FWIW - Ferman sez ncaa will try to strip schollies in june

[Canething]

Emmert and the NCAA are ****ting in their pants at the thought of discovery! Nope this case will be settled , the NCAA has to play the part, but this game is over. Miami won, just wait and see.

 

[UMFarArcher]

We already "inadvertently" showed we're holding three Queens. We're doubling down on every 'see' bet the NCAA throws on the table.

They'll fold.

If not, they'll lose everything they have.

 

[Stingarov]

We already "inadvertently" showed we're holding three Queens. We're doubling down on every 'see' bet the NCAA throws on the table.

They'll fold.

If not, they'll lose everything they have.

************ here gets it.

Also, lulz at that former WEZ guy goin at dycane with the old public perception canard like he's in the know. Yeah never mind those ongoing court cases or the risk of one of the village members revolting.

 

[dudenate]

Love how we're (reportedly) bringing in a preferred walk on kicker while this story comes out. If the story is true, we're telling the ncaa to suck it.

 

[dycane]

The NCAA cant levy additional penalties just because UM sues them. After June the worst case scenario is going public from the COI.If we dont likey and sue that does not mean the judge can say F' U for bringing this to me- Two more years bowl bans(this aint traffic court..... ;-)

So suing is either win and throw out the schollie losses or lose and serve them.... ,lots other variables but it is not that dicey as some are portraying.

I never said such either. If the judge issues an injunction to stop the enforcement of the penalties then they can certainly be instated when the case ends if we lose the case. I highly doubt an judge would step in against a matter between 2 private groups, one of which volunteers to be part of the other. This case is all about public perception of the NCAA and it needs good standing to stay in power. This is why it will levy scholarship losses against UM but they will be small. This will satisfy the Presidents / Chancellors of NCAA member schools who want punishment brought to us and those who don't want to see the NCAA behaving in such a way.

Generally, as most on this board can attest, I respond with substantive arguments. In this case, it's probably futile and I certainly don't want to waste my bandwidth on your simple take. But rest assured, people like me don't just shoot from the hip. Nor does Donna. If you think it's highly doubtful that UM could get an injunction in the Southern District, you're wrong. If you think that an injunction would be meaningless because the penalties could be "instated," you're clueless. You do realize, right, that likelihood of success is an element of injunctive relief? So, if my judge, sitting down in the sunny Southern District, tells me I have a likelihood of success on the merits of my claim, I'll take my chances. But that won't be necessary. I'll bet you a permaban that if this goes to court and UM gets an injunction, then the case settles prior to an adjudication on the merits. You game, son? And as for the public perception of the NCAA, how do you think they will look after a few rounds of discovery in a lawsuit? My guess is that if the NCAA's continuing "power" hinges on public perception, as you state, then the last thing it will want is savvy ******** like me pulling back the curtains.

 

[NVA CANE]

NCAA wants to save face. The university wants to get this **** over with. That equation equals up to 3 scholarship losses over three years a probationary period and that's it.

 

[samichesrdelicious]

probably right, NVA cane. definitely right, dycane.

 

[UMFarArcher]

The NCAA cant levy additional penalties just because UM sues them. After June the worst case scenario is going public from the COI.If we dont likey and sue that does not mean the judge can say F' U for bringing this to me- Two more years bowl bans(this aint traffic court..... ;-)

So suing is either win and throw out the schollie losses or lose and serve them.... ,lots other variables but it is not that dicey as some are portraying.

I never said such either. If the judge issues an injunction to stop the enforcement of the penalties then they can certainly be instated when the case ends if we lose the case. I highly doubt an judge would step in against a matter between 2 private groups, one of which volunteers to be part of the other. This case is all about public perception of the NCAA and it needs good standing to stay in power. This is why it will levy scholarship losses against UM but they will be small. This will satisfy the Presidents / Chancellors of NCAA member schools who want punishment brought to us and those who don't want to see the NCAA behaving in such a way.

Generally, as most on this board can attest, I respond with substantive arguments. In this case, it's probably futile and I certainly don't want to waste my bandwidth on your simple take. But rest assured, people like me don't just shoot from the hip. Nor does Donna. If you think it's highly doubtful that UM could get an injunction in the Southern District, you're wrong. If you think that an injunction would be meaningless because the penalties could be "instated," you're clueless. You do realize, right, that likelihood of success is an element of injunctive relief? So, if my judge, sitting down in the sunny Southern District, tells me I have a likelihood of success on the merits of my claim, I'll take my chances. But that won't be necessary. I'll bet you a permaban that if this goes to court and UM gets an injunction, then the case settles prior to an adjudication on the merits. You game, son? And as for the public perception of the NCAA, how do you think they will look after a few rounds of discovery in a lawsuit? My guess is that if the NCAA's continuing "power" hinges on public perception, as you state, then the last thing it will want is savvy ******** like me pulling back the curtains.

