SEC Country: Settlement the right move

#3
#3
He explains why it was the right move and doesn't mean TN is guilty of anything.

The game of perception most often trumps reality, and in this Title IX case there was no way Tennessee was going to come out a winner, regardless of the verdict.

Settling for $2.48 million was a bargain.
Click to expand...

Some might argue that settling a case is akin to admitting guilt, and that Tennessee will receive some sort of public black eye.

That’s already happened.

It’s time to move on. Those speculating and casting aspersions will fade as football season approaches.

Had the case not been settled, there would have been two more years of media coverage, analysis, timelines and comparisons to Baylor’s renegade program. Tennessee’s Title IX trial was not scheduled to take place until May of 2018.

Baylor’s case was much different, and Knoxville SportsSource.TV analyst John Pennington has banged the drum that coach Butch Jones dealt with the Vols’ off-field issues with considerably more discipline than the Bears’ Art Briles.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the definition of “settle,” in a legal sense, is “to resolve a lawsuit without a final court judgment by negotiation between the parties.”

Tennessee isn’t admitting fault as much as it’s paying to get out of a perception game that it could not win — and would have spent millions more in attorneys fees to keep playing.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4
#4
The article also ties this in to the larger picture about how during his tenure (2009 - 2016) Cheek screwed up the athletics program and the once golden image it had.

UT chancellor Jimmy Cheek, who oversaw athletics since a 2009 restructuring, announced last month he’s stepping down from his post.

Under Cheek, Tennessee dissolved what was once a successfully run women’s athletics department, “merging” it with the men’s athletic department to become more cost effective.

Then, Cheek oversaw the process of UT stripping its female athletes of their “Lady Vols” nickname, save the basketball program — this despite a petition and former athletes begging the school to hold on to its proud tradition.

It has been one embarrassing episode after another in the wake of Lane Tiffin’s tumultuous 2009 football season as head coach for Cheek, who in all fairness was never really qualified to oversee athletics.

As for Kiffin, his UT program’s numerous “secondary” violations — numbers rivaled only by Nick Saban’s Alabama football program in that timeframe — sparked a costly NCAA investigation into Tennessee’s athletic department.

Before it was over, a shadow was cast over a football program that had been a top 25 staple without any major violations under Fulmer’s leadership.

The Vols also lost the most successful and popular men’s basketball coach in school history (Pearl) as a result of the fallout from the NCAA investigation.

Pearl made his fair share of mistakes, but they could have easily been overcome had the case not been mishandled by Cheek and the law firm the school hired.

The football program, meanwhile, took a historic dip that has been well-documented.

But now, with Cheek gone and the Title IX lawsuit settled, those dark clouds have dissipated.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#5
#5
Neyland Law Vol said:
The article also ties this in to the larger picture about how during his tenure (2009 - 2016) Cheek screwed up the athletics program and the once golden image it had.
Click to expand...

I say this because I honestly don't know the answer, but who hired and put Cheek in that position? And who is hiring his replacement? Is it the same people who hired Cheek and Hamilton?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
Glad Cheek is gone. Just hope someone worse is not hired. Taxpayers, ticket buying fans, and students with parents paying tuition will pay for the settlement. Our tickets, tuitions and contributions keep increasing and the athletic product, with a few exceptions, gets worse. Oh wtf, isn't that always the case? A politician can commit all kinds of crimes and go scott free. A kid can sell a bag of dope and go to jail for years. Oh well!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
I do not know if legally possible, but I wish UT had essentially took the judge to court (had her overruled), because she set the plaintiffs up for a settlement!!!!

She did so by setting a 2018 COURT DATE!!!! UT would have spent over 2 million in legal fees by the time it reached court!!! How is that a speedy trial?

Obviously you had other things that played into them getting a settlement which I believe all has been mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
volnpowell said:
I do not know if legally possible, but I wish UT had essentially took the judge to court (had her overruled), because she set the plaintiffs up for a settlement!!!!

She did so by setting a 2018 COURT DATE!!!! UT would have spent over 2 million in legal fees by the time it reached court!!! How is that a speedy trial?

Obviously you had other things that played into them getting a settlement which I believe all has been mentioned.
Click to expand...

Um...doesn't that cut both ways?
 
#9
#9
vol66 said:
Um...doesn't that cut both ways?
Click to expand...

I think that their lawyer did it mostly for his own p.r. and like I said you had all the other issues against UT, such as media, Butch would have had to testify, recruiting... etc.
 
#10
#10
volnpowell said:
I think that their lawyer did it mostly for his own p.r. and like I said you had all the other issues against UT, such as media, Butch would have had to testify, recruiting... etc.
Click to expand...

Well, the plaintiffs have similar issues don't they? They don't want to be in limbo for the next two years, they don't want to have to show up for hearings, miss days of work just to be put off for another day. They probably don't look forward to having to take the stand three, four, five years after the fact.

It was a settlement. Each party had their own reasons for accepting and not wanting to push forward. Neither party got everything they wanted. Hopefully UT can get it's ducks in a row, look at it as a chance to try handling these cases in some better way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
vol66 said:
Well, the plaintiffs have similar issues don't they? They don't want to be in limbo for the next two years, they don't want to have to show up for hearings, miss days of work just to be put off for another day. They probably don't look forward to having to take the stand three, four, five years after the fact.

It was a settlement. Each party had their own reasons for accepting and not wanting to push forward. Neither party got everything they wanted. Hopefully UT can get it's ducks in a row, look at it as a chance to try handling these cases in some better way.
Click to expand...

