LSU - It's ABOUT TIME!

[BowlBrother85]

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.

That's speculating on the future... Things are subject to change. As of right now, the NCAA's Committee on Infractions has what it needs to throw the proverbial book at Will Wade and Sean Miller and they should.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That's speculating on the future... Things are subject to change. As of right now, the NCAA's Committee on Infractions has what it needs to throw the proverbial book at Will Wade and Sean Miller and they should.

1. you talk about speculating
2. you proceed to speculate about facts you don't know about
3. you proceed to speculate about implied outcomes

LOL

FYI they had all the facts as it pertains to Auburn and nobody did ****. LOL They have facts about Duke, nothing. LOL

Anything with a long-term show cause will land them in court and they will most likely lose at the lower level as there isn't much complexity to this. In the meantime, I would be filing criminal complaints at the federal (FBI) and state level if I were subject to any of this. I seriously doubt any of this goes far i.e. Auburn.

The question someone has to be asking themselves... is DOJ going to give additional warnings before seeking indictments? No warnings are even needed and they keep getting them. LOL

Justice Department warns NCAA over transfer and money-making rules

What DOJ is referring to is not only civil violations of law but can be enforce under criminal penalties i.e. prison.

 

[BowlBrother85]

2. you proceed to speculate about facts you don't know about

"Facts you don't know about?"

That's ridiculous.

We have all known for years that Will Wade made a (still illegal) financial inducement to secure the future services of Javonte Smart. We heard him do it during a phone conversation with Christian Dawkins from an audio recording which was played on an HBO documentary 2 years ago. The public has been more privy to the case against LSU, than most of the cases brought forth by the NCAA.

 

[LSU-SIU]

"Facts you don't know about?"

That's ridiculous.

We have all known for years that Will Wade made a (still illegal) financial inducement to secure the future services of Javonte Smart. We heard him do it during a phone conversation with Christian Dawkins from an audio recording which was played on an HBO documentary 2 years ago. The public has been more privy to the case against LSU, than most of the cases brought forth by the NCAA.

No you don't. The only thing that was said was he made a strong ass offer. You are speculating as to what that means without all the facts and context.

LSU asked the NCAA for further information, as far as I know none was given. In the case of Alexander, LSU didn't know about the payments it was discovered in court litigation and they self reported. LSU has not reported any payments to basketball players because it has no information.

But let's say he did give money, the rule(s) are a violation of federal and state law.

In the case of Duke, some financial information was disclosed in litigation... other parts are implied like Zion family got like half million dollar house. As far as Duke, they haven't self-reported and payments are known. (although I guess someone could dispute them further)

Even if Wade payment Smart or others money, if someone wants to fight... they will will most likely win on these issues once they are in federal court.

What you/they will find is the courts don't give a **** about their stupid rules. <------ The stupid rules will be used as evidence to secure triple damages. LOL

 

[dobre_shunka]

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.

Know what's harder? Trying to convince an LSU fan that an LSU coach violated the contract he willingly signed and is now subject the penalties explicitly outlined in said contract.

 

[BowlBrother85]

No you don't. The only thing that was said was he made a strong ass offer. You are speculating as to what that means without all the facts and context.

LSU asked the NCAA for further information, as far as I know none was given. In the case of Alexander, LSU didn't know about the payments it was discovered in court litigation and they self reported. LSU has not reported any payments to basketball players because it has no information.

But let's say he did give money, the rule(s) are a violation of federal and state law.

During the April 2020 HBO documentary, Christian Dawkins provided any and all necessary context for Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" comment. I guess you will just call Dawkins a liar? You seem to be invested in LSU's defense. I understand being a fan, but the proof is there. Wade cheated, and he should be held accountable. It's time.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Know what's harder? Trying to convince an LSU fan that an LSU coach violated the contract he willingly signed and is now subject the penalties explicitly outlined in said contract.

If that portion of the contract is void or voidable its not part of the contract. You know what is even harder, trying to explain contract law to a Tennessee fan. Even if it wasn't void, he would still have a case against LSU/NCAA for anti-trust violations which the damages could be easily proven as the contract existed.

