Joey Aguilar Hearing Live

#104
#104
jtdavis said:
Bottom line is the NCAA is a private organization. Institutions that join the NCAA should be expected to follow the rules outlined by the NCAA. I understand that NIL changes the landscape, and antitrust laws come into play with college athletes having contracts. With that said, what the NCAA must make sure is their rules are enforced constituently across all teams and sports. Over the past couple years, those rules have been anything but consistent. I appreciate what Joey did last year, but if suddenly JUCO years dont count, players who are not 4 and 5 stars, will do the JUCO route, and then plan on transferring to the NCAA institutions. The result will be end the final end of collegiate sports and any "amateur" type leagues. COVID resulted in players being issued an additional year and I think this is where the lines getting blurred came into play. Look at Carson Beck, "transfers" to Miami and I think never took a class. The entire concept of student athletes is at risk.
Click to expand...
The problem is in the fact the NCAA has been extremely inconsistent with who they grant extra years of eligibility. You can't say JUCO years only doesn't count for a select group and then all of sudden they do for another. That is biased. You can want it to be like it used to all you want. I know I do. But we shouldn’t be the only team that is supposed to play by the rules while no one else is. They need to get a collective bargaining agreement done if they want everyone to play by the same rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVolsFrog and S.C. OrangeMan
#107
#107
If a 23 year old dude didn't graduate high-school and some football crazy high-school in Texas wants to pay him $150K to play QB, isn't that basically the same thing as this, if we're being honest? Couldn't he take the state of Texas to court if they tried to prevent it?
 
#108
#108
UTwild82 said:
If a 23 year old dude didn't graduate high-school and some football crazy high-school in Texas wants to pay him $150K to play QB, isn't that basically the same thing as this, if we're being honest? Couldn't he take the state of Texas to court if they tried to prevent it?
Click to expand...
The state if Texas probably would care. They legalized NIL for high school long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#109
#109
Vol865 said:
The problem is in the fact the NCAA has been extremely inconsistent with who they grant extra years of eligibility. You can't say JUCO years only doesn't count for a select group and then all of sudden they do for another. That is biased. You can want it to be like it used to all you want. I know I do. But we shouldn’t be the only team that is supposed to play by the rules while no one else is. They need to get a collective bargaining agreement done if they want everyone to play by the same rules.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, THEY need to be consistent with how the rules are applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volpass, Vol865, S.C. OrangeMan and 1 other person
#110
#110
volfan102455 said:
That is completely wrong and the system should not work like that. Opinions should not be written until both sides have presented their complete argument.
Click to expand...

Its not the official opinion. More like a draft opinion giving the judge guidance on how he should rule. Legal cases are usually decided based on paper in the legal briefs not during oral arguments. It's what you wrote on paper that matters more than what you say in court. I worked as a federal law clerk for a year and I pretty much turned in the same draft opinion I gave the judge before oral arguments to him as the official opinion after oral arguments.

This case was decided before oral arguments. And based on who the judge was grilling more in oral arguments is usually a good indicator of how he will rule.
 
#112
#112
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
That's generally not what judges do. They typically give where they are leaning based on the questioning because before the case is even heard a law clerk writes the opinion for the judge on how he/she should rule. The judge typically agrees with the clerk's assessment of the law as it applies to the facts of the case and questions the lawyers based on said opinion. Law clerks have a lot more power in the decision-making process of cases than the average person is led to believe. Its possible we're dealing with a hostile law clerk who has already convinced the judge to rule against Aguilar.
Click to expand...
Judge Roy Bean, the self-proclaimed "Law West of the Pecos," is famously documented as having presided over a hearing for a dead man found with a gun and $40 in his pocket. In this incident, which occurred in Langtry, Texas, in the late 19th century, Bean ruled that carrying a concealed weapon was illegal and subsequently fined the corpse $40.

THIS is what judges generally do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hacksaw
#113
#113
UTwild82 said:
If a 23 year old dude didn't graduate high-school and some football crazy high-school in Texas wants to pay him $150K to play QB, isn't that basically the same thing as this, if we're being honest? Couldn't he take the state of Texas to court if they tried to prevent it?
Click to expand...
Only If the 23 year old can enroll and attend classes and stay academically eligible
 