Thanks, Dycane. I'm far from a lawyer, but I do know that if two parties are in a voluntary agreement, and one party acts disingenuously, can be shown to be predisposed to force undue penalties on the other party, and a few other lawyer-words-of-violations, that one can certainly put everything on hold.

And as to that discovery? Holy crap! I've been deposed (on two separate multimillion dollar lawsuits), and even though I was only a party after the fact, and they were trying to get me to point 'blame' toward either the architect, the engineering firm, the construction firm, or numerous subcontractors - I had a damned headache by the end of the first day with all the questions. Fourteen lawyers, a recorder, and me.

You guys keep picking, keep asking the same questions fifteen different ways at different times, keep probing, and keep waiting for a misstatement. And while one lawyer is busy working your asz over, the other dozen are analyzing and writing additional questions to ask.

The NCAA has so badly screwed this up - from violations of confidentiality, to concealing illegal depositions, to not allowing/informing the second party to be present during questioning, to taking advantage of their authority by threatening witnesses to answer questions, to basing their entire investigation on a known felon, to aiding that felon in pursuit of the investigation - it goes on and on.

I can just see them lining up to volunteer to depositions during "discovery." BS.

The ball is in the NCAA's court. Their move. And they ain't got no move. (terrible grammar, but you get what I'm saying)

See if they fold camp and let us go for time served, or, they'll fold camp and let us go when a motion for an injunction is filed. That's when it gets real.

****, wish I'd had more than a couple business law courses -that stuff was fascinating.

 

[Andrew]

The NCAA cant levy additional penalties just because UM sues them. After June the worst case scenario is going public from the COI.If we dont likey and sue that does not mean the judge can say F' U for bringing this to me- Two more years bowl bans(this aint traffic court..... ;-)

So suing is either win and throw out the schollie losses or lose and serve them.... ,lots other variables but it is not that dicey as some are portraying.

I never said such either. If the judge issues an injunction to stop the enforcement of the penalties then they can certainly be instated when the case ends if we lose the case. I highly doubt an judge would step in against a matter between 2 private groups, one of which volunteers to be part of the other. This case is all about public perception of the NCAA and it needs good standing to stay in power. This is why it will levy scholarship losses against UM but they will be small. This will satisfy the Presidents / Chancellors of NCAA member schools who want punishment brought to us and those who don't want to see the NCAA behaving in such a way.

Generally, as most on this board can attest, I respond with substantive arguments. In this case, it's probably futile and I certainly don't want to waste my bandwidth on your simple take. But rest assured, people like me don't just shoot from the hip. Nor does Donna. If you think it's highly doubtful that UM could get an injunction in the Southern District, you're wrong. If you think that an injunction would be meaningless because the penalties could be "instated," you're clueless. You do realize, right, that likelihood of success is an element of injunctive relief? So, if my judge, sitting down in the sunny Southern District, tells me I have a likelihood of success on the merits of my claim, I'll take my chances. But that won't be necessary. I'll bet you a permaban that if this goes to court and UM gets an injunction, then the case settles prior to an adjudication on the merits. You game, son? And as for the public perception of the NCAA, how do you think they will look after a few rounds of discovery in a lawsuit? My guess is that if the NCAA's continuing "power" hinges on public perception, as you state, then the last thing it will want is savvy ******** like me pulling back the curtains.

Your a fan and like every school including Penn State and USC you think you will beat the NCAA. Here is what we know.

UM admitted to wrong doing.
The NCAA admitted to wrong doing.

So the question is, does the NCAA still have the right to hand down additional punishment? Notice I did not say "should they" but rather do they have the right under NCAA by laws. If they do hand down additional punishment under what grounds would a judge render them void. Remember Miami choose to be part of the NCAA.

I see this going down like this:

NCAA gives hands down 3 scollies over 3 years for a total of 9. UM files suit but does not ask for an injunction. We end up serving out our term but in the process win a public relation battle with the NCAA. At this point it is all about vengeance.

