Article about Jackson trying to lay
- Thread starter graddawg
- Start date
With that kind of thoughtless lashing out, its a wonder he has any success at all. Sounds like an attorney trying to shift blame for his own failure to achieve what he has been paid top dollar to do.
Stonewall
Stonewall
Stonewall
Its someone else's fault
Stonewall
Stonewall
Stonewall
Stonewall
Its someone else's fault
Stonewall
But all I have in my bag at the moment is the ability to look back at what a mess this has been.
They are the NCAA and Jackson is not. Until he decides to pursue this in the civil court system (assuming there are no constitutionally protected rights denied here), his best advice would have been to give the NCAA 100% of what they wanted in their several information and records demands and try to work something out with them.
I have always been a big fan of the , "Let's try to work something out" approach to problem solving. If he had done that, he would have a much better court case if that is where this thing eventually winds up. The sad thing is that civil court will never put Sidney on the court for game minutes in the Hump. I doubt anyone could ever convince anyone that any rights have been denied in this case, as if that course of action might solve anything other than give the NCAA heartburn anytime they hear "MSU".
The obvious thing to me at this point is he will not play for the Dogs. At least Stan gave it a shot. It would have been a lot of fun to watch Sidney play from the start of exhibition. It woudl have been great to watch him play from the 5th or 10th game onward. As it is he probably will never hit the court to play for MSU.
Please God - let this post bring about a reconciliation between him and the NCAA today and make me look like the know nothing dummy I am when he hits the court tomorrow in Oxford and we find that all of this wait for the NCAA verdict down time never hurt his game at all.
MDog
They are the NCAA and Jackson is not. Until he decides to pursue this in the civil court system (assuming there are no constitutionally protected rights denied here), his best advice would have been to give the NCAA 100% of what they wanted in their several information and records demands and try to work something out with them.
I have always been a big fan of the , "Let's try to work something out" approach to problem solving. If he had done that, he would have a much better court case if that is where this thing eventually winds up. The sad thing is that civil court will never put Sidney on the court for game minutes in the Hump. I doubt anyone could ever convince anyone that any rights have been denied in this case, as if that course of action might solve anything other than give the NCAA heartburn anytime they hear "MSU".
The obvious thing to me at this point is he will not play for the Dogs. At least Stan gave it a shot. It would have been a lot of fun to watch Sidney play from the start of exhibition. It woudl have been great to watch him play from the 5th or 10th game onward. As it is he probably will never hit the court to play for MSU.
Please God - let this post bring about a reconciliation between him and the NCAA today and make me look like the know nothing dummy I am when he hits the court tomorrow in Oxford and we find that all of this wait for the NCAA verdict down time never hurt his game at all.
MDog
Sidney has a constitutional right to attend college for educational purposes which he is. State has admitted him, and he is taking classes.
Playing NCAA basketball is a privilege, not a right; therefore, Sidney cannot file a lawsuit to enforce a privilege.
Playing NCAA basketball is a privilege, not a right; therefore, Sidney cannot file a lawsuit to enforce a privilege.
Everybody wants to point the finger at Don Jackson because Sidney isnt eligible but if what he says is true, something is not right about that. If they spoke on Austin's behalf then they should do the same for Sidney. The reason they probably havent is because they feel like most do that Sidney is guilty. But if that is the case, why even accept him if youre not going to back him 100%. You did it for Austin and possibly others, do it for Sidney. Its what u signed up for when you signed him up.
driving is a priviledge and not a right too, however, if the DMV kept on denying one specific individual a license because they 'felt' he was dirty, when he had passed all their stated requirements, then they would have problems in court too. particularly if it was a NY office denying a MS applicant, and the trial took place in MS.
IMO, the NCAA is not just denying a good or service. they are making an affirmative judgement that Sidney is not an ametuer. such an affirmative judgement opens them to liability if they did not arrive at it with due diligence. if it went to court and all they had was a 'gut feeling', then they'd lose, because that is not due diligence.