Let me try this again... by putting a 2018 COURT DATE, it forced a settlement. That meant the plaintiffs would be guaranteed money, which is what I saw this as... a money grab. Just my opinion though.

I will say this, I am sure UT could have handled some things better, just not law suit worthy. Again just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
volnpowell said:
Let me try this again... by putting a 2018 COURT DATE, it forced a settlement. That meant the plaintiffs would be guaranteed money, which is what I saw this as... a money grab. Just my opinion though.

I will say this, I am sure UT could have handled some things better, just not law suit worthy. Again just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Before there was even a lawsuit...in other words...before there was a judge...both sides were trying to negotiate a settlement.

When UT declined, the lawyer for the plaintiffs felt there was no way forward but to file the suit.

Once he filed a suit, the lawyers for both sides file motions and the Judge issues rulings.

Still at an impasse, the lawyers look at their calendars, look at the list of witnesses that need to be deposed and they all agree on a date in the future. It isn't random.

Look at the Johnson/Williams case. It's been delayed by both sides AND the judge over the social media/phones...

Saying the judge set the date for the purpose of a settlement is incorrect imo. This case was always going to be settled and if you buy UT's rhetoric regarding fighting it...oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
allvol123 said:
The deal was a no brainer. John Adams or anyone else that disagrees with that, is a moron.
Click to expand...

John Adams is a Big Orange troll who just loves it when angry Volnation posters link his articles to this cite. He couldn't care less if you agree with him. Just keep clicking and boost his numbers and you've made his day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
vol66 said:
Before there was even a lawsuit...in other words...before there was a judge...both sides were trying to negotiate a settlement.

When UT declined, the lawyer for the plaintiffs felt there was no way forward but to file the suit.

Once he filed a suit, the lawyers for both sides file motions and the Judge issues rulings.

Still at an impasse, the lawyers look at their calendars, look at the list of witnesses that need to be deposed and they all agree on a date in the future. It isn't random.

Look at the Johnson/Williams case. It's been delayed by both sides AND the judge over the social media/phones...

Saying the judge set the date for the purpose of a settlement is incorrect imo. This case was always going to be settled and if you buy UT's rhetoric regarding fighting it...oh well.
Click to expand...


Unless their is something neither you or I know, I just did not see enough evidence for a law suit.

Butch dealt with every player that was accused of anything. Some of the allegations against players seemed shady to me.
 
#18
#18
volnpowell said:
Unless their is something neither you or I know, I just did not see enough evidence for a law suit.

Butch dealt with every player that was accused of anything. Some of the allegations against players seemed shady to me.
Click to expand...

That's a common mistake. Confusing team discipline with school hearings. Jones handled his end really well...until the Drae Bowles thing happened.

That doesn't have anything to do with the disciplinary hearings that go along with the code of conduct for the school, which was at the CORE of the plaintiffs case.

The Universities problems started with the handling of the Johnson/Williams case as compared to that of Von Pearson...Jones handled them mostly the same...the school did not.

The school was dead in the water, they know it. It's why they settled.
 
#19
#19
Civil cases like this generally take 1-2 years to settle... and 95% settle.

Pre-trial settlement is a practical disposition, not an admission of guilt. Nobody ever expected this case to go to trial-- although it was tried in the media, as the plaintiffs' attorneys intended from the outset.
 
#20
#20
LA Vol said:
Civil cases like this generally take 1-2 years to settle... and 95% settle.

Pre-trial settlement is a practical disposition, not an admission of guilt. Nobody ever expected this case to go to trial-- although it was tried in the media, as the plaintiffs' attorneys intended from the outset.
Click to expand...

chuckle, chuckle...nobody was crying when Pearson's attorney took his case to the media...

and...what exactly was that coaches in the round thing UT tried to pull off? All the "we'll be vindicated in the end" stuff UT's attorney's and mouth pieces told the media?

Everywhere. FSU. It's the same everywhere.
 
#21
#21
vol66 said:
chuckle, chuckle...nobody was crying when Pearson's attorney took his case to the media...

and...what exactly was that coaches in the round thing UT tried to pull off? All the "we'll be vindicated in the end" stuff UT's attorney's and mouth pieces told the media?

Everywhere. FSU. It's the same everywhere.
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
#24
#24
LA Vol said:
And I said that where?
Click to expand...

"although it was tried in the media, as the plaintiffs' attorneys intended from the outset."

They obviously spent some time trying to negotiate before going to the media, UT hired the lawyer before the case was filed in federal court.

But once they did file the suit and the media started filing FOIA's every day...UT was in the media battle every bit as much as the plaintiffs...

You don't agree?
 
#25
#25
vol66 said:
"although it was tried in the media, as the plaintiffs' attorneys intended from the outset."

They obviously spent some time trying to negotiate before going to the media, UT hired the lawyer before the case was filed in federal court.

But once they did file the suit and the media started filing FOIA's every day...UT was in the media battle every bit as much as the plaintiffs...

You don't agree?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. The plaintiffs' attorneys intended to try this case in the media-- and they did. It was a matter of legal strategy. All attorneys use the media when it makes strategic sense... though UT seldom uses the media effectively, IMO.

The plaintiffs' attorneys were quite successful in making this case appear to be about something it was not. They played the public with great finesse, with the media acting as maestro. I might even shout "bravo!" if I didn't feel that a serious issue had been trivialized in an attempt to legally extort a public university under the guise of civil rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top