Bediako situation, legal question

[superjohn]

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.

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.

 

[Mike Honcho]

"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"

 

[UConnTrumbull]

"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"

NCAA has the easiest “conflict of interest” argument I’ve ever seen. Slam dunk.

 

[auror]

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.

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.

 

[HooperScooper]

"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"

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?

 

[superjohn]

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.

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.

 

[auror]

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.

There are decisions that are not subjectively defensible.

And the judges would agree.

 

[Mr. French]

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.

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.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

There are decisions that are not subjectively defensible.

And the judges would agree.

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.

 

[superjohn]

There are decisions that are not subjectively defensible.

And the judges would agree.

 

[HooperScooper]

The NCAA must have issued some kind of statement for their athletic departments because Dave Benedict said the exact same thing.

“If legally we can’t control or impose NCAA rules in terms of who can play and who can’t, based on a legal decision, the NCAA still has the right to determine what games count toward the NCAA Tournament, and what games don’t count,” UConn AD David Benedict told ESPN. “The NCAA has deemed (Charles Bediako) ineligible. Fine, he can play (on a judge’s ruling). It doesn’t mean the games need to count toward the NCAA Tournament. Otherwise, throw away the rulebook and set it on fire. There are no rules.”