James Wiseman ruled ineligible

[HuskyHawk]

Fishman, one of Wiseman attorneys, was just on the radio. He wanted to keep it in generalities, not reveal too much, but did say a few interesting things. The host asked him how they would respond if the NCAA files to remove the case to Federal Court. He said they would respond ------ and then continued that there's no federal question here only state issues and state law, no money being asked for, and there's not complete and utter diversity. Elements that need to be shown to remove a case to Federal Court. You got to figure that will be their position, at least in part, with this issue ---- ie once NCAA very likely tries to remove it to Federal Court. Later he made another interesting point ---- under the NCAA scenario you have an *innocent party* subjected to punishments and *unclear punishments.* The NCAA has no punishment framework they work within. First the NCAA makes a finding and then only later does one learn the punishment. They seem to be just talkin at that point --- but there is a claim of "arbitrary and capricious" action / punishments on behalf of the NCAA in their Wiseman complaint. Makes me also think they may show how similarly-situated institutions and players are treated differently. Just a guess.

The argument that they seem to be making has been tried before. Essentially that the NCAA punishes the institution in a manner that is actually a punishment for the player. In this case, Memphis is fine, so long as Wiseman doesn't play for them. That's inequitable. Sooner of later the players are going to win on those grounds, especially, as here, where it seems the player himself received nothing and was unaware.

If I'm Wiseman's lawyers, I'd argue that if they hold to that, then they must approve his ability to transfer and play elsewhere right now. Not sure he wants that, but it's a very valid argument. He committed to Memphis on the basis of being able to play there. That's the unjust reliance/promissory estoppel argument. If he's ineligible there, he must be made eligible elsewhere immediately.

The arbitrary and capricious claim is a loser. It's been tried. The NCAA is not the government and the courts have declined to require it to provide due process. It has discretion in enforcing its own rules.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

The argument that they seem to be making has been tried before. Essentially that the NCAA punishes the institution in a manner that is actually a punishment for the player. In this case, Memphis is fine, so long as Wiseman doesn't play for them. That's inequitable. Sooner of later the players are going to win on those grounds, especially, as here, where it seems the player himself received nothing and was unaware.

If I'm Wiseman's lawyers, I'd argue that if they hold to that, then they must approve his ability to transfer and play elsewhere right now. Not sure he wants that, but it's a very valid argument. He committed to Memphis on the basis of being able to play there. That's the unjust reliance/promissory estoppel argument. If he's ineligible there, he must be made eligible elsewhere immediately.

The arbitrary and capricious claim is a loser. It's been tried. The NCAA is not the government and the courts have declined to require it to provide due process. It has discretion in enforcing its own rules.

oooh, sounds like you're 'in.' noice. im liking our chances for justice. free wiseman!

 

[CL82]

If I'm Wiseman's lawyers, I'd argue that if they hold to that, then they must approve his ability to transfer and play elsewhere right now. Not sure he wants that, but it's a very valid argument. He committed to Memphis on the basis of being able to play there. That's the unjust reliance/promissory estoppel argument. If he's ineligible there, he must be made eligible elsewhere immediately.

I've been thinking about the same thing. Assuming he committed to Memphis prior to being cleared, where's the reliance?

 

[HuskyHawk]

I've been thinking about the same thing. Assuming he committed to Memphis prior to being cleared, where's the reliance?

They issued a final certificate of amateur status on May 29. He committed in November, but enrolled July 1. At any time prior to enrollment he could decommit and go elsewhere. He did sign a LOI it seems, so Memphis would need to release him from that, but if he was ineligible at Memphis and eligible elsewhere they would. Memphis is a co-defendant here.

 

[MemphisBlues]

Frankly, if NCAA can't get this removed to Federal Court I think you're going to see a settlement.

 

[CL82]

As noted above by another poster, settlement makes sense anyway. Just have Wiseman be ineligible for a certain number of games this season and let him play out the remainder. The NCAA get some measure of the statement as to amateur status, and Memphis gets to play Wiseman. Note that it is a one off exception due to the unique circumstances of Wiseman‘s case, including the prior declaration of eligibility.

 

[Hurleyman216]

As noted above by another poster, settlement makes sense anyway. Just have Wiseman be ineligible for a certain number of games this season and let him play out the remainder. The NCAA get some measure of the statement as to amateur status, and Memphis gets to play Wiseman. Note that it is a one off exception due to the unique circumstances of Wiseman‘s case, including the prior declaration of eligibility.

