Burden of Proof poll...
- Thread starter msudogsrule01
- Start date
I don't really know honestly. I had a conversation at work today about the topic (I work in Kentucky, mind you) and they think the burden is on the family.
is the judge in the case as well. So they basically control the situation. The burden is on the family.
It is not a God given or constitutionally given right to play for the NCAA. The NCAA can decide who is allowed to play in their league and who cannot. They are the judge and jury, not a court or public opinion. The burden is absolutely on the family and there is zero burden on the NCAA.
BriantheDawg said:
Because all of the lawsuits brought against the NCAA work out for who? Usually the NCAA.
I don't understand why people find this so confusing. The NCAA believes that the family has broken a well established and documented rule that the NCAA has in place. The NCAA says, "You provide us your bank statements as evidence that you did not break our well established and documented rule." The family says "NO."
The NCAA says that they provided the family a way to prove they did not break the said rule and the family did not comply. Therefore, he cannot play.
Will there be a lawsuit from the family? Sure. Will the family get anything from the NCAA? NOPE
if this were a court of law resolving the same issue, then the NCAA probably has the burden of proving that sidney should be ineligible. if they have sufficient evidence, then the burden then shifts to the sidney to show that he he is eligible despite the evidence.
but this is the NCAA's court. and it is a privilege, not a right, to play for one of their member schools. they have certain guidelines and policies regarding eligibility, and enforce them according to their own rules. if he is declared ineligible without any evidence, sidney's only option would be to sue in court. basically, sidney can say that he has met all the NCAA requirements, and since they have no legitimate reason to declare him ineligible, they are discriminating against him. that's a tough argument, though, because courts like to let organizations like the NCAA run themselves. also, sidney would have to ask for a temporary injunction that he be allowed to play until a decision could be rendered. i doubt we'd let a potentially ineligible player play under a court order in that situation.
but this is the NCAA's court. and it is a privilege, not a right, to play for one of their member schools. they have certain guidelines and policies regarding eligibility, and enforce them according to their own rules. if he is declared ineligible without any evidence, sidney's only option would be to sue in court. basically, sidney can say that he has met all the NCAA requirements, and since they have no legitimate reason to declare him ineligible, they are discriminating against him. that's a tough argument, though, because courts like to let organizations like the NCAA run themselves. also, sidney would have to ask for a temporary injunction that he be allowed to play until a decision could be rendered. i doubt we'd let a potentially ineligible player play under a court order in that situation.
I'm not even sure what that means, but like patdog and weblow have repeatedly said, there's little to no basis for a lawsuit here, and even if you fashion some defamation, invasion of privacy, etc. arguments out of the situation, the NCAA will win.
The NCAA doesn't have to allow athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Is that dicked up? Of course, but they make the rules, and everybody except Bama must play by them.
The NCAA doesn't have to allow athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Is that dicked up? Of course, but they make the rules, and everybody except Bama must play by them.
I would think that even in the most basic sense, if they have no evidence to point to when declaring a player ineligible, then they would be ripe for a lawsuit. Making such a determination with no evidence could be labeled arbitrary and capicious in any court.
Plus all the NCAA has to do is say, "hey, we asked for your bank statements, you wouldn't provide them, so..."
but they just used those words for drama to make the ncaa sound as bad as possible.
The only chance a lawsuit would be successful is not because he actually has a claim but b/c of what others have been able to do-get a TRO and then by the time the thing is actually litigated and appealed, you've gotten to play. How these players in the past have gotten TRO's is beyond me.
The only chance a lawsuit would be successful is not because he actually has a claim but b/c of what others have been able to do-get a TRO and then by the time the thing is actually litigated and appealed, you've gotten to play. How these players in the past have gotten TRO's is beyond me.
because he filed the suit in his hometown in front of the hometown judge.
Maybe the judge wised up and realized this was garbage and didn't grant him a permanent injunction.
He based his complaint on Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. I'd say that's a big stretch. I'd like to know what contract he based it on. And Breach of Fiduciary Duty is just desperation.
Edit: Wikipedia says the judge denied the permanent injunction.
Maybe the judge wised up and realized this was garbage and didn't grant him a permanent injunction.
He based his complaint on Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. I'd say that's a big stretch. I'd like to know what contract he based it on. And Breach of Fiduciary Duty is just desperation.
Edit: Wikipedia says the judge denied the permanent injunction.
"The NCAA believes that the family has broken a well established and documented rule that the NCAA has in place" I don't give two ***** what the NCAA 'believes'. Either they have proof of a wrong doing or they don't. Period. It should not be up to the Sidneys to prove their 'belief'. If the NCAA has something (which apparently they don't), then it would be up to the Sidneys to provide an explanation/documentation that proves them to be innocent. That's how that works. Unfortunately, the NCAA is a ******** monopolistic organization and can make up the rules as they go and don't abide by the laws set forth in the US Constitution. When I said 'we'll see how that works out..' - I don't have any hope that Renardo Sidney will ever play one minute for State, but rather this is what is about to happen and we will see what happens because Jackson ain't giving up tax returns.
The Sidney's had little to no income and were living in a +$1Million house. Regardless of the fact that in California a $1Million house is not much bigger than my shed out back, they had no way to pay for it. They claim that they got a loan and/or help from grandparents. Ok where did the grandparents get the money? It's just as easy to give the grandparents money as it is to give the parents, or the church, or an "advisor", etc. The fact that they lived in a mansion on ~$20,000 a year is proof that they are guilty. The fact that they won't show their records is admission, to me, of their guilt. Anyone who won't acknowledge this is just being stubborn and looking at this case through maroon glasses.
Move past Sidney and lets see what we have and hope that big John is ready.
Move past Sidney and lets see what we have and hope that big John is ready.
and then the NCAA can have one of its attorneys draft a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and there goes your lawsuit.jackobee said:
EVERY athlete in America that wants to play in the NCAA has the burden of showing the NCAA that they are eligible. The NCAA doesn't just go out and gather information on everyone in the country and make their own determinations. If you don't want to provide the NCAA with the info they need, you don't play. Its pretty simple and applies across the board.
Lawsuits can be filed a number of ways. A few main points.
- Yes, the burden of proof is on the Family. The NCAA can make their own selection, BUT because they are the only game in town that opens them for a few additional arguments. (keep in mind I have not graduated law school yet) Instead of RS' lawyer making racial discrimination undertones, a better argument would be because NCAA is the only game in town, RS has not been afforded the opportunity to go shopping elsewhere. The level of influence the NCAA has on future earning potential of young athletes makes their (NCAA) decision one of monetary value.
-Bottom line, Yes NCAA can pick who they want, but if a would be player can demonstrate 1.) similar circumstances to other admitted players (e.g., player X was admitted and did not have to show Bank statements) and 2.) denial impacted future earnings then RS has an argument. Regardless whether race was the factor, the NCAA does have a level of responsiblity to be fair since their admission decisions way so heavily in future earnings.</p>
- Yes, the burden of proof is on the Family. The NCAA can make their own selection, BUT because they are the only game in town that opens them for a few additional arguments. (keep in mind I have not graduated law school yet) Instead of RS' lawyer making racial discrimination undertones, a better argument would be because NCAA is the only game in town, RS has not been afforded the opportunity to go shopping elsewhere. The level of influence the NCAA has on future earning potential of young athletes makes their (NCAA) decision one of monetary value.
-Bottom line, Yes NCAA can pick who they want, but if a would be player can demonstrate 1.) similar circumstances to other admitted players (e.g., player X was admitted and did not have to show Bank statements) and 2.) denial impacted future earnings then RS has an argument. Regardless whether race was the factor, the NCAA does have a level of responsiblity to be fair since their admission decisions way so heavily in future earnings.</p>
a. Sidney can easily get drafted next year without playing a minute of college hoops
and
b. he can go play in Europe.
