacate any wins if Joey A plays and loses in the end?
 
#35
#35
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
The NCAA can't vacate play that a judge said was okay, that's my point. Alabama did it legally and I'm sure they asked the NCAA if that ruling meant he could play until their appeal.

You realize it's extremely likely Joey A filed in Knoxville for the same exact reason of hoping for a favorable judge. If, at the end of the season, the NCAA gets his eligibility overturned, would you support the Vols vacating any wins?

I know the answer.

Calling balls and strikes equally for everyone would say Joey A is likely hoping his judge is a UT fan, if not a donor. So why wouldn't the Vols vacate any wins if Joey A plays and loses in the end?
Click to expand...

If Joey A's judge is an athletic department booster, fails to disclose his conflict before issuing the first ruling, and he writes a ruling giving blanket immunity, then yes, we should have wins vacated....
 
#36
#36
BigOrangeMojo said:
If Joey A's judge is an athletic department booster, fails to disclose his conflict before issuing the first ruling, and he writes a ruling giving blanket immunity, then yes, we should have wins vacated....
Click to expand...
Again, you cannot punish someone for the judge's corruption UNLESS you're insisting that Alabama contacted him and solicited a favorable ruling.

They did it right. If the judge did it wrong, disbar the judge. It's nonsense for the NCAA to try to say "we know you filed in a favorable court where we couldn't win so we're going to take your wins away" UNLESS they're insisting Alabama actually contacted the judge to get the favorable decision. I really doubt that occurred as it would be illegal.

Filing in a favorable court and even trying for a favorable judge actually isn't against the law. It's on the judge to be impartial, not the people in the lawsuits who can and should legally seek the most favorable court and presentation of the issues for their side.

If anything, if the judge is shown corrupt and Alabama isn't proven corrupt, they should have grounds to refile from scratch with a new judge.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top