IMO, the NCAA is not just denying a good or service. they are making an affirmative judgement that Sidney is not an ametuer. such an affirmative judgement opens them to liability if they did not arrive at it with due diligence. if it went to court and all they had was a 'gut feeling', then they'd lose, because that is not due diligence.
What does Jackson expect from MSU?
Our compliance department has performed their due diligence and they are of the opinion Sidney is OKAY to play and OKAY to be in school. Jackson is being contracted to prove to the NCAA that Sidney doesn't have a corrupt as hell past (which are the very vague assumptions on him) and should be OKAY to play. To my knowledge, his shady past has nothing to do with MSU. Their best course of action is to do what they normally do for any other player, make their judgment, and not say another damn word. Jackson is being paid to push the NCAAs buttons - it's not our responsibility any longer. That's the damn point of hiring a lawyer in this case!!! If he fails at this, it's between him, the NCAA, and his client. Jackson is representing Sidney, not MSU.
Our compliance department has performed their due diligence and they are of the opinion Sidney is OKAY to play and OKAY to be in school. Jackson is being contracted to prove to the NCAA that Sidney doesn't have a corrupt as hell past (which are the very vague assumptions on him) and should be OKAY to play. To my knowledge, his shady past has nothing to do with MSU. Their best course of action is to do what they normally do for any other player, make their judgment, and not say another damn word. Jackson is being paid to push the NCAAs buttons - it's not our responsibility any longer. That's the damn point of hiring a lawyer in this case!!! If he fails at this, it's between him, the NCAA, and his client. Jackson is representing Sidney, not MSU.
you don't meet or violate NCAA eligibilty requirements. As far as I know, at this time, Sidney has not been formally accused of ANY violations and therefore should be allowed to play until a charge is brought forth. Seems to me if the NCAA really denied certification to all the student-athletes that there were suspicions or heresay about possible rules violations, then you could wipe out a large laundry list of athletes currently playing today.
Don't confuse the NCAA with a governmental agency like the DMV. What they can and can't do are governed by totally different standards. It's like saying Augusta shouldn't be able to discriminate against women because the DMV can't. Not analogous at all.boomboommsu said:
but the NCAA is sort of inbetween the two, right?
besides, if Augusta let in some women, they'd have a hard time in court over not letting in other women, right?
i guess i'm saying Augusta has a standard that they're following to the letter, and the NCAA does not.
or how about if Augusta contracted to administer college golf programs, and then decided to ban women's golf?
or, by the Augusta standard, Title IX would be illegal, right?. the courts didn't think so.
besides, if Augusta let in some women, they'd have a hard time in court over not letting in other women, right?
i guess i'm saying Augusta has a standard that they're following to the letter, and the NCAA does not.
or how about if Augusta contracted to administer college golf programs, and then decided to ban women's golf?
or, by the Augusta standard, Title IX would be illegal, right?. the courts didn't think so.
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"no. they are a private, members-only club that can admit whoever the hell they want.</span> "
<font color="#FF0000">that's true. i'm not sure how that applies to tournaments they host though.
</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"maybe. however, the point is you can't compare the NCAA to a governmental agency."</span>
<font color="#FF0000">and my point is you can't compare them to Augusta.</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"according to who? the NCAA says it's operating under its rules."
<font color="#FF0000">if it goes to trial, according to the court and the jury. the NCAA's moving goalposts on this front would really hurt them, if what we've heard is true.
</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"contracted with who? who is funding the programs?</span> "
<font color="#FF0000">the NCAA doesn't own college basketball. they contract with the participating parties to market it as a product. with those contracts come obligations</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"Title IX is about schools discriminating while receiving federal funds. neither Augusta nor the NCAA directly receive federal money. again, not analogous at all.</span> "
<font color="#FF0000">how'd all those basketball colliseums get built again?</font>
"Let me finish by saying this. There have been several suits against the NCAA by athletes for various things. The NCAA has yet to lose any of those suits. "
<font color="#FF0000">yes, because the NCAA is smart enough to not let a suit like this get to court. has the NCAA ever won a case where they had no proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the athelete?
in fact, this actually hurts your argument. in those suits, the NCAA never attempted to argue any sort of Augusta standard. they offered proof of the players violation, and asserted their obligation to enforce relevant ameteurism rules. any court was free to rule the conduct irrelevant and assert an Augusta-type standard. none have.
</font>
</span>
<font color="#FF0000">that's true. i'm not sure how that applies to tournaments they host though.
</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"maybe. however, the point is you can't compare the NCAA to a governmental agency."</span>
<font color="#FF0000">and my point is you can't compare them to Augusta.</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"according to who? the NCAA says it's operating under its rules."
<font color="#FF0000">if it goes to trial, according to the court and the jury. the NCAA's moving goalposts on this front would really hurt them, if what we've heard is true.
</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"contracted with who? who is funding the programs?</span> "
<font color="#FF0000">the NCAA doesn't own college basketball. they contract with the participating parties to market it as a product. with those contracts come obligations</font>
<span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"Title IX is about schools discriminating while receiving federal funds. neither Augusta nor the NCAA directly receive federal money. again, not analogous at all.</span> "
<font color="#FF0000">how'd all those basketball colliseums get built again?</font>
"Let me finish by saying this. There have been several suits against the NCAA by athletes for various things. The NCAA has yet to lose any of those suits. "
<font color="#FF0000">yes, because the NCAA is smart enough to not let a suit like this get to court. has the NCAA ever won a case where they had no proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the athelete?
in fact, this actually hurts your argument. in those suits, the NCAA never attempted to argue any sort of Augusta standard. they offered proof of the players violation, and asserted their obligation to enforce relevant ameteurism rules. any court was free to rule the conduct irrelevant and assert an Augusta-type standard. none have.
</font>
</span>
can't speak to the copying documents issue but as far as dealing with the NCAA are we suppose to fly up there and get on our hands and knees and beg the NCAA to clear him because they feel sorry for us and its "just not fair!"? The NCAA would probably laugh us out of the building. The Austin situation was differenct because the issue there was understood (believe it was some 9th or 10th grade class that was in question) so we could take the information we had on that and help plead on Mario's behalf but in this case there are no accusations being brought forth just a lot of NCAA suspicion that seemingly there will be no end to. Maybe he wants MSU to go get an injunction but we've already said we aren't going that route and it didn't work well for us the last time in the late 70s. Given our recent brushes with the NCAA in the mid-90s and 2003 we probably feel we have to be careful where we push. No doubt Sidney would have had a better chance of playing had he gone to one of the NCAA's pet programs.
that burden is not on the NCAA to prove wrongdoing of an athlete. Again, there is no right to participate in collegiate athletics. No matter how spin it, it simply does not exist. There is no contractual right to allow anybody to suit up for a member institution either which you seem to be implying. As for the coliseums, the NCAA doesn't build those- the schools do. If that were the case, we would have asked for a handout to upgrade the Tad Pad a long time ago.
a fundamental right to education at a public university.
I'm sure you're intelligent to remember a little something called integration. Fundamental rights, Constitutional right = tomato, tahmahto
I'm sure you're intelligent to remember a little something called integration. Fundamental rights, Constitutional right = tomato, tahmahto
What you mean is that the NCAA is not a state actor, so there is no 14th Amendment claim. That is how courts have ultimately ruled (often in the higher courts after opposite rulings in the lower courts), true. But it is only part of the story.
The courts have also ruled that the NCAA is a place of public accomodation. They ruled this just a few years ago (in Cuerton?), but the NCAA won the case on other grounds. This directly led to the NCAA changing their academic eligibility standards, however. In other words, state funds paid for the colliseum, and the NCAA gets to decide who gets to use it/play on it. That subjects them to a higher standard than a private entity. This is where the privilege/rights argument works against them. Use of publicly funded colliseums is a privilege, not a right, and if the NCAA doesn't like having to not discriminate (if they want to decide on whims, and not on legitimate interests) to use those colliseums, then it is free to play its games elsewhere.