  • Like
Reactions: 901 Orange
#117
#117
I am a lawyer in Knoxville. I watched some of the hearing today and based upon his questions to Joey's attorney, I believe that Chancellor Heagerty is misinterpreting the TN Trade Practices Act and requiring evidence from him that is not necessary to prove his case. From the questions I saw him ask, he was focusing on the phrase of the statute "affecting this state" in the context of having to prove possible losses to UT or the State. I think that is wrong, because the phrase "affecting this state" in my opinion is intended to refer to the eligibility rules for JUCO players. So the first question should be: do the JUCO eligibility rules affect this state- the answer is obviously yes. The second part of proving a violation of the statute would be: do the JUCO eligiblity rules tend to lessen competition, trade of commerce- again the answer is yes, just look at the money that Joey is losing if he is not allowed to play for Tennessee and the financial marketing impact he could have for a Tennessee company if he was allowed to play. I think his damages alone, which could be proved by an affidavit from Spyre or some other UT NIL entitey, would be sufficient alone to prove a violation of the statute. I guess Joey's attorney could have gotten an expert on the economic impact to UT or Knoxville, but I don't believe the statute requires that as the Chancellor seemed to suggest. Just my opinion, all due respect to Chancellor Heagerty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, matt1107, SayUWantAreVOLution and 3 others
#119
#119
ScotVol said:
I am a lawyer in Knoxville. I watched some of the hearing today and based upon his questions to Joey's attorney, I believe that Chancellor Heagerty is misinterpreting the TN Trade Practices Act and requiring evidence from him that is not necessary to prove his case. From the questions I saw him ask, he was focusing on the phrase of the statute "affecting this state" in the context of having to prove possible losses to UT or the State. I think that is wrong, because the phrase "affecting this state" in my opinion is intended to refer to the eligibility rules for JUCO players. So the first question should be: do the JUCO eligibility rules affect this state- the answer is obviously yes. The second part of proving a violation of the statute would be: do the JUCO eligiblity rules tend to lessen competition, trade of commerce- again the answer is yes, just look at the money that Joey is losing if he is not allowed to play for Tennessee and the financial marketing impact he could have for a Tennessee company if he was allowed to play. I think his damages alone, which could be proved by an affidavit from Spyre or some other UT NIL entitey, would be sufficient alone to prove a violation of the statute. I guess Joey's attorney could have gotten an expert on the economic impact to UT or Knoxville, but I don't believe the statute requires that as the Chancellor seemed to suggest. Just my opinion, all due respect to Chancellor Heagerty.
Click to expand...
By your reasoning of Joey's loss, couldn't he claim this same loss of wages next year because of NCAA eligibility rules not related to JUCO? In short, if that's all it takes, when would eligibility end if he keeps suing?

Basically, how would the NCAA, by that logic, ever be able to say someone cannot play another year?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GetYouSomeofThat
#120
#120
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
By your reasoning of Joey's loss, couldn't he claim this same loss of wages next year because of NCAA eligibility rules not related to JUCO? In short, if that's all it takes, when would eligibility end if he keeps suing?

Basically, how would the NCAA, by that logic, ever be able to say someone cannot play another year?
Click to expand...
I am not a sports lawyer and I don't know what was agreed to in the House Settlement and the other rulings related to the NCAA, but yes I don't see why someone could not challenge every single rule of the NCAA as a violation of antitrust law on some basis. Maybe some are not, based on existing federal case law, I was just focused on the language of the TN statute in question.
 
#121
#121
ScotVol said:
I am not a sports lawyer and I don't know what was agreed to in the House Settlement and the other rulings related to the NCAA, but yes I don't see why someone could not challenge every single rule of the NCAA as a violation of antitrust law on some basis. Maybe some are not, based on existing federal case law, I was just focused on the language of the TN statute in question.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if one can challenge the TN statute based upon damage to the TN economy and damage to a TN player, one could play on that basis until....... no limit...... just using the TN statute in question.
 
#122
#122
Hunerwadel said:
Sometimes judges make lawyers "earn it". They will challenge them in a way that may look like they are unsympathetic to their argument when they really just want to squeeze all the juice out of the .. er .. orange.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Judges expect the attorneys to be prepared. It’s a matter of giving the attorney the opportunity to make every argument and put it on the record. It has nothing to do with which way a judge is leaning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam.vol and Hunerwadel
#123
#123
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Not at all. Most judges are handling so many cases they typically don't focus on any single case until right before the hearing. What happens is the opinion has already been written for the most part. The judge and law clerk will discuss a few changes based on what was said during oral arguments but he already has his mind made up. What he was doing today was simply challenging the lawyers based on where he's already leaning.
Click to expand...
Good Lord. 🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jravol78, volfan102455, adam.vol and 3 others
#125
#125
Before Aguilar even applied for another year, I had stated a position against players remaining in college forever. It wouldn't be right to change my position just because a Vol player is involved. Ergo, I hope the Judge tells him to take his degree and go find a real job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: particlesmatter
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top