 

[UMcanesfan420]

The NCAA cant levy additional penalties just because UM sues them. After June the worst case scenario is going public from the COI.If we dont likey and sue that does not mean the judge can say F' U for bringing this to me- Two more years bowl bans(this aint traffic court..... ;-)

So suing is either win and throw out the schollie losses or lose and serve them.... ,lots other variables but it is not that dicey as some are portraying.

I never said such either. If the judge issues an injunction to stop the enforcement of the penalties then they can certainly be instated when the case ends if we lose the case. I highly doubt an judge would step in against a matter between 2 private groups, one of which volunteers to be part of the other. This case is all about public perception of the NCAA and it needs good standing to stay in power. This is why it will levy scholarship losses against UM but they will be small. This will satisfy the Presidents / Chancellors of NCAA member schools who want punishment brought to us and those who don't want to see the NCAA behaving in such a way.

Generally, as most on this board can attest, I respond with substantive arguments. In this case, it's probably futile and I certainly don't want to waste my bandwidth on your simple take. But rest assured, people like me don't just shoot from the hip. Nor does Donna. If you think it's highly doubtful that UM could get an injunction in the Southern District, you're wrong. If you think that an injunction would be meaningless because the penalties could be "instated," you're clueless. You do realize, right, that likelihood of success is an element of injunctive relief? So, if my judge, sitting down in the sunny Southern District, tells me I have a likelihood of success on the merits of my claim, I'll take my chances. But that won't be necessary. I'll bet you a permaban that if this goes to court and UM gets an injunction, then the case settles prior to an adjudication on the merits. You game, son? And as for the public perception of the NCAA, how do you think they will look after a few rounds of discovery in a lawsuit? My guess is that if the NCAA's continuing "power" hinges on public perception, as you state, then the last thing it will want is savvy ******** like me pulling back the curtains.

Your a fan and like every school including Penn State and USC you think you will beat the NCAA. Here is what we know.

UM admitted to wrong doing.
The NCAA admitted to wrong doing.

So the question is, does the NCAA still have the right to hand down additional punishment? Notice I did not say "should they" but rather do they have the right under NCAA by laws. If they do hand down additional punishment under what grounds would a judge render them void. Remember Miami choose to be part of the NCAA.

I see this going down like this:

NCAA gives hands down 3 scollies over 3 years for a total of 9. UM files suit but does not ask for an injunction. We end up serving out our term but in the process win a public relation battle with the NCAA. At this point it is all about vengeance.

 

[Ethnicsands]

He is right with his guess. I don't think anyone is denying that the NCAA is going to try and limit scholarships. The question is how many and for how long.

Are you high? How can he possibly be "right" when the COI hasn't heard the case or met yet?

As for whether anyone is saying otherwise, of course they are. On this site. Me included.

Did someone hack your account?

 

[Andrew]

When the NCAA issues a LOIC they follow it with scholarship reductions or at the least an attempt to do so.

 

[Cane2]

let me see,,,,no practice, no news, lets say something about the NCAA case...and ******** bite...Ferman is a genious...:ibisroflmao:

THIS!

 

[miamimike]

Andrew i think you r right if loic sticks but I think we get loic dropped when all is said n done. Therefor no scholly losses. Jmo.

 

[Andrew]

It's more likely we get LOIC dropped than us getting LOIC and no scollies. I think it's more likely the charge sticks and we get a small 3 a year for 3 years.

 

[Ethnicsands]

When the NCAA issues a LOIC they follow it with scholarship reductions or at the least an attempt to do so.

The "attempt" was from enforcement. The COI deals with what comes to it.

The LOIC charge itself will fail and not be supported by the COI, IMO.

The mess here is obvious, so trying to analogize to prior cases that don't involve admitted corruption is absurd.

Ferman has no idea what will happen and cannot.

Nor can you.

 

[CaneWasher]

I never said such either. If the judge issues an injunction to stop the enforcement of the penalties then they can certainly be instated when the case ends if we lose the case. I highly doubt an judge would step in against a matter between 2 private groups, one of which volunteers to be part of the other.

That's exactly what an injunction is, an order to suspend a case between two private parties until a legal question can be answered. It happens between high schools and the FHSAA all the time. Those schools choose to be members, but that doesn't mean the FHSAA's orders can't be halted by a judge.

 

[CaneWasher]

Remember Miami choose to be part of the NCAA.

You keep saying this, but your premise is wrong. Organizations are found to be in violation of the law against their own members all the time.