In partnership with CBSSports.com
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Just a hunch, but if it comes to that.... The one to take advantage of questionable ethics would be Corbett. Which for once would bode well for us.
Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto
TC is a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. This is a guy who has practiced law at virtually every level all the way to state AG and is well connected. I have to believe Kane bodes well for us more than she harms.
I guess in the legal world they call that quid pro quo..
JD - in the short time I've read your comments I have taken a degree of stock in them so that is a comforting statement coming from you..
Could be. The key Q is are any of these people involved in this case in any way? Judges get gifts all the time. Which is why there is a section of the ethics exam (MPRE) that deals specifically with it. Now, if those gifts were legal? Thats a question that you would need more facts to answer.
This post was edited by rmj147 18 months ago
WE ARE! And we will always be...
Again..Liking what your takes are here..
Thats what my boy says too. Kane is a good judge for anti-trust matters, word is. And like most anti-trust attorneys say, we have standing. So... Should be OK for us
Interesting video from Cbs.com from the Tim Brando show with Jack Ford... Normally don't like talking heads, but Ford is pretty level headed and says that Corbett's legal arguments have strong merit. Additionally, Ford worked with the NCAA and said at the time the sanctions came down that if he was the attorney for PSU, he could make a strong argument that the sanctions would be illegal...
BUT they bring up a good point about the BOT working with Corbett on his lawsuit... If they would do it and actually be a party, standing would be a slam dunk. And the case in favor of PSU would be even stronger. But, as it stands, the NCAA has a pretty good argument to say "PSU agreed to this"... And as Ford says, which is true, if you agree to it, the court will go with whatever the agreement was- even if its a crap deal, the law generally goes with the settlement/contract terms (thanks again Rodney). In essence, you break it, you buy it.
So Brando and Ford ask and wonder why the BOT didn't bring the suit along with the state and Corbett (the case would be stronger and standing could not be questioned). I screamed at my laptop, "because they are idiots and have no balls!" However, it got me thinking, if Judge Kane says that Corbett has no standing (which to me is the only real issue here- the legal arguments have strong, strong merit), would the BOT then step up and sue? Probably not, but if the Judge flat out says in her opinion, that "PSU would have standing, but they are not suing here. Corbett is suing and he does not have standing", the BOT NOT suing would be met with an angry mob, because the Judge's decision would include the rationale that "PSU, YOU SHOULD BE THE ONES TO SUE DUMMIES!" It would beg for a law suit from PSU. Thoughts?
Link below to the PSU page where the video is found. I hope that it is still there, I dont know how to link it directly.
Edit: linked the popup window... Hope it works. (Edit 2: I see the video starts out from where I copied and pasted the link... Just rewind it for the full interview, apologies).
Please discuss these points... Got my mind racing. Also, I am not an antitrust attorney, so I don't know the issues about statute of limitations or res judicata matters (don't think that'd be an issue, sense there are 2 completely diff parties)... My mind is just racing right now... But I'm tired and don't feel like researching the answer lol Anyway, thoughts guys? I'll probably just ask my law school buddy that knows that hot shot antitrust guy from the Middle District that I talked about before. Interesting stuff for sure.
CBSSports.com features live scoring and news for NFL football, MLB baseball, NBA basketball, NHL hockey, college basketball and football. CBSSports.com is also your source for fantasy sports news
Penn State Nittany Lions college football news, scores, stats and standings provided by CBSSports.com.
Penn State Nittany Lions college football news, scores, stats and standings provided by CBSSports.com.,CBSSports.com features live scoring and news for NFL football, MLB baseball, NBA basketball, NHL hockey, college basketball and football. CBSSports.com is also your source for fantasy sports news
This post has been edited 9 times, most recently by rmj147 18 months ago
My initial thoughts are, and I'm by no means an expert, but if the BOT were involved it would be representing the University. A University that unquestionably are suffering form "illegal" sanctions but also a University that agreed to them due to consent decree, by way of an acting Pres. The state of PA is able to sue on the collateral damages of it's citizens of which they made no agreement to sanctions with the NCAA.