I have a feeling whatever the outcome is, he will definitely end up playing in the games against us. We play Memphis 2 times in about a 2 week span in February, so if he does actually get banned, I'm sure it'll be until the end of January and then he'll come in on Feb 1st TOTALLY pissed and throw around our front court like a bunch of rag dolls. These kind of things actually sometimes end up helping the team. If he has to miss a few weeks, it'll give the other young guys a chance to get some playing time and when he does come back they'll be that much better.

 

[Edward Sargent]

The argument that they seem to be making has been tried before. Essentially that the NCAA punishes the institution in a manner that is actually a punishment for the player. In this case, Memphis is fine, so long as Wiseman doesn't play for them. That's inequitable. Sooner of later the players are going to win on those grounds, especially, as here, where it seems the player himself received nothing and was unaware.

If I'm Wiseman's lawyers, I'd argue that if they hold to that, then they must approve his ability to transfer and play elsewhere right now. Not sure he wants that, but it's a very valid argument. He committed to Memphis on the basis of being able to play there. That's the unjust reliance/promissory estoppel argument. If he's ineligible there, he must be made eligible elsewhere immediately.

The arbitrary and capricious claim is a loser. It's been tried. The NCAA is not the government and the courts have declined to require it to provide due process. It has discretion in enforcing its own rules.

The player most certainly received money.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The player most certainly received money.

You may believe that, but there is no evidence of it.

 

[Edward Sargent]

You may believe that, but there is no evidence of it.

The evidence? You've seen all the evidence? The evidence also supports OJ's innocence

 

[HuskyHawk]

The evidence? You've seen all the evidence? The evidence also supports OJ's innocence

The court will look at the evidence. But even the NCAA has not alleged that James Wiseman got money or knew about the payment.

 

[intlzncster]

You may believe that, but there is no evidence of it.

Whether the kid is aware or not is totally irrelevant. Then bagmen could always pay a parent and say 'the kid wasn't aware'. "We got $100k but my kid never knew about it". If anybody connected with the kid profits, it's a violation. Were this not the case, there would never be any issues, as the family would get paid straight behind the scenes and it would all be legal.

Don't like it? Change the rules.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Whether the kid is aware or not is totally irrelevant. Then bagmen could always pay a parent and say 'the kid wasn't aware'. "We got $100k but my kid never knew about it". If anybody connected with the kid profits, it's a violation. Were this not the case, there would never be any issues, as the family would get paid straight behind the scenes and it would all be legal.

Don't like it? Change the rules.

I really don't care one way or the other. I think it very much does matter in the context of the claims Wiseman is making. So it isn't irrelevant. The State of California successfully tore down a longstanding NCAA rule. Wiseman has a chance to tear down another. The NCAA will likely settle this or risk losing the ability to enforce the rule the way you described against others. The NCAA is in a precarious spot here. I don't disagree that there is a clear violation of their rules. The question is whether those rules, if enforced, will give rise to major civil damages in this particular case.

 

[Ha Who]

Whether the kid is aware or not is totally irrelevant. Then bagmen could always pay a parent and say 'the kid wasn't aware'. "We got $100k but my kid never knew about it". If anybody connected with the kid profits, it's a violation. Were this not the case, there would never be any issues, as the family would get paid straight behind the scenes and it would all be legal.

Don't like it? Change the rules.

Whether the kid is aware or not is totally irrelevant. Then bagmen could always pay a parent and say 'the kid wasn't aware'. "We got $100k but my kid never knew about it". If anybody connected with the kid profits, it's a violation. Were this not the case, there would never be any issues, as the family would get paid straight behind the scenes and it would all be legal.

Don't like it? Change the rules.

They could have paid Lori Loughlin

 

[auror]

If I'm Wiseman's lawyers, I'd argue that if they hold to that, then they must approve his ability to transfer and play elsewhere right now. Not sure he wants that, but it's a very valid argument. He committed to Memphis on the basis of being able to play there. That's the unjust reliance/promissory estoppel argument. If he's ineligible there, he must be made eligible elsewhere immediately.

Isn't he ineligible anywhere, though?

He/his famly took impermissible benefits. The fact that it is a Memphis booster means Memphis should get punished. It's the impermissible benefits AT ALL that means that Wiseman is ineligible.

 

[superjohn]

You can debate that you think this isn't that big a deal compared to what's going on at other schools but it's pretty blatant cheating.

