Bediako situation, legal question | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Bediako situation, legal question

Legally I predict there will be a cut off based on age only, maybe 23. The way courts are ruling in the trans cases seems to indicate only biological ability may determine who is allowed and barred from playing in various sport associations / leagues. Since college can pay players and they are allowing other pro league players, can they bar NBA players under a certain age from playing college. Curious to know what the Alabama judges reasoning will be when the case is heard.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
I haven't read the order so I don't know what the NCAA is enjoined from doing but as a general matter you don't do your "testing" by violating a court order. That's called "contempt."
Expand ...

I am aware.

The order talks in generalities, it's arguable what constitutes "punishing" Alabama.

I'm making the point that everyone is just taking everyone to court after they do something and seeing if the judge agrees. It's wild wild west.
 
Last edited:
It was hilarious hearing the announcers heap praise on Carson Beck in the semifinal and again in the national championship game the other night. They made it out like his story is everything that's great with college football and they sounded devastated his college career ended on an interception. College ended for him over 2 years ago and he hasn't taken a college course in over two years. He lives in his house boosters paid for and drives to campus for practice in his Lamborghini (stolen and not recovered) or Mercedes boosters paid for.
 
.-.
I think David Benedict is correct in that the NCAA tournament has no obligation to invite Alabama if he plays. In that case, they are not denying him any financial or academic opportunities while maintaining a level field in the tournament.
 
BuffaloHusky said:
I think David Benedict is correct in that the NCAA tournament has no obligation to invite Alabama if he plays. In that case, they are not denying him any financial or academic opportunities while maintaining a level field in the tournament.
Expand ...

Precisely.

A court could reasonably (that's an oxymoron) say that isn't harming the athlete and isn't a "punishment" by the court order. The NCAA has the ability to include teams in their tournament as they see fit, I don't see how a court can conclude they can't leave out a team based on their own rules and standards.

The court ruling deals with allowing this "student-athlete" to play and receive financial compensation, it doesn't and shouldn't deal with every aspect of the NCAA and their tournament selection.
 
Mr. French said:
Precisely.

A court could reasonably (that's an oxymoron) say that isn't harming the athlete and isn't a "punishment" by the court order. The NCAA has the ability to include teams in their tournament as they see fit, I don't see how a court can conclude they can't leave out a team based on their own rules and standards.

The court ruling deals with allowing this "student-athlete" to play and receive financial compensation, it doesn't and shouldn't deal with every aspect of the NCAA and their tournament selection.
Expand ...
What would be the standard for leaving out Alabama?

The NCAA can't say he is ineligible according to the court order, so they can't leave out Alabama for having an ineligible player.
 
superjohn said:
It was hilarious hearing the announcers heap praise on Carson Beck in the semifinal and again in the national championship game the other night. They made it out like his story is everything that's great with college football and they sounded devastated his college career ended on an interception. College ended for him over 2 years ago and he hasn't taken a college course in over two years. He lives in his house boosters paid for and drives to campus for practice in his Lamborghini (stolen and not recovered) or Mercedes boosters paid for.
Expand ...
How is he even a student if he doesn’t take classes?
 
auror said:
What would be the standard for leaving out Alabama?

The NCAA can't say he is ineligible according to the court order, so they can't leave out Alabama for having an ineligible player.
Expand ...

They are ordered to let him play and make money. They are ordered not to impose sanctions or penalties. Does the court have the power to determine how the NCAA chooses their tournament field or that not including a team in their tournament is a "sanction"? A sanction or a penalty seem to be specific to the kid or the team, i.e. making him ineligible, taking away a program's scholarships, etc.

The courts do whatever they want, but ultimately that would be the argument.

It's dependent on how serious the NCAA wants to take the fight.

My job isn't to argue on NCAA behalf or to figure it out for the NCAA, I'm just saying the court order talks about punishing the player or team, but there are teams every year that think they're deserving and the NCAA arbitrarily determines via selection committee.
 
.-.
NJHusky said:
How is he even a student if he doesn’t take classes?
Expand ...
That ship sailed before Carson Beck told the world he wasn't taking any classes at Miami.
 
The avenue is to move to vacate the TRO. Pretty good arguments that it didn't meet what are fairly strict standards for that type of relief. And the "no threats" remedy makes it an improper ex parte injunction. The NCAA should be free to state what will happen if they win on the merits. Whether the NCAA makes these arguments or not will reveal whether they are even trying to stop this or if they just want the mess to get so bad that they can push Congress to get in.

Turns out that the judge was a Bama donor, by the way . . .
 
Last edited:
NJHusky said:
How is he even a student if he doesn’t take classes?
Expand ...
when was the last time we heard about a good ol' fashioned academic scandal? Have we heard any announcements out of the Big East this year from our conference mates about this kid or that kid being academically ineligible?
 
Mr. French said:
Precisely.

A court could reasonably (that's an oxymoron) say that isn't harming the athlete and isn't a "punishment" by the court order. The NCAA has the ability to include teams in their tournament as they see fit, I don't see how a court can conclude they can't leave out a team based on their own rules and standards.

The court ruling deals with allowing this "student-athlete" to play and receive financial compensation, it doesn't and shouldn't deal with every aspect of the NCAA and their tournament selection.
Expand ...
Exactly. Assume Alabama doesn't win the SEC tournament and is looking for an at large bid. Come Selection Sunday the NCAA should just not call their name, and when asked on why Alabama was left out their response is "didn't think their resume was good enough wink wink, next question". Send a clear message and deter other schools from doing the same in the future.

