LSU - It's ABOUT TIME!

#4
#4
If the NCAA has been handing out death penalties for major recruiting violations in Division I, then we wouldn’t have stuff like this happening. They’ve only been giving slaps on the wrist since the SMU violations. They should have been cracking the whip all these years and now all the coaches and players have the power ironically.
 
#5
#5
It’s pretty strong and it gives LSU a reason to fire Wade for cause. They may not and if not, no school should fire a coach based on the NCAA. JMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feathersax and GiveHim6InSC
#6
#6
vol66 said:
It’s pretty strong and it gives LSU a reason to fire Wade for cause. They may not and if not, no school should fire a coach based on the NCAA. JMO.
Click to expand...

If he is fired, he could sue both LSU and the NCAA under law... federal law you can actually seek triple damages if I remember correctly plus attorney fees under anti-trust. We'll see how it plays out, probably will end up like Auburn.

Basically, it comes down to what people are willing to accept to move on. If Wade is suspended for a few games, no real harm and no reason to sue. Also, if I remember correctly... his contract might be up after next year. So... the NCAA waits so long that there are no or limited damages. I would expect Wade to make plenty of money in the future, whether its at LSU or elsewhere.

Of course, if I were advising Wade, if his name is mentioned... I would recommend him file a criminal complaint with the FBI. Its a clear federal crime at this point. Some type of show cause and he has no choice but to sue the NCAA and LSU. LSU is technically on the hook for the remaining contract and the NCAA (and member schools) could be liable for damages they do as a result of anti-trust action.

The NCAA is still playing pretend to a degree. <---
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
LSU-SIU said:
If he is fired, he could sue both LSU and the NCAA under law... federal law you can actually seek triple damages if I remember correctly plus attorney fees under anti-trust. We'll see how it plays out, probably will end up like Auburn.

Basically, it comes down to what people are willing to accept to move on. If Wade is suspended for a few games, no real harm and no reason to sue. Also, if I remember correctly... his contract might be up after next year. So... the NCAA waits so long that there are no or limited damages. I would expect Wade to make plenty of money in the future, whether its at LSU or elsewhere.

Of course, if I were advising Wade, if his name is mentioned... I would recommend him file a criminal complaint with the FBI. Its a clear federal crime at this point. Some type of show cause and he has no choice but to sue the NCAA and LSU. LSU is technically on the hook for the remaining contract and the NCAA (and member schools) could be liable for damages they do as a result of anti-trust action.

The NCAA is still playing pretend to a degree. <---
Click to expand...

Maybe I am reading the agreement wrong but to me it looks like The agreement he signed says he can be terminated and he will not sue the school if the NCAA finds level I or level II violations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#9
#9
LSU-SIU said:
If he is fired, he could sue both LSU and the NCAA under law... federal law you can actually seek triple damages if I remember correctly plus attorney fees under anti-trust. We'll see how it plays out, probably will end up like Auburn.

Basically, it comes down to what people are willing to accept to move on. If Wade is suspended for a few games, no real harm and no reason to sue. Also, if I remember correctly... his contract might be up after next year. So... the NCAA waits so long that there are no or limited damages. I would expect Wade to make plenty of money in the future, whether its at LSU or elsewhere.

Of course, if I were advising Wade, if his name is mentioned... I would recommend him file a criminal complaint with the FBI. Its a clear federal crime at this point. Some type of show cause and he has no choice but to sue the NCAA and LSU. LSU is technically on the hook for the remaining contract and the NCAA (and member schools) could be liable for damages they do as a result of anti-trust action.

The NCAA is still playing pretend to a degree. <---
Click to expand...
There is some wishful thinking here. LSU's circumstances are more closely related to Arizona's than Auburn's.... and good luck on that criminal complaint. LOL.
 
#10
#10
Raebo said:
Maybe I am reading the agreement wrong but to me it looks like The agreement he signed says he can be terminated and he will not sue the school if the NCAA finds level I or level II violations.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those violations are in violation of anti-trust law i.e. NCAA rules pertaining to compensation. Its like the Mafia trying to justify a contract for rules they created which are illegal in nature. We'll see how it plays out... wade can go to another school making more than he does now, and damages wouldn't even be very high at this point.