(like I said, I highly doubt it comes to that.... I would give him an extension.. lol)

Kansas is still waiting on the NCAA, they told them to **** off 2-3 years ago with their allegations. LOL I have no idea how this plays out, but I think it will be boring just like Auburn. What you guys are talking about is the system that use to exist on paper.... nobody really cares.

NCAA replies to Kansas' response to notice of allegations

 

[BowlBrother85]

If that portion of the contract is void or voidable its not part of the contract. You know what is even harder, trying to explain contract law to a Tennessee fan.

(like I said, I doubt it comes to that.... I would give him an extension.. lol)

... or a Supreme Court decision to an LSU fan?

There isn't an existing ruling from the judiciary, that would render Wade's "reinstatement" contract voidable. You have been doing a great deal of speculating, and quite frankly, painting a rosier picture for LSU's pending fate, than what the reality of their current circumstances reflects.

 

[dobre_shunka]

If that portion of the contract is void or voidable its not part of the contract. You know what is even harder, trying to explain contract law to a Tennessee fan. Even if it wasn't void, he would still have a case against LSU/NCAA for anti-trust violations which the damages could be easily proven as the contract existed.

(like I said, I highly doubt it comes to that.... I would give him an extension.. lol)

Kansas is still waiting on the NCAA, they told them to **** off 2-3 years ago with their allegations. LOL I have no idea how this plays out, but I think it will be boring just like Auburn. What you guys are talking about is the system that use to exist on paper.... nobody really cares.

NCAA replies to Kansas' response to notice of allegations

Out of curiosity, what states are you a member of the bar?

 

[LSU-SIU]

During the April 2020 HBO documentary, Christian Dawkins provided any and all necessary context for Will Wade's "strong a$$ offer" comment. I guess you will just call Dawkins a liar? You seem to be invested in LSU's defense. I understand being a fan, but the proof is there. Wade cheated, and he should be held accountable. It's time.

I didn't call anyone a liar, but you need to provide the proof. I don't know what Dawkins can testify to or not.

Wade cheated, and he should be held accountable. It's time.

I would say he potentially violated a rule(s), which are not enforceable... which really makes it a non-rule. Without enforce it all becomes moot. Without enforcement its more akin to guidance. LOL

Which is why Kansas says Hi after 2-3 years of receiving their notice.

NCAA replies to Kansas' response to notice of allegations

The school suing the NCAA for antitrust violations seems kind of strange as the school is member of the association, but a coach or player have more realistic options.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Out of curiosity, what states are you a member of the bar?

Who said I was the member of the bar? Does one have to be member of the bar to understand contract law? Is what I said incorrect?

 

[BowlBrother85]

I didn't call anyone a liar, but you need to provide the proof. I don't know what Dawkins can testify to or not.



I would say he potentially violated a rules, which is not enforceable... which really makes it a non-rule. Without enforce it all becomes moot.

Which is why Kansas says Hi after 2-3 years of receiving their notice.

... but it is enforceable.

 

[LSU-SIU]

... but it is enforceable.

Not according to Kansas. The rest of the schools basically self-imposed, sweep it under the rug. The NCAA also went after Person who has no chance of coaching again based on his conviction so no damages.

Pearl says you can go **** yourself. LOL

What is going on isn't even a show... its just sad. Coach K is like... see ya guys. LOL

There really is no purpose to any of this. Anything that causes significant "damages" will land them in court. They're not even going after low hanging fruit... its fruit that's on the ground rotting. LOL

 

[BowlBrother85]

I didn't call anyone a liar, but you need to provide the proof. I don't know what Dawkins can testify to or not.

Dawkins HBO Doc Provides Damning Evidence Against Wade, Miller

 

[BowlBrother85]

Not according to Kansas. The rest of the schools basically self-imposed, sweep it under the rug. The NCAA also went after Person who has no chance of coaching again based on his conviction so no damages.

