Calling On the VN Legal Community

#27
#27
So, the February 10th date is no longer relevant.

By the way, I don't see how Aguilar's case, should he win, would allow professional athletes to return to NCAA sports. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol and knox73
#28
#28
a vol n tears said:
I think the Bama Jude recused himself because he was a Bama grad. Don’t know who the Knox judge will be? My guess no decision until after the season starts and JA drops his suit.
Click to expand...
If Joey gets a TRO he will play for UT and not drop the lawsuit until after the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#29
#29
WaywardVol said:
Are you seriously saying that eligibility is a violation of anti trust laws? I call ********.
Click to expand...
Unreasonably and unfairly restricting the market is an antitrust violation.

Is limiting eligibility to a certain number of years a sufficient market restriction to be called an antitrust violation? I believe that's the legal question that will come up.

The NCAA lost the ability to attempt to limit transfers via making someone sit out because it unfairly restricted the market according to the court.

Does counting JUCO years as college years unfairly restrict the market?

Does limiting the total years someone can play at all to 6 or 7 or 8 or 20 unfairly restrict the market?

These are the questions. Restrictions on the market are permitted BUT unreasonable and unfair restrictions aren't. That's why courts sort this stuff out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol, S.C. OrangeMan, barney and 1 other person
#30
#30
a vol n tears said:
I think the Bama Jude recused himself because he was a Bama grad. Don’t know who the Knox judge will be? My guess no decision until after the season starts and JA drops his suit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he drops it. I think he will get another year whether it be here or somewhere else
 
#31
#31
WaywardVol said:
Are you seriously saying that eligibility is a violation of anti trust laws? I call ********.
Click to expand...
IMO it is. When someone files to play as long as a team will take them they can play. Regardless of age. Because of anti trust. Then college football will be over as we know it
 
#34
#34
cgrish said:
IMO it is. When someone files to play as long as a team will take them they can play. Regardless of age. Because of anti trust. Then college football will be over as we know it
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that’s not an actual legal argument. The only ruling in favor of eligibility thus far is Pavia, which only stated that JUCO shouldn’t count. Other courts have ruled against players making the same argument, like the baseball player, Osunsa, who was ruled against. It seems arbitrary, which means a higher court will get involved and they aren’t going to abolish eligibility restrictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#35
#35
Voltopia said:
Heh. I can't imagine an actual lawyer wanting to first take the time to write out an acceptably "thorough" explanation sufficient enough to satisfy somone, wherein "thorough" is defined by one's subjective confidence in the outcome, and then deal with the fifteen thousand responses saying why the explanation is wrong about this or that or whatever.

"Explain this!" "It's already been explained multiple times." "Yeah, but explain it better!"
Click to expand...
Go to ChatGTP and ask it to explain to a 10 yr old.
 
#37
#37
WaywardVol said:
Are you seriously saying that eligibility is a violation of anti trust laws? I call ********.
Click to expand...

Not in every instance, of course.

However, at least one court has ruled that particular eligibility provisions - that JuCo seasons count for the 4 in 5 eligibility rule for example - violate antitrust law.

Other courts have gone the other way.

The facts of individual cases differ.

Justice is a more valuable virtue than consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#40
#40
kcvols1 said:
Spider Man: Homecoming.
Click to expand...
I'm proud to say I've NEVER spent one minute on ANY "Superhero/Marvel/Avengers/DC/etc etc" Movie...EXCEPT for the 1st Batman Movie with Michael Keaton...I think that was '88 or '89...just not my bag.

But thanks, I'll search for clips of her "performance"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#41
#41
TAF said:
I'm proud to say I've NEVER spent one minute on ANY "Superhero/Marvel/Avengers/DC/etc etc" Movie...EXCEPT for the 1st Batman Movie with Michael Keaton...I think that was '88 or '89...just not my bag.

But thanks, I'll search for clips of her "performance"...
Click to expand...

She’s objectively attractive.

I’d watch her in a Raisin Bran ad.
 
#43
#43
Remy said:
When’s the last time you saw an actual attorney dispense advice without the meter running?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you’ve been watching it from me and some other posters in this here thread.
 
#44
#44
If you have the WNML app, there was a good discussion about the details on the Erik Ainge show yesterday.
 
#47
#47
camp_steveo said:
So, the February 10th date is no longer relevant.

By the way, I don't see how Aguilar's case, should he win, would allow professional athletes to return to NCAA sports. Maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...
Been done a lot over the yrs. HS athletes drafted into pro BB and play 2-3 yrs, don't make the major league team, then play college FB because under NCAA rules you were not a professional in that sport. Vols had a receiver back in Fulmer days and Wienke at FL state came back to college 25 and won the Heisman at 28. Just referencing these 2 but many have done this.

Its just a mixed bag of legal interpretations and getting worse now with the NCAA basically toothless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#49
#49
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top