Courts have upheld NCAA rulings and denied lawsuits based on the NCAA having a legitimate interest in making their rulings. These were based on student-atheletes who did not maintain academic standards. Here, what is the NCAA's legitimate interest? In those cases, they had their proof: the grades. Here, they have none. They DO have to prove their legitimate interest, that's the main point here. And without proof against wrongdoing on Sidney's part, then they cannot show they have a legitimate interest. They've never won a case without that.
In addition, all of the NCAA's court wins came back before the unification of the NCAA with the NIT. Those court decisions were based on colleges having legitimate alternatives to participating in the NCAA. With the NCAA now controlling all post-season play, that argument might not hold up anymore, especially since it was on shaky ground already.
</p>
The courts have also ruled that the NCAA is a place of public accomodation. They ruled this just a few years ago (in Cuerton?), but the NCAA won the case on other grounds. This directly led to the NCAA changing their academic eligibility standards, however. In other words, state funds paid for the colliseum, and the NCAA gets to decide who gets to use it/play on it. That subjects them to a higher standard than a private entity. This is where the privilege/rights argument works against them. Use of publicly funded colliseums is a privilege, not a right, and if the NCAA doesn't like having to not discriminate (if they want to decide on whims, and not on legitimate interests) to use those colliseums, then it is free to play its games elsewhere.
Courts have upheld NCAA rulings and denied lawsuits based on the NCAA having a legitimate interest in making their rulings. These were based on student-atheletes who did not maintain academic standards. Here, what is the NCAA's legitimate interest? In those cases, they had their proof: the grades. Here, they have none. They DO have to prove their legitimate interest, that's the main point here. And without proof against wrongdoing on Sidney's part, then they cannot show they have a legitimate interest. They've never won a case without that.
In addition, all of the NCAA's court wins came back before the unification of the NCAA with the NIT. Those court decisions were based on colleges having legitimate alternatives to participating in the NCAA. With the NCAA now controlling all post-season play, that argument might not hold up anymore, especially since it was on shaky ground already.
</p>
....a letter of intent could be considered a contract.
The NCAA is free to not let atheletes sign LOIs until they are certified eligible. But they chose not to take that route, because they would either have to certify early, or else have late-qualifiers essentially be newly minted free-agents. And that process they chose is a priviledge, not a right. Once they entered into that contract with MSU and Sidney, they are bound to exert due diligence to uphold it, which means they cannot disqualify him on a whim.
No idea if a court would consider a LOI as a contract. Though they've held far less as contracts before.
The NCAA is free to not let atheletes sign LOIs until they are certified eligible. But they chose not to take that route, because they would either have to certify early, or else have late-qualifiers essentially be newly minted free-agents. And that process they chose is a priviledge, not a right. Once they entered into that contract with MSU and Sidney, they are bound to exert due diligence to uphold it, which means they cannot disqualify him on a whim.
No idea if a court would consider a LOI as a contract. Though they've held far less as contracts before.
He has noone to blame for Sidney's failure to be qualified except for Sidney's family and himself. The way this whole thing was handled was suspicious from the beginning. He was hired because the Sidneys knew in advance that it would require sleight-of-hand to have any chance at qualification. I have commented on this extensively in previous posts and will not repeat it all here.
I think it's a good day for the NCAA when USC gets nailed for their lack of institutional control and when an AAU professional like Sidney is deservedly disqualified from amateur competition. That means something in the system is working right. I'd love to see him play for us but I realize why all of this has gone down like it has. Let's just hope this is fairly practiced with others who benefit from AAU excess.</p>
I think it's a good day for the NCAA when USC gets nailed for their lack of institutional control and when an AAU professional like Sidney is deservedly disqualified from amateur competition. That means something in the system is working right. I'd love to see him play for us but I realize why all of this has gone down like it has. Let's just hope this is fairly practiced with others who benefit from AAU excess.</p>