Pearl says you can go **** yourself. LOL

What is going on isn't even a show... its just sad. Coach K is like... see ya guys. LOL

There really is no purpose to any of this. Anything that causes significant "damages" will land them in court. They're not even going after low hanging fruit... its fruit that's on the ground rotting. LOL

The circumstance facing LSU are not identical to what either Kansas or Auburn were faced with. The NCAA's case against LSU, more closely resembles their case against Arizona.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Dawkins HBO Doc Provides Damning Evidence Against Wade, Miller

Nothing new there. LOL He makes "strong ass offerers". So what? Everyone already has heard that.

But even if it were true, heck, I would be on the side that says he probably did pay players... its mostly immaterial as the ability of the NCAA to do much about it is basically zero.

I have said for a few years, it wouldn't surprise me at all that Wade paid players. At his stage its mostly meaningless.

There is a reason why the NCAA had to convince Auburn to not allow Pearl to coach two games... they don't have any real way of enforcing anything. Not really.

 

[bamawriter]

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.

I've read the decision. I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. It might help if you'd quote some portions of the ruling that you believe support your conclusion.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I've read the decision. I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. It might help if you'd quote some portions of the ruling that you believe support your conclusion.

1. its pretty clear the NCAA is not exempt from anti-trust law... duh... yet somehow how they paid lawyers millions to push that stupid ****
2. the NCAA is a monopoly in a general sense... again they admitted to that at the lower court
3. the Supreme Court is making it pretty clear that interfering with commerce at scale via their association is not such a good idea

Of course the ruling only is a direct decision on the educational benefits, but they are green lighting it all because there is no exemptions to anti-trust law for the NCAA. (duh)

The Supreme Court did say Congress can change the law and they opened up (or somewhat) agree with the fact that individual conferences could have more power to enforce.

This is pure anti-trust law, there is nothing special about anything of this. DOJ civilly and criminally enforces things a lot less obvious every day. Its a racket or price fixing scheme, I would say that is almost exactly what Kavaugh is saying.

DOJ has thrown them lots of bones, they probably just need to indict at this point. Usually they go after the small fish for criminal indictments though. How nice.

Press Releases

Don't worry the NCAA isn't going to go after anyone big anyway as that opens up the possibility of injunction and triple damages. They'll go after people like Person who was criminally convicted. LOL

I'm not sure where the confusion lies at this point. Lower courts have all they need at this point to proceed and to even proceed with injunctions at this point.

Someone would have to be special kind of dumb to think that business model exist anymore - its a show.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nothing new there. LOL He makes "strong ass offerers". So what? Everyone already has heard that.

But even if it were true, heck, I would be on the side that says he probably did pay players... its mostly immaterial as the ability of the NCAA to do much about it is basically zero.

I have said for a few years, it wouldn't surprise me at all that Wade paid players. At his stage its mostly meaningless.

There is a reason why the NCAA had to convince Auburn to not allow Pearl to coach two games... they don't have any real way of enforcing anything. Not really.

You asked for context from Christian Dawkins, and that's what that article provides.

Once again, there isn't a standing decision from the judiciary, which prohibits the NCAA from restricting financial rewards paid directly by universities to athletes, based on athletic performance. The NCAA has the right to impose rules against such transactions, and their Committee on Infractions has the right to enforce those rules.

The Supreme Court decision which you have alluded to, only covered restrictions against education-related compensation. The Supreme Court did not address athletic performance-based compensation, although state laws do now allow for athletes to receive compensation for the use of their name, image and likeness... but not paid by the school.

This is all subject to change, however. I expect that there will come a time in the not-so-distant future that all forms of compensation will be allowed... but as of right now, that isn't the case. Will Wade cheated and he got caught. He should be held accountable.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I've read the decision. I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. It might help if you'd quote some portions of the ruling that you believe support your conclusion.

His interpretation is too broad. I have explained that, but I don't think he gets it.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You asked for context from Christian Dawkins, and that's what that article provides.

Once again, there isn't a standing decision from the judiciary, which prohibits the NCAA from restricting financial rewards paid directly by universities to athletes, based on athletic performance. The NCAA has the right to impose rules against such transactions, and their Committee on Infractions has the right to enforce those rules.

