PonyFans.com

Because they could lose the lawsuit, and best case they look arbitrary and lose more support

Blunt Pony wrote: I do wonder about the statement "We also wish to make known that the NCAA's conclusion that the SMU Men's Basketball program is not compliant with NCAA rules is simply incorrect."
these guys have a chip on their shoulder which should make for some good times at Moody this year!

I have no idea either, but I wonder if they are saying the rules say if someone breaks the rules, turn yourself in and deal with those parties involved, which we did. If they are sticking to the secretary going rogue on this.

Controlling the narrative.

I love that the players did this, but I ultimately don't think it will change anything.

Junior wrote:I love that the players did this, but I ultimately don't think it will change anything.

I enjoy the prospect of hope.

The 5th Circuit has already ruled in a case involving SMU from 1986 that student athletes don't have standing to sue on behalf of SMU to reduce disciplinary/enforcement rules of NCAA. You would have to make a new argument that either distinguished facts of that 5th Circuit decision from 1986 or case would likely be tossed out. A Federal District Court in Texas is required to apply binding 5th Circuit case law if the facts can't be distinguished. In fact, the facts are substantially similar-so the student athletes would have an uphill climb.

The O'Bannon case is distinguishable because they were using former student athletes "likeness" from classic teams of the past AFTER graduation so that violation was an ongoing, post-graduation infringement of their individual rights and had nothing to do with disciplinary/enforcement action against their university. Part of the O'Bannon case related to "likeness" infringement just got reversed any way a couple of weeks ago. In particular, a university will no longer have to set up a post graduation fund of $5,000 per year to be paid to student athletes once their playing careers are over

I think its more of a PR move than anything else, but also lets the NCAA know that it has to think about the players as well. And if it soft pedals UNC or Louisville, then its going to face a firestorm of criticism and maybe a lawsuit of some sort. These kids sign letters of intent which are regulated by the NCAA. That may be a loose basis for a contract, but I've never seen the language on those documents. Anyway, I don't see the student-athletes having standing, but who knows, go to Minnesota and see what happens.

I think I see the strategy now. The point about the immediate ban is the key. The timing of the ban left the seniors with no practical options. Not sure if you call it a due process issue to the players but it is certainly a trap for them and not a very fair one. Just Allowing them to transfer in the middle of the school year and the middle of the bball season is garbage and should not be their only option here.

Seeing this as part of a litigation strategy seems to me a little far-fetched, to be honest. For all we know, maybe SMU let the players do this just so they could vent a little in a constructive way. I have no idea. But whatever the reasons, I like it. If nothing else, it sends a message that SMU hoops is a family.

Hoop Fan wrote:I think I see the strategy now. The point about the immediate ban is the key. The timing of the ban left the seniors with no practical options. Not sure if you call it a due process issue to the players but it is certainly a trap for them and not a very fair one. Just Allowing them to transfer in the middle of the school year and the middle of the bball season is garbage and should not be their only option here.

I hadn't thought of it that way.

83, although I would love nothing better, I would guess you are correct. This is probably 100 percent player driven, and may not even have been run by the university. The only way it gets legs is if they are encouraged to do so by some outside group and they are mad enough to defy our own administration about it.

The argument by the student athletes (not the school): once the 2015-16 school year had already started, any penalties involving post season ban SHOULD HAVE BEEN assessed for the following year, 2016-17. By not doing so, the ncaa violated basic fairness and equal protection under its own rules that allow innocent players to transfer and become eligible immediately at a new school. In this case, the senior student athletes cannot transfer without being harmed both academically and athletically in a material and unfair way. Then, when the ncaa tries to correct its mistake and push the punishment to 2016-17, the underclassmen immediately protest on the basis that had the ncaa acted properly to begin with, they may have made different decisions about their individual academic and athletic futures. Therefore the ncaa has now harmed them unfairly. This can be won.

Stallion wrote:The 5th Circuit has already ruled in a case involving SMU from 1986 that student athletes don't have standing to sue on behalf of SMU to reduce disciplinary/enforcement rules of NCAA. You would have to make a new argument that either distinguished facts of that 5th Circuit decision from 1986 or case would likely be tossed out. A Federal District Court in Texas is required to apply binding 5th Circuit case law if the facts can't be distinguished. In fact, the facts are substantially similar-so the student athletes would have an uphill climb.

The O'Bannon case is distinguishable because they were using former student athletes "likeness" from classic teams of the past AFTER graduation so that violation was an ongoing, post-graduation infringement of their individual rights and had nothing to do with disciplinary/enforcement action against their university. Part of the O'Bannon case related to "likeness" infringement just got reversed any way a couple of weeks ago. In particular, a university will no longer have to set up a post graduation fund of $5,000 per year to be paid to student athletes once their playing careers are over

Question: could eliminating the potential for seniors who were not involved in this to play in the post-season without providing proper recourse for transfer be seen as potentially detracting from their post-NCAA earning power. Any chance, even remote, that they argue that the NCAA knew that part of their punishment (indirect in nature, but directly linked to the punishment levied), losing the ability to play in the post season, equated to them placing a ceiling on their post-graduation earning power due to the lack of opportunity to participate in a tournament that can make or break their career chances draft-wise? A big reach...but if you could prove there is even an indirect link, it might make for some interesting stuff.

Andy Katz ‏@ESPNAndyKatz 3h3 hours ago

Andy Katz Retweeted William Felder Jr

Then that's on SMU not NCAA. School and players should have been on same page prior to appeal decision.

William Felder Jr
‏@realwillfelder

@ESPNAndyKatz what if they say "we're not showing up"

Stallion wrote:The 5th Circuit has already ruled in a case involving SMU from 1986 that student athletes don't have standing to sue on behalf of SMU to reduce disciplinary/enforcement rules of NCAA. You would have to make a new argument that either distinguished facts of that 5th Circuit decision from 1986 or case would likely be tossed out. A Federal District Court in Texas is required to apply binding 5th Circuit case law if the facts can't be distinguished. In fact, the facts are substantially similar-so the student athletes would have an uphill climb.

The O'Bannon case is distinguishable because they were using former student athletes "likeness" from classic teams of the past AFTER graduation so that violation was an ongoing, post-graduation infringement of their individual rights and had nothing to do with disciplinary/enforcement action against their university. Part of the O'Bannon case related to "likeness" infringement just got reversed any way a couple of weeks ago. In particular, a university will no longer have to set up a post graduation fund of $5,000 per year to be paid to student athletes once their playing careers are over

I am not sure that they would sue to reduce enforcement on behalf of SMU but rather for other, more personal remedies - and that may change the way a court views whether the precedent applies