If I were LSU I would just tell the NCAA to pound sand at this point, but it depends on whether they want to keep Wade... and what is offered to make it go away i.e. Auburn. Damages to Wade would be fairly minimum depending on how this plays out and any suspension, but it could take another year to go thru that. If Wade receives a show cause than I would be very surprised to not see major litigation.

The NCAA is still pretending.

Like what is the point to all this? :)
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and Delmar
#12
#12
Yes he can, the rules in question are a violation of federal and state law i.e. void or voidable part of the contract. Although I doubt it comes to any of that as damages will probably not be worth much of anything at that point.

If LSU fires Will Wade, he'll just be getting a pay raise somewhere else. All of this is an exercise in futility anyway, there really is no point to any of this.

Bruce Pearl is laughing his ass off.

bruce_pearl_might_cry-DMID1-5i9pm3nle-480x242.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VOL_Lyfe
#17
#17
I don't recall the exception to federal or state anti-trust laws for "coaches" or "NCAA", maybe you can show me.

All that NIL **** is exactly that ****, its meaningless... once the Supreme Court closed the door for the NCAA last summer... its over.

The NCAA is just putting on a stupid show at this point... Bruce and his lawyer will tell you why.

yuuyuy.gif.57e657190cf4179f308b0d1058f2cfeb.gif
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
LSU-SIU said:
I don't recall the exception to federal or state anti-trust laws for "coaches" or "NCAA", maybe you can show me.

All that NIL **** is exactly that ****, its meaningless... once the Supreme Court closed the door for the NCAA last summer... its over.

The NCAA is just putting on a stupid show at this point... Bruce and his lawyer will tell you why.

yuuyuy.gif.57e657190cf4179f308b0d1058f2cfeb.gif
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court's ruling was more narrow than how you are interpreting it. The Supreme Court's decision against the NCAA paved the way for college athletes to be paid, but what you are missing, is that only covers education-related benefits ... and not broader compensation issues. The NCAA still reserves the right to restrict direct payments from schools to recruits based solely on athletic abilities.

However, states have overruled the NCAA on some of these broader compensation issues and do make it legal for collegiate athletes to be compensated off their name, image and likeness... but they still can't be paid directly by the school for their athletic performance. The Supreme Court's ruling did not cover that, although it may at a later time. They can be paid by Nike, Adidas, etc.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/21/sup...ion-how-college-athletes-plan-to-cash-in.html

Anyway you want to slice it, Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" for Javonte Smart violated a Level 1 NCAA rule which is still legally in effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#19
#19
The Supreme Court's ruling was more narrow than how you are interpreting it.
Click to expand...

The ruling was narrow because that was all they could do because that was the question before the court. What they did in reality is green light the whole enchilada.

Please go back and read the Supreme Court decision, there are no exceptions in the anti-trust law like the NCAA stated... matter of fact, the Supreme Court really couldn't even understand what the **** the NCAA was even trying to imply.

Its over, its been over for years... what is going on now is a sad show. Heck, they are not even putting on a show anymore.

but they still can't be paid directly by the school for their athletic performance
Click to expand...

Sure they can. LOL The NCAA doesn't really go after players anymore, and they're really not even putting on a show to schools... why? Because any type of real damage will land them in injunction land. They have to convince the schools to accept something i.e. Auburn (non-punishment punishment).

If a schools wanted to fight, there really isn't anything the NCAA can really do.

Rules don't mean **** without enforcement, if someone wants to fight the NCAA has no real way of enforcing. A players can sue under anti-trust, and a coach can sue under anti-trust. The member school has dual responsibilities which is why Auburn just accepted the non-punishment punishment.

All of this is a a bad show and a waste of time, but its quite funny to watch.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
LSU-SIU said:
The ruling was narrow because that was all they could do because that was the question before the court. What they did in reality is green light the whole enchilada.

Please go back and read the Supreme Court decision, there are no exceptions in the anti-trust law like the NCAA stated... matter of fact, the Supreme Court really couldn't even understand what the **** the NCAA was even trying to imply.

Its over, its been over for years... what is going on now is a sad show. Heck, they are not even putting on a show anymore.
Click to expand...
No, they absolutely did not.

Down the road, it probably will become legal for schools to directly pay recruits, but as of now, the NCAA is still within their legal authority to restrict that practice.
 
#21
#21
BowlBrother85 said:
No, they absolutely did not.

Down the road, it probably will become legal for schools to directly pay recruits, but as of now, the NCAA is still within their legal authority to restrict that practice.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. The NCAA is not exempt from the anti-trust act, read the decision you moron. Matter of fact, you can go read the law yourself, you will not see anything in there that exemptions the NCAA. Which is why the Supreme Court said especially Kavaugh. What the SC didn't say is everything the NCAA is doing that is in violation of anti-trust law as that would entail future litigation.

The decision only resolved the case in question, which is normal in legal appeals. What they basically said is there is no exemption that they could understand as it pertains to the NCAA, it would require Congress to change the law... this isn't difficult. Its a green light.

In the case of the transfers, DOJ Anti-trust Division just send them letters.... no litigation needed.

None of this is hard to understand, its over and its been over for years... its like watching a dinosaur trying to convince himself he isn't a fossil.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
LSU-SIU said:
Yes they did. The NCAA is not exempt from the anti-trust act, read decision you moron.
Click to expand...

For the third time: how would this be an anti-trust violation? You're simply saying that it is, but you're making no attempt to say how.
 
#23
#23
bamawriter said:
For the third time: how would this be an anti-trust violation? You're simply saying that it is, but you're making no attempt to say how.
Click to expand...

Read the Supreme Court decision. Kavaugh even gave example, of course there is 100+ years of litigation to explain this to you.

Why do you think major sports have exemptions? You need to educate yourself, this has been told to you multiple times. The NCAA lost and they didn't kind of lose... they made absolutely no sense.
 
#24
#24
LSU-SIU said:
Yes they did. The NCAA is not exempt from the anti-trust act, read decision you moron. Matter of fact, you can go read the law yourself, you will not see anything in there that exemptions the NCAA. Which is why the Supreme Court said especially Kavaugh.

The decision only resolved the case in question, which is normal in legal appeals. What they basically said is there is no exemption that they could understand as it pertains to the NCAA, it would require Congress to change the law... this isn't difficult. Its a green light.

In the case of the transfers, DOJ Anti-trust Division just send them letter.... no litigation needed.

None of this is hard to understand, its over and its been over for years... its like watching a dinosaur trying to convince himself he isn't a fossil.
Click to expand...
You need to read the Supreme Court's decision yourself.

The Supreme Court's ruling only covered education-related benefits. You are trying to broadly apply it to all matters concerning compensation. The NCAA still reserves the legal authority to restrict schools from directly paying inducements to high school recruits. Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" for Javonte Smart is still a Level 1 NCAA rule's violation, which the NCAA's Committee on Infractions is within their right to enforce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#25
#25
BowlBrother85 said:
You need to read the Supreme Court's decision yourself.

The Supreme Court's ruling only covered education-related benefits. You are trying to broadly apply it to all matters concerning compensation. The NCAA still reserves the legal authority to restrict schools from directly paying inducements to high school recruits. Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" for Javonte Smart is still a Level 1 NCAA rule's violation, which the NCAA's Committee on Infractions is within their right to enforce.
Click to expand...


Of course, because that is how appeals works duh.

The NCAA still reserves the legal authority to restrict schools from directly paying inducements to high school recruits. Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" for Javonte Smart is still a Level 1 NCAA rule's violation, which the NCAA's Committee on Infractions is within their right to enforce
Click to expand...

Yes they have a "rule", but at this point a lower court has all they need from the Supreme Court to back up the injunction or damages. What the Supreme Court is saying is pretty easy... there is no exceptions to anti-trust law as it pertains to the NCAA and they are indicating (Kavaugh) that their whole enterprise is a racket.

Its called a show, at this point... its a weak ass show.

DOJ sent the NCAA a letter on NIL in January. LOL There is nothing different between NIL and any other compensation as far as anti-trust law. According to you the NCAA could just enforce, which they could try... and than chance that DOJ doesn't sue or criminally indict them.

If someone wants to fight... they will most likely win at the lower level... there really isn't anything complex about this.

Pearl didn't bother fighting because they agreed to suspend him two games, not sure if he even lost salary i.e. they really can't do anything.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top