The Supreme Court decision which you have alluded to, only covered restrictions against education-related compensation. The Supreme Court did not address athletic performance-based compensation, although state laws do now allow for athletes to receive compensation for the use of their name, image and likeness... but not paid by the school.

This is all subject to change, however. I expect that there will come a time in the not-so-distant future that all forms of compensation will be allowed... but as of right now, that isn't the case. Will Wade cheated and he got caught. He should be held accountable.

There isn't a judiciary decision that says Mickey Mouse can't pay X for cotton candy, but that doesn't mean anything.

There is no difference between educational benefits or compensation benefits under antitrust law. LOL They don't go into every possibility because well, that's impossible.

all forms of compensation will be allowed

Well, it already is according to you... you keep saying Wade paying everyone. LOL

A school like auburn self-imposing isn't punishment nor enforcement, its Auburn protecting the NCAA business. Nothing is going to be done on any of this. That's not enforcement, its a show.

You asked for context from Christian Dawkins, and that's what that article provides.

It doesn't provide anymore context than the original audio, but as I said.... I would probably guess he did pay players. LOL

That isn't proof of payment at all, its someone guessing. We can all guess.

What exactly has happened to Kansas? They told the NCAA to pound sand going on 3 years ago.

The ability of the schools to even stop any of this is restricted by antitrust law or other state laws.

 

[LSU-SIU]

His interpretation is too broad. I have explained that, but I don't think he gets it.

The ruling isn't broad, what they spoke about is very broad. The ruling pertains to educational benefits, anti-trust law has no exemptions based on your form of commerce.

They can fight this, but they will lose again at the lower level, again, and they can appeal again, and doubt the Supreme Court will hear their nonsense again.

What the NCAA was proposing is complete nonsense, Kavaugh wasn't going to let that go without pointing out how nonsensical their arguments were.

 

[LSU-SIU]

His interpretation is too broad. I have explained that, but I don't think he gets it.

The ruling isn't broad (the appeal), what they spoke about is very broad. The ruling pertains to educational benefits, anti-trust law has no exemptions based on your form of commerce other than exemptions made by Congress.

They can fight this, but they will lose again at the lower level, again, and they can appeal again, and I doubt the Supreme Court will hear their nonsense again.

Literally what the NCAA was proposing is complete nonsense.

 

[BowlBrother85]

There isn't a judiciary decision that says Mickey Mouse can't pay X for cotton candy, but that doesn't mean anything.

There is no difference between educational benefits or compensation benefits under antitrust law. LOL They don't go into every possibility because well, that's impossible.

You just don't get it and seem to be a little thick. The Supreme Court's decision was narrow. It only covered prohibting restrictions against education-related benefits. The NCAA still has the right to restrict performance-based compensation from schools to athletes, and they have the right to enforce those rules.

A school like auburn self-imposing isn't punishment nor enforcement, its Auburn protecting the NCAA business. Nothing is going to be done on any of this. That's not enforcement, its a show.

The case against LSU is much stronger than the case against Auburn. LSU's case is more similar to that of Arizona's and will be similarly adjudicated.

It doesn't provide anymore context than the original audio, but as I said.... I would probably guess he did pay players. LOL

That isn't proof of payment at all, its someone guessing. We can all guess.

You could not have read that article. It gives more context than the original audio. There doesn't have to be proof that money changed hands to have a Level 1 NCAA violation. The offer itself, is enough.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The ruling isn't broad (the appeal), what they spoke about is very broad. The ruling pertains to educational benefits, anti-trust law has no exemptions based on your form of commerce other than exemptions made by Congress.

They can fight this, but they will lose again at the lower level, again, and they can appeal again, and I doubt the Supreme Court will hear their nonsense again.

Literally what the NCAA was proposing is complete nonsense.

You have wishful thinking at this point. I get it. You are a fan... and you want LSU to skate, and Wade to go about his merry way of throwing Benjamin's around. It finally looks like the NCAA may have grown a backbone, and will do something about this, however.