It seems to me the consent decree argument will be much less a focal point in the states case. It would very much be part of the the case if the BOT were involved representing the University.
The only part where I think the BOT has a role in this and is dropping the ball is the idea that Rod was coerced into agreeing to the punishments. If this is true they should have a role but again I don't know what the facts are in that regard anyways.
RMJ: What is the gist you're getting for your law buddy on this case? Slam dunk? Solid? Has holes? Longshot?
This post was edited by JDpsu 18 months ago
I'm certainly no expert, but my first thought when I read that PSU was not part of the lawsuit was that it kept them from further retaliation by the NCAA. I thought I read that part of the consent decree was that PSU follow certain conditions that the NCAA laid out to "improve the culture" and any lawsuit could jeopardize that agreement. With Corbett/ PA being the only ones on the lawsuit it allows for the chance for reduced sanctions with no risk of increased penalties.
My law school friend, like I said has a contact that's a big time Antitrust guy. The arguments themselves, pretty damn good. Not a slam dunk, but very, very solid. The main hole is the standing issue. I know and agree with what you said about the argument that it's collateral damage to the PA citizens. However, my buddy and the antitrust guy admit that the standing argument is a great defense (which is what I was saying- of course the consent decree argument is not a part of the PSU case, I was talking NCAA defense). PSU agreed to what they agreed to. Some judges just wont go for the collateral damage standing argument, its a tougher case to make. If PSU was a joint plaintiff, it would be a stronger Blake Griffin slam dunk. As it stands now, standing to get in the door is not a slam dunk, which sucks and has me concerned. BUT it's not super weak either. It's going to be a case that is in law school text books, very complex and judges could come out on either side of it. There is a lot of grey area. Like most things, it all depends on the judge. She really could spin it either way. But for that reason (complex grey area), I think and hope that the MSJ isn't granted. The actual arguments have A LOT of merit. I don't think that the judge will just grant the MSJ. I think there is a lot at stake, it's high profile, etc. Judges have egos, and I can see most judges wanting to hear the case.
Another nugget he told me last night, according to the anti-trust guy, the middle district is known as the "rocket docket", meaning cases just fly through the system and Judges get to cases fairly quickly in the district. However, Kane is notorious for sitting on cases and being far slower than her comrades. BUT, he said that there have been people in her ear about how vital it is to get to this case... So the timeline that the Antitrust guy was saying to him was NCAA has to respond by March, the Judge will likely rule by beginning of summer... If we get past standing it gets interesting. The question is will be, will we have a result by NSD 2014... It is fairly possible. And gives me hope. Im not banking on it, and I know the staff isn't either, but with the Corbett meeting with former lettermen today to discuss the case, one has to believe it's in the back of the staff's mind... Because the word is certainly out there- we may have a case to beat this thing...
Good stuff, thanks. In regard to the timeline. The March and early summer dates for motions and decisions are very encouraging. However I truly believe there will be a solution for better or worse before the 2013 season. I think if it goes to trial the goal of NSD 2014 is both optimistic and ambitious. But without trial... If the judge Kane grants standing I truly believe we will see very swift negotiations take place. Hypothetically there is a June decision on standing I think negotiations are finished well before training camp in August. Remember the state is not seeking damages accrued in this past seasons losses. If they are granted standing this will be their Ace in the hole that they will use to push Emmert.
I agree 10000 percent. If we get standing, I highly doubt it sees trial. I was saying that June is about the date for a ruling on the NCAA's MSJ. Everyone knows that it is the way they are going to go... If we get standing, no way there is a trial. The NCAA will back the F**K up and get on their knees to negotiate. There is no way they want each individual member of the executive committee disposed or put on as a witness... Too much dirt to dig up. These are feds, they can go after digital info, emails, etc. There is no hiding if it goes to discovery. If we get standing, that's a huge win, no matter the outcome. Even if we get like 75 schollys or something and no more bowl bans, thats huge. I know if we win on standing, we will completely freed, I'm just talking from the perspective of being competitive at the highest level.