What happens if every athlete in the country refuses to turn over their transcripts to the NCAA? The NCAA is not entitled to them, but if they don't get them, they don't get to play. Seems if Sidney prevailed, athletes could then just refuse to turn over their transcript. The NCAA presume you don't have the grades to satisfy their requirements until you show them you do. Just a thought.
and
b. he can go play in Europe.
What happens if every athlete in the country refuses to turn over their transcripts to the NCAA? The NCAA is not entitled to them, but if they don't get them, they don't get to play. Seems if Sidney prevailed, athletes could then just refuse to turn over their transcript. The NCAA presume you don't have the grades to satisfy their requirements until you show them you do. Just a thought.
Donald Jackson may have blown this case up a bit over the past few months, but let's not let his experience in these matters fly out the window. This case should go to trial, and while the NCAA is it's own ruling party to a certain extent, don't rule out the courts taking sides with Renardo Sidney. After all... he, himself, hasn't done anything wrong. The bank accounts of his parents and grandparents are going to decide his eligibility in a court of law? I doubt it. I think ol' Don Jackson knows a thing or two about angles, and he has a chance to win the favor of the judge if he takes the right one. Playing college basketball may be a privilege, but when you're talking justice, denying him the right to play based on a request that isn't legally demanding (the bank accounts) could be considered an injustice on young Sidney's right to what every athlete has the opportunity for. Who is on trial here? Cloud your minds with all the legal jargon if you must, but this is America. F*ck the NCAA. If those bastards can't legally find it, they shouldn't legally be allowed to declare him ineligible. I firmly believe that Donald Jackson will have the balls to challenge that notion this fall, and have Sidney out of his court and on our shiny new one come January at the latest.
And yes, I'm wearing my maroon shades right now.
And yes, I'm wearing my maroon shades right now.
because they are an illegal monopoly. The government hasn't chosen to do anything yet, but that doesn't mean they are above scrutiny. We can talk about the NCAA being voluntary all you want but it is not true. The NCAA is the only game in town and to play pro you need to play college. So, just like any other monopoly they can be investigated. I'm not that worked up about Sidney, no matter what happens, but I think the NCAA over the years has shown to be extremely incapable of handling the power they wield. I think that with the amount of money and power they throw around we will see some government scrutiny, if not direct intervention, at some point. Hell, the President already hinted at getting involved with the playoff system.8Dog said:
I think the burden is on the NCAA because they are toying with people's lives. At the end of the day we are talking about stopping this <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">kid</span> young adult from playing basketball because of something his father may, or may not, have done while he was in high school. There is no indication that he was rolling in a Escalade or any of those things that happen when the player is the one shopping for money. I fully think his dad got money to put him in those camps but he also did work for the camps. So now if your kid (speaking back in the past so it's legal) is going to play college ball you aren't allowed to take a job unless the money seems bad? At what point is the kid responsible for the parents and at what point are the parents not allowed to live their life because their kid wants to play ball.
I see the NCAA being cautious because the government is watching them. I see them thinking they either have to break the family or come up with the proof. Now they are trying to break the family which isn't going to work. So what I see happening is he doesn't play this year, him suing the NCAA,winning, and playing next year either at MSU or in the pros. His dad will end up making more money of the NCAA then he ever did off Adidas. Of course he could play this year, from what I understand the NCAA hates to go to court because everyone hates them. God knows if I were on the jury I would award billions just cause I hate those pricks.
I see the NCAA being cautious because the government is watching them. I see them thinking they either have to break the family or come up with the proof. Now they are trying to break the family which isn't going to work. So what I see happening is he doesn't play this year, him suing the NCAA,winning, and playing next year either at MSU or in the pros. His dad will end up making more money of the NCAA then he ever did off Adidas. Of course he could play this year, from what I understand the NCAA hates to go to court because everyone hates them. God knows if I were on the jury I would award billions just cause I hate those pricks.
I don't understand how the burden of proof can be on the Sidney's if the NCAA has not accused them of doing anything.