 

[intlzncster]

I really don't care one way or the other. I think it very much does matter in the context of the claims Wiseman is making. So it isn't irrelevant. The State of California successfully tore down a longstanding NCAA rule. Wiseman has a chance to tear down another. The NCAA will likely settle this or risk losing the ability to enforce the rule the way you described against others. The NCAA is in a precarious spot here. I don't disagree that there is a clear violation of their rules. The question is whether those rules, if enforced, will give rise to major civil damages in this particular case.

They haven't done anything yet. The NCAA could counter with 'anyone accepting money in this fashion is ineligible to get invited to post season tournaments'. If that's what the rest of the college presidents nationwide want. So they can have their sports, play anybody, but are just barred from playing in the dance.

 

[intlzncster]

I really don't care one way or the other. I think it very much does matter in the context of the claims Wiseman is making. So it isn't irrelevant. The State of California successfully tore down a longstanding NCAA rule. Wiseman has a chance to tear down another. The NCAA will likely settle this or risk losing the ability to enforce the rule the way you described against others. The NCAA is in a precarious spot here. I don't disagree that there is a clear violation of their rules. The question is whether those rules, if enforced, will give rise to major civil damages in this particular case.

Idk. Like the courts finding in favor of the NFL, the NCAA has carte blanche to do what it wants. College presidents nationwide made the rules. And back them up. A court can give an opinion whether something is fair or not, but they can't actually enforce anything.

 

[Chuck]

I honestly can't remember the last time the NCAA won a case, or came down hard on a school that fought them in general. I know we like to point to UConn, but the APR thing is different. We gave the NCAA a layup. APR is a calculation based on objective numbers. It's an If -- Then. This Wiseman issue involves evidence and interpretations. Look at the UNC stuff, and Miller of Arizona being on tape re money, or the multiple infractions from Louisville. So when was the last time a school that had the resources to fight, actually got hit?

Wiseman will sit a few games and then be reinstated. Memphis will not forfeit the games the play with him prior to any ruling.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I honestly can't remember the last time the NCAA won a case, or came down hard on a school that fought them in general. I know we like to point to UConn, but the APR thing is different. We gave the NCAA a layup. APR is a calculation based on objective numbers. It's an If -- Then.

Not quite, at least not in UConn's case.

 

[superjohn]

I honestly can't remember the last time the NCAA won a case, or came down hard on a school that fought them in general. I know we like to point to UConn, but the APR thing is different. We gave the NCAA a layup. APR is a calculation based on objective numbers. It's an If -- Then. This Wiseman issue involves evidence and interpretations. Look at the UNC stuff, and Miller of Arizona being on tape re money, or the multiple infractions from Louisville. So when was the last time a school that had the resources to fight, actually got hit?

Wiseman will sit a few games and then be reinstated. Memphis will not forfeit the games the play with him prior to any ruling.

How on earth could a UConn fan post this?

 

[Chuck]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that UConn should have been penalized. I'm just saying they trapped us. There was no need for them to show evidence or argue what the penalty should be. It's the legal version of "absolute liability" (no mens rea). Any time the NCAA has had to present evidence and prove their case, they give in or lose. I'd add to your angst the fact that many other schools failed the APR, but were given a pass because they had "less resources" or something like that. I believe it was primarily for smaller schools and the historically black schools. I don't want to blame those schools, just the NCAA. They literally created an out for schools not named UConn.

 

[CL82]

I honestly can't remember the last time the NCAA won a case, or came down hard on a school that fought them in general. I know we like to point to UConn, but the APR thing is different. We gave the NCAA a layup. APR is a calculation based on objective numbers. It's an If -- Then. This Wiseman issue involves evidence and interpretations. Look at the UNC stuff, and Miller of Arizona being on tape re money, or the multiple infractions from Louisville. So when was the last time a school that had the resources to fight, actually got hit?

Wiseman will sit a few games and then be reinstated. Memphis will not forfeit the games the play with him prior to any ruling.

If we had challenged on the APR thing, I'd have like our chances. That was anything but cut and dried, but I've posted about all that was flawed with it a lot. I won't bother here.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that UConn should have been penalized. I'm just saying they trapped us. There was no need for them to show evidence or argue what the penalty should be. It's the legal version of "absolute liability" (no mens rea).

Again, you're simplifying something that was about much more than "mens rea" and "objective numbers."