My original post with the vids though, I wonder if the Judge rules against us and says that type of language in her opinion "TC and the State dont have standing, PSU does. If PSU would like to proceed, they should come forward." If there would be enough of a push from alumni to force their hand to actually show balls. Or maybe that type of decision would force the NCAA to re-negotiate the sanctions. Thats all pure speculation and far down the line. But the more I think about the merits of the case and the politics at play, I just dont see how we don't get past the preliminary MSJ... There is so much at stake and the case is so monumental... I think I'd wanna hear it if I were Kane (although like we are both saying, no way it actually gets to trial/she actually hears it). The legal issues are just so juicy, I think she rules that the state has standing. TC's lawyers need to actually show harm to citizens though. That's another question, and whether Kane buys it.
On a side note, did any of you hear about TC meeting with former lettermen to discuss the case?
I know he invited the lettermen to the Gov. Mansion for a picture, but idk about any conversation with them... I assume that it had to be more than just a picture.
Good dialogue so far here!
PSU has signed the Consent Decree. With respect to contract law, Courts will go out of there way to validate said contract between two parties. So I think this is why PSU is not onboard with the state's lawsuit. The legal issues with respect to the Contract between PSU and NCAA are the ability of Erickson to enter into Agreement with Emmert/NCAA w/o the full BOT permission. The contract could become Null & Void if the Courts determine that Erickson lacked legal authority to enter into a contract with the NCAA on behalf of Penn State.
Next, I agree with the discourse so far, that the Commonwealth's case hinges on "standing". The merits are obvious, but Standing is not. Part of the Commonwealth's suit is based on the allegation that Erickson did not have authority to enter Penn State into a binding contract with the NCAA w/o full BOT approval.
This will certainly be a humdinger of a case and I expect it will proceed in one form or antother.
I hope the Commonwealth prevails.
October 12, 2013. PSU 43 - UM 40 (4 OT). Unfortunately this fan wasn't around long enough to see it!
According to the invitation, the purpose of the dinner was to discuss the case.
Not, "come to the mansion to take a photo with me."
Yeah, I didn't know that the consent decree actually precluded PSU from suing later. Just found that out. Makes sense. But if one of the claims is that the contract was made under duress or a K of adhesion, it could make it so PSU could be a plaintiff. I also found this article. Pretty well written and level headed. Good points about the deep pockets of the state vs. a player, coach, school. Also good point about how long some anti-trust cases take to actually get to court. And the negative side of discovery that the NCAA would try to avoid. Also, keep in mind that this was written by an ATTORNEY lol Guys, only read articles from attorneys, not talking heads that do not know the law (so they shouldn't comment at all on the merits of the case)
When Penn State hastily accepted the NCAA's sanctions for the school's involvement in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the NCAA's authority to punish its members for off-field criminal conduct seemed assured. But Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett has decided to stand up and challenge the authority of college sports' governing body by filing a lawsuit on behalf of the state in federal court. The lawsuit will be mainly based on antitrust law, with the core argument that the NCAA and its member institutions -- which compete on the field and in recruiting student-athletes -- conspired to punish Penn State on grounds outside the NCAA's regulatory authority. Reading between the lines, Corbett -- who in a press conference on Wednesday morning described the sanctions as
Any word on how it went? Or is it today?
For my stupid question of the day. Is it possible the two sides in this case are already talking, or is it too early for that?
Attorney at the end of Corbett's presser said that they didn't try to negotiate because the NCAA didn't try to negotiate with PSU... Or something to that effect.
IMO, it's too early. But I would bet that all sides have commissioned a "committee" to hash out the possibilities.
Legally, I expect this case to proceed regardless of the initial judicial decisions. Either side will appeal and continue so until one side comes out on top. That's when the negotiations will occur, assuming the NCAA loses the majority of the early legal decisions.
Thanks, I was hoping talks would happen and both sides would come to some agreement before the judge reviews the case. I guess it would depend on whether one side feels they are vulnerable.
delete..Comment touched on already...
This post was edited by RRR56 18 months ago
Just saw this.
Session was designed to give players a chance to hear directly from Corbett about NCAA suit and ask questions.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports