Page 80 of 227
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 7:38 pm
by ousdahl
and by how’s the ncaa gonna take it I mean, both how will the ncaa react, and how will the ncaa be received in the bigger picture going forward
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 8:16 pm
by Deleted User 310
Hopefully they take it right in the ass like they deserve it.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 3:43 pm
by Deleted User 310
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 8:23 am
by pdub
G League baby!
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 8:52 am
by Deleted User 310
pdub wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 8:23 amG League baby!
Unfortunately its only about 10 players that will be given that option.
It'll be 1 team, they'll play about 10 games (not a full G league schedule). I think its a good option for some...but who is to say adidas and nike won't just up their offers to be more in line with 500k for those guys to steer them to Duke KU UNC UK etc?
I think this is good for the NBA, because those players will get better prepared for the league by having guidance from people in and around the NBA...but i think its insignificant to the issues inside college basketball recruiting. Just shifts the money down 10-15 spots.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 11:45 pm
by jfish26
https://twitter.com/SethDavisHoops/stat ... 4567201792
...you
know, don't you, that your livelihood is dependent on college being a thing?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 6:54 am
by TDub
I get nervous everytime this thread is bumped.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 8:52 am
by Deleted User 310
TDub wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:54 am
I get nervous everytime this thread is bumped.
That makes 2 of us....sounds like we don't need to worry until after June 1st since they (the independent panel) won't begin working on stuff until that date (at the earliest iirc).
Whatever happens I am just ready to get it over with and move on.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 9:21 am
by Cascadia
Get ready for nothing!
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 12:39 am
by NewtonHawk11
Duke and Zion in full CYA mode. I don’t think you do a protective order in something you’re innocent, or am I wrong in thinking that..?
https://twitter.com/wallachlegal/status ... 55072?s=21
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 6:36 am
by Deleted User 310
Of course he isn't "innocent". If his camp made it known to adidas what he wanted to attend an adidas school, then it is reasonable to assume he made it known to nike as well...but that document isn't "duke and zion" it is Zion. I know we desperately want other schools caught up in this with us, but we all should know that this is widespread. There was more than enough "evidence" in the FBI trials to prove that assumption.
Duke isn't pulling top recruiting classes following the rules while all the other schools cheat. Of course duke does exactly what everyone else does.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 8:42 am
by jfish26
Being private helps them a lot.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 9:24 am
by ousdahl
how so?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 10:06 am
by jfish26
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 9:24 amhow so?
Not subject to FOIA requests, is perhaps the most critical thing.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 10:26 am
by CrimsonNBlue
Not sure that matters practically speaking.
(Disclaimer, I haven't read the entire Motion) The discovery request is pretty arguably relevant for discovery purposes considering the agent's theory that Zion wasn't a "student-athlete" while at Duke. It's a unique theory, but again, it's discovery and not trial.
Now, Zion may have an argument for a protective order to keep everything he produces under wraps (if he loses what is essentially his Motion to not have to produce anything related to amateur status). However, I'm not sure what his argument is that he'd be harmed if it was made public--plaintiff clearly wants it to be public as it is conducting discovery through the public and court dockets, which is rare, so I doubt it would agree to a PO.
So, say Zion loses his Motion(s), he is compelled to produce, says he received money to go to duke, produces communications tying duke to nike and nike to Zion, plaintiff leaks it to the public: NCAA is operating with way less and is trying to hammer KU.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 10:28 am
by jfish26
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:26 am
Not sure that matters practically speaking.
(Disclaimer, I haven't read the entire Motion) The discovery request is pretty arguably relevant for discovery purposes considering the agent's theory that Zion wasn't a "student-athlete" while at Duke. It's a unique theory, but again, it's discovery and not trial.
Now, Zion may have an argument for a protective order to keep everything he produces under wraps (if he loses what is essentially his Motion to not have to produce anything related to amateur status). However, I'm not sure what his argument is that he'd be harmed if it was made public--plaintiff clearly wants it to be public as it is conducting discovery through the public and court dockets, which is rare, so I doubt it would agree to a PO.
So, say Zion loses his Motion(s), he is compelled to produce, says he received money to go to duke, produces communications tying duke to nike and nike to Zion, plaintiff leaks it to the public: NCAA is operating with way less and is trying to hammer KU.
You talking to me?
I meant that being private has been helpful to Duke across the subject, generally, not in respect of this particular development.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:22 am
by PortlandHawk
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:27 am
by ousdahl
"We're able to establish that he was not eligible during that time frame, which would be a defense to their claim that our contract was invalid. The purpose of this statute is to protect student-athletes -- actual student-athletes, eligible student-athletes -- from predatory behavior of agents. It's not designed to protect people that are already accepting improper benefits.
"If you're accepting improper benefits, you are not an eligible student-athlete, and the NCAA can rule retroactively that you are ineligible. It has happened numerous times before. ... This is not a set-in-stone determination that he's an eligible student-athlete, and we have the opportunity to prove that he was not eligible in that time frame, and that's what we're going to do."
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:54 am
by jfish26
Kind of a tortured path, but this seems like where we're at:
* Zion walked away from a contract he'd signed with Prime Sports.
* To defend against a breach claim, Zion is saying the Prime Sports contract failed to include language that is required in state law, where a college athlete is signing something.
* Prime Sports wants to say that defense is invalid, where the athlete wasn't eligible to play college sports anyway.
I don't think that argument is a winner, but it seems like it could be enough to proceed with discovery.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:15 am
by PortlandHawk
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:54 am
Kind of a tortured path, but this seems like where we're at:
* Zion walked away from a contract he'd signed with Prime Sports.
* To defend against a breach claim, Zion is saying the Prime Sports contract failed to include language that is required in state law, where a college athlete is signing something.
* Prime Sports wants to say that defense is invalid, where the athlete wasn't eligible to play college sports anyway.
I don't think that argument is a winner, but it seems like it could be enough to proceed with discovery.
What is the weakness in that train of thought? I imagine they have a couple lines of arguments so it may not be the only reason the contract should be upheld.
To me just getting Zion to answer questions makes that whole thing worth it.