At the very least if Alabama is a projected 2 seed, give them a 6 seed or something. NCAA needs to show they are willing to use whatever power they do have.
 
Could the NCAA exclude Alabama (again as long as the don't win an automatic birth) saying they feel not inviting Alabama is essential to protecting the image and integrity of their business/institution and that based on negative fan reaction (which I imagine there is at least some outside The Boneyard as well) may hurt tournament viewership and thus advertising revenue down the road?
 
.-.
Mr. French said:
They are ordered to let him play and make money. They are ordered not to impose sanctions or penalties. Does the court have the power to determine how the NCAA chooses their tournament field or that not including a team in their tournament is a "sanction"? A sanction or a penalty seem to be specific to the kid or the team, i.e. making him ineligible, taking away a program's scholarships, etc.

The courts do whatever they want, but ultimately that would be the argument.

It's dependent on how serious the NCAA wants to take the fight.

My job isn't to argue on NCAA behalf or to figure it out for the NCAA, I'm just saying the court order talks about punishing the player or team, but there are teams every year that think they're deserving and the NCAA arbitrarily determines via selection committee.
Expand ...
The NCAA is free to choose the NCAA field how it wants, but I am guessing Alabama could have a separate lawsuit avenue available if the NCAA had no reason to exclude them and just made a "No Alabamas" club. (South Alabama is fine, it's a no Alabamas club... for the Simpsons fans of the forum). And they still could probably argue it was downstream punishment of the team.

The committee would presumably need reasons if they were very clearly in the field by all objective metrics and bracketologies. Alabama isn't on the bubble. You also can't change the selection criteria halfway through the season when there are millions of dollars on the line.
 
Good article from Matt Norlander. He usually does a good job with these national topics.

Playing him before that hearing only enflames the situation. Alabama coach Nate Oats should reconsider, because if Bediako plays once and then is yanked off the team, this sideshow will look even more ludicrous.

www.cbssports.com

Court Report: Charles Bediako case could crater college hoops; inside Virginia's resurgence

Plus: Did we just get a glimpse of the future at Kansas? Also: The big reason Florida's made a move back to the top of the SEC
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 
auror said:
The NCAA is free to choose the NCAA field how it wants, but I am guessing Alabama could have a separate lawsuit avenue available if the NCAA had no reason to exclude them and just made a "No Alabamas" club. (South Alabama is fine, it's a no Alabamas club... for the Simpsons fans of the forum). And they still could probably argue it was downstream punishment of the team.

The committee would presumably need reasons if they were very clearly in the field by all objective metrics and bracketologies. Alabama isn't on the bubble. You also can't change the selection criteria halfway through the season when there are millions of dollars on the line.
Expand ...
Why? The committee didn't need reasons when they only put three Big East teams in the tournament in '24 and they haven't needed reasons for other poor seeding and leaving out deserving teams for undeserving teams in the past.
 
superjohn said:
Why? The committee didn't need reasons when they only put three Big East teams in the tournament in '24 and they haven't needed reasons for other poor seeding and leaving out deserving teams for undeserving teams in the past.
Expand ...
You don't need me to explain this to you.

There's judgment calls on subjective criteria and then there's leaving out a 4 seed after public pressure to intentionally leave them out.
 
.-.
Mike Honcho said:


"The judge who issued the TRO to Charles Bediako is listed as an active donor on the Crimson Tide Foundation website. He is listed under the $100,000.00-$249,999.00 level of donor"
Expand ...

Yeah it was in that Norlander article I posted above. No conflict of interest here. Nothing to see.

Then there's this. The plot thickens by the hour, as a user on College Basketball Reddit discovered Thursday morning that the judge in the case, James H. Roberts, is an active, six-figure donor to Alabama Athletics. No conflict of interest there, right?
 
auror said:
You don't need me to explain this to you.

There's judgment calls on subjective criteria and then there's leaving out a 4 seed after public pressure to intentionally leave them out.
Expand ...
It's all subjective, that's why the NCAA can never give a proper answer why some teams are screwed and others aren't.

It's why they penalize some players and programs and not others. It's why UConn was hand selected as the program to bend over when they decided to do a retroactive tournament ban one season.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you as a UConn fan.
 
superjohn said:
It's all subjective, that's why the NCAA can never give a proper answer why some teams are screwed and others aren't.

It's why they penalize some players and programs and not others. It's why UConn was hand selected as the program to bend over when they decided to do a retroactive tournament ban one season.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you as a UConn fan.
Expand ...
There are decisions that are not subjectively defensible.

And the judges would agree.
 
auror said:
The NCAA is free to choose the NCAA field how it wants, but I am guessing Alabama could have a separate lawsuit avenue available if the NCAA had no reason to exclude them and just made a "No Alabamas" club. (South Alabama is fine, it's a no Alabamas club... for the Simpsons fans of the forum). And they still could probably argue it was downstream punishment of the team.

The committee would presumably need reasons if they were very clearly in the field by all objective metrics and bracketologies. Alabama isn't on the bubble. You also can't change the selection criteria halfway through the season when there are millions of dollars on the line.
Expand ...

Sure.

But normally schools can’t play nba players but that’s suddenly changed so if they’re annoyed enough ncaa wants to fight it they have avenues as well.
 
auror said:
There are decisions that are not subjectively defensible.

And the judges would agree.
Expand ...
In all seriousness what would the punishment be for leaving out Bama? How do you calculate that? Is it just the average units earned for participating in March Madness? If so just write Bama a check.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,146
Messages
4,554,767
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom