You don't have to shown that the harm is certain. Just that there's a risk of imminent harm. Threatening harm is typically enough, even if they won't necessarily do it.
In other words, all imminent harm is "hypothetical" in some sense--it hasn't happened yet and might not happen. But if someone threatens harm in the near future, that's typically enough to move for a restraining order.
Yeah, I mean I think the real answer to my original question is that the school would like to see him back down without litigation, so they're willing to play chicken and wait. And that's probably the rational thing to do. But me, being more angry than rational, would have sued as soon as able.
I don't think the notice would have to say exactly what they intend to do. It's clear that suspension is one of the options and that there is a risk of imminent and irreparable harm. So we have the basis to move.
Yeah, I guess I didn't mean to suggest that it would be impossible to get relief. I just don't see the reason to wait. Once the notice issued, I think the harm was imminent enough to support a motion. Might as well give ourselves the time in case the court doesn't move fast enough.
You're right as a general principle, but not with equitable relief like TROs. You can absolutely get one where harm is imminent. That's kind of the whole point a lot of the time--to prevent harm that would be irreparable.
You can seek a TRO to prevent imminent harm in most cases. With most lawsuits you have to wait for injury, but not with certain equitable relief like a TRO. I don't think you could file before they sent the notice, but now I don't see the reason to wait. As someone who's litigated TROs and PIs, I don't see any legal reason.
Why did we wait to file the lawsuit? I would think the notice the Big Ten sent us would be grounds enough to move for a TRO. If we wait and they suspend Harbaugh tomorrow, we're not going to be able to get relief in time by Saturday's game.
Having thought about it a little more, I'm not sure I buy that argument either. Lots of things in Rule 1 apply to what you're allowed to do/required to do before game day. For instance, there's a provision that requires that you give your players adequate instructions in advance of the game on how to wear their equipment. So I don't see why Rule 1-11h wouldn't also apply to attempts to film opponents prior to game day. The rule itself is open-ended to encompass that, and nothing specifically limits it to what happens during game time at the site of the game.
That's too bad. I would have loved a silver bullet. But the idea that the NCAA started the investigation without checking their own rules seemed a little too good to be true.
I'm not sure I follow your reading of the rules, and I'm an attorney who's worked in statutory/regulatory interpretation for years. (That said, I haven't been able to give this much time, so please correct me if I'm just missing the point!)
1. Rule 1-6-b says that the rules apply not just to people in the team area, but "other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions." That seems to apply directly here. I've seen other people make this point though--am I missing some other rule that applies? Because 1-6-b doesn't do it.
2. I think the point that "we have common sense to tell us that the NCAA cannot mean 11.6.1 to apply to all humans everywhere" comes up short. Not all humans everywhere, no. But I don't see anything you've cited that suggests that you wouldn't be responsible for paid agents.
3. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the history of Bylaw 11.6. You say the carveout for football in 11.6.2 " hasn’t been amended since." You don't cite the full text of that rule, so I can't really interpret it. But it doesn't appear to be in the Bylaws anymore. So I'm not really sure how to respond to that. As the rules currently stand, all I see is a pretty clear blanket prohibition in 11.6.1 against in-person scouting across all sports. But maybe I'm missing something.
Edit: I saw a better explanation of #3 in another comment, and I get what OP is saying. I suppose that's plausible, though I'm not sure how much weight the NCAA would put on that kind of enactment history. And it doesn't seem to matter given that Rule 1-11-h applies directly.
Is "NFL" in the article an error? I thought it was just NFC player of the week from other sources. And even in this article, the logo in the image is the NFC logo.
Either way, still pumped for Aidan! So much fun to watch him as a dual Lions/Wolverines fan.
I think you're underplaying the interest point. The math really does suggest you should always take the lump sum. If you take the lump sum and don't blow through it irresponsibly, you're almost guaranteed to end up with more money than the installments. That's why they offer the installment option in the first place -- it's cheaper to them in the long run to make the annual payment, given even conservative interest rates.
In this example, say you take home $280 million on the lump sum after taxes (assuming a 37% overall tax rate). Assume a hypothetical 7% interest rate, and you're generating $19.6 million through interest in the first year alone. The installments after tax (again assuming a 37%) are going to be around $17.8 million. So every year you're going to make more from interest than the entire annuity would have been. And that doesn't account for the fact that you have $280 million in the bank, that the amount from interest will compound over time, and the annuities end after 30 years.
So the math is pretty clearly in favor of the lump sum. The one question there is whether a person thinks they can be responsible. If they're concerned that they will burn through the lump sum rather than invest it, the annuity can tie their hands and force them to be responsible.
Not a president, but Supreme Court Justice Byron White is really interesting in the same way. He was an all-american at Colorado. And before he became a lawyer, he was the highest paid player in the NFL at one point.
I've been to one Michigan game at Maryland. As you note, Michigan fans dominate the stands. Based on that alone, I'm not sure I agree that their fanbase is the same as ours.
I'm guessing we don't have to pay our women's softball coach what we would have to pay our men's baseball coach to compete with teams down south. Seems like apples and oranges in terms of finances.
I don't/didn't play these games enough to have enough of a frame of reference to really understand this. How good is mid to high 80s? In my mind, I'm thinking "B," as in so-so. But a lot of our great players are in that range. Is that just a lot better than I'm thinking? Are players in the 90s really rare?
You may be referring to the real world war happening right now. But the only thing I can think of when someone mentions Ukraine in the context of Risk is Seinfeld.
My favorite spots are pretty much anywhere between Traverse City and Petoskey, with Torch Lake and Lake Charlevoix being some of my favorite places on earth.
That said, I think Mackinac Island is awesome for kids. It’s really unique and fun, with lots of things to do. It’s pretty touristy, but in a way that kids would get into. (I have great memories of going when I was little.) You could also pair it with a short trip to Pictured Rocks, which is going to have the best hiking/is probably the most beautiful place of anything mentioned on this thread. Though that’s a decent detour if you don’t want to be driving that much.
I'm honestly ok with a world where the gap to Georgia and Alabama increases but Ohio State gets priced out of all the 5* recruits it's used to. We don't play Georgia or Alabama all that often, and I care far more about winning the game consistently than national titles.
There were a couple things they really screwed up but ultimately made right. For instance, the mixup with the game clock at the end of the third quarter was atrocious, but they got it sorted out in the end.
The award's description also states that it's supposed to go to "the toughest, most physical offensive line in the country." I'd say Michigan has a slight advantage there.
What. Derrick Henry had 28 touchdowns and over two thousand yards. Not even close.
At the end of the day, it’s going to be impossible to win as a running back—or even be a finalist—when you miss the end of the season and only play half games during non-conference play. You’re just not going to put up the numbers you need.
I asked this in another thread, but just to confirm--the higher seeded team is the "home" team, correct? (Just because I'd rather be on our side of the stadium, all things being equal)
I don’t know. They’re probably more talented. It’s definitely closer than the high school recruiting rankings would suggest. But that roster is still stacked. I’m fine with that, because we’re the better team
The first four drives of the second half of last year's game. Until then, that game could have ended up just like 2006, 2016 or 2018. We came out, scored twice, and stopped them twice to set up a win that would change everything. Those four drives get the monkey off our back and exorcise our demons.
We earned those penalties too. They weren’t just random events. They happened because OSU’s secondary was so frustrated and afraid of get burned again that they started to play desperate.
There was a poll on Eleven Warriors asking if they’d like a rematch against Michigan in the playoffs. The overwhelming majority said they don’t want anything to do with us.
I like Joel Klatt. I just can’t stand Gus Johnson’s catchphrases. If I have to hear “world famous buckeyes” or “score in bunches” one more time, I’ll lose my mind.
With respect to the fear and doubt, I think it’s the other way around. I feel like most Michigan fans believe Michigan can win in any weather, whereas Ohio is terrified of the forecast, because they can’t win in certain conditions. For us, it’s just an added benefit; for them, it’s everything.
#1 in American sports. I think it’s hard to compare American rivalries to rivalries in other countries or international rivalries, so i would probably just leave it at that.
Recent Comments
"I think they did it. Therefore they've received due process."
You don't have to shown that the harm is certain. Just that there's a risk of imminent harm. Threatening harm is typically enough, even if they won't necessarily do it.
In other words, all imminent harm is "hypothetical" in some sense--it hasn't happened yet and might not happen. But if someone threatens harm in the near future, that's typically enough to move for a restraining order.
Yeah, I mean I think the real answer to my original question is that the school would like to see him back down without litigation, so they're willing to play chicken and wait. And that's probably the rational thing to do. But me, being more angry than rational, would have sued as soon as able.
I don't think the notice would have to say exactly what they intend to do. It's clear that suspension is one of the options and that there is a risk of imminent and irreparable harm. So we have the basis to move.
Yeah, I guess I didn't mean to suggest that it would be impossible to get relief. I just don't see the reason to wait. Once the notice issued, I think the harm was imminent enough to support a motion. Might as well give ourselves the time in case the court doesn't move fast enough.
You're right as a general principle, but not with equitable relief like TROs. You can absolutely get one where harm is imminent. That's kind of the whole point a lot of the time--to prevent harm that would be irreparable.
You can seek a TRO to prevent imminent harm in most cases. With most lawsuits you have to wait for injury, but not with certain equitable relief like a TRO. I don't think you could file before they sent the notice, but now I don't see the reason to wait. As someone who's litigated TROs and PIs, I don't see any legal reason.
Why did we wait to file the lawsuit? I would think the notice the Big Ten sent us would be grounds enough to move for a TRO. If we wait and they suspend Harbaugh tomorrow, we're not going to be able to get relief in time by Saturday's game.
Having thought about it a little more, I'm not sure I buy that argument either. Lots of things in Rule 1 apply to what you're allowed to do/required to do before game day. For instance, there's a provision that requires that you give your players adequate instructions in advance of the game on how to wear their equipment. So I don't see why Rule 1-11h wouldn't also apply to attempts to film opponents prior to game day. The rule itself is open-ended to encompass that, and nothing specifically limits it to what happens during game time at the site of the game.
Yeah, that's a better argument than OP's.
That's too bad. I would have loved a silver bullet. But the idea that the NCAA started the investigation without checking their own rules seemed a little too good to be true.
I'm not sure I follow your reading of the rules, and I'm an attorney who's worked in statutory/regulatory interpretation for years. (That said, I haven't been able to give this much time, so please correct me if I'm just missing the point!)
1. Rule 1-6-b says that the rules apply not just to people in the team area, but "other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions." That seems to apply directly here. I've seen other people make this point though--am I missing some other rule that applies? Because 1-6-b doesn't do it.
2. I think the point that "we have common sense to tell us that the NCAA cannot mean 11.6.1 to apply to all humans everywhere" comes up short. Not all humans everywhere, no. But I don't see anything you've cited that suggests that you wouldn't be responsible for paid agents.
3. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the history of Bylaw 11.6. You say the carveout for football in 11.6.2 " hasn’t been amended since." You don't cite the full text of that rule, so I can't really interpret it. But it doesn't appear to be in the Bylaws anymore. So I'm not really sure how to respond to that. As the rules currently stand, all I see is a pretty clear blanket prohibition in 11.6.1 against in-person scouting across all sports. But maybe I'm missing something.
Edit: I saw a better explanation of #3 in another comment, and I get what OP is saying. I suppose that's plausible, though I'm not sure how much weight the NCAA would put on that kind of enactment history. And it doesn't seem to matter given that Rule 1-11-h applies directly.
Is "NFL" in the article an error? I thought it was just NFC player of the week from other sources. And even in this article, the logo in the image is the NFC logo.
Either way, still pumped for Aidan! So much fun to watch him as a dual Lions/Wolverines fan.
But Iranians aren't Arabs...
I think you're underplaying the interest point. The math really does suggest you should always take the lump sum. If you take the lump sum and don't blow through it irresponsibly, you're almost guaranteed to end up with more money than the installments. That's why they offer the installment option in the first place -- it's cheaper to them in the long run to make the annual payment, given even conservative interest rates.
In this example, say you take home $280 million on the lump sum after taxes (assuming a 37% overall tax rate). Assume a hypothetical 7% interest rate, and you're generating $19.6 million through interest in the first year alone. The installments after tax (again assuming a 37%) are going to be around $17.8 million. So every year you're going to make more from interest than the entire annuity would have been. And that doesn't account for the fact that you have $280 million in the bank, that the amount from interest will compound over time, and the annuities end after 30 years.
So the math is pretty clearly in favor of the lump sum. The one question there is whether a person thinks they can be responsible. If they're concerned that they will burn through the lump sum rather than invest it, the annuity can tie their hands and force them to be responsible.
I was so confused before I realized that the comments were from January and not today. It was like we read completely different articles.
Not a president, but Supreme Court Justice Byron White is really interesting in the same way. He was an all-american at Colorado. And before he became a lawyer, he was the highest paid player in the NFL at one point.
I've been to one Michigan game at Maryland. As you note, Michigan fans dominate the stands. Based on that alone, I'm not sure I agree that their fanbase is the same as ours.
I'm guessing we don't have to pay our women's softball coach what we would have to pay our men's baseball coach to compete with teams down south. Seems like apples and oranges in terms of finances.
I don't/didn't play these games enough to have enough of a frame of reference to really understand this. How good is mid to high 80s? In my mind, I'm thinking "B," as in so-so. But a lot of our great players are in that range. Is that just a lot better than I'm thinking? Are players in the 90s really rare?
You may be referring to the real world war happening right now. But the only thing I can think of when someone mentions Ukraine in the context of Risk is Seinfeld.
Just from a quick google search, I don’t see anything describing that as a “computer access” crime. So hopefully that’s not in play.
That said, searching his home suggests that it’s nothing good.
My favorite spots are pretty much anywhere between Traverse City and Petoskey, with Torch Lake and Lake Charlevoix being some of my favorite places on earth.
That said, I think Mackinac Island is awesome for kids. It’s really unique and fun, with lots of things to do. It’s pretty touristy, but in a way that kids would get into. (I have great memories of going when I was little.) You could also pair it with a short trip to Pictured Rocks, which is going to have the best hiking/is probably the most beautiful place of anything mentioned on this thread. Though that’s a decent detour if you don’t want to be driving that much.
I'm honestly ok with a world where the gap to Georgia and Alabama increases but Ohio State gets priced out of all the 5* recruits it's used to. We don't play Georgia or Alabama all that often, and I care far more about winning the game consistently than national titles.
There were a couple things they really screwed up but ultimately made right. For instance, the mixup with the game clock at the end of the third quarter was atrocious, but they got it sorted out in the end.
What. How have I gone my whole life not knowing those are different words.
The award's description also states that it's supposed to go to "the toughest, most physical offensive line in the country." I'd say Michigan has a slight advantage there.
What. Derrick Henry had 28 touchdowns and over two thousand yards. Not even close.
At the end of the day, it’s going to be impossible to win as a running back—or even be a finalist—when you miss the end of the season and only play half games during non-conference play. You’re just not going to put up the numbers you need.
Go Blue! Let’s go back to back
Lambeau
I love that idea. It's too bad the Rose Bowl is now a B1G home stadium, and not a neutral site.
I asked this in another thread, but just to confirm--the higher seeded team is the "home" team, correct? (Just because I'd rather be on our side of the stadium, all things being equal)
I don’t know. They’re probably more talented. It’s definitely closer than the high school recruiting rankings would suggest. But that roster is still stacked. I’m fine with that, because we’re the better team
Came here for this. The only thing about the video I didn't love.
The first four drives of the second half of last year's game. Until then, that game could have ended up just like 2006, 2016 or 2018. We came out, scored twice, and stopped them twice to set up a win that would change everything. Those four drives get the monkey off our back and exorcise our demons.
We earned those penalties too. They weren’t just random events. They happened because OSU’s secondary was so frustrated and afraid of get burned again that they started to play desperate.
Do you have a link to what he said on suicide and crisis lifeline? I’d like to see that
There was a poll on Eleven Warriors asking if they’d like a rematch against Michigan in the playoffs. The overwhelming majority said they don’t want anything to do with us.
Awesome, thanks! I guessed that was the case just from watching past games, but wasn’t sure if that was the rule.
Does anyone know how they decide home/away teams? Is the higher seed always home?
(Assuming we go—knock on wood—I’d like to buy tickets as soon as it’s announced, and I’d prefer to be on Michigan’s side of the field)
I don’t love them walking around on ice a week before the championship game, but still pretty cool
I like Joel Klatt. I just can’t stand Gus Johnson’s catchphrases. If I have to hear “world famous buckeyes” or “score in bunches” one more time, I’ll lose my mind.
Let’s go blue! What a long a week, but I’m amped!
I’ve always rooted against Ohio. I used to root for state, but those days are long gone.
With respect to the fear and doubt, I think it’s the other way around. I feel like most Michigan fans believe Michigan can win in any weather, whereas Ohio is terrified of the forecast, because they can’t win in certain conditions. For us, it’s just an added benefit; for them, it’s everything.
#1 in American sports. I think it’s hard to compare American rivalries to rivalries in other countries or international rivalries, so i would probably just leave it at that.
I…did not enjoy 2006 and 2013 as much as you.
2021 was the best for me, given the drought and physical way we won.
Pretty sure the forecast already changed since then. It’s now supposed to be warmer, without precipitation, and low winds.
Go blue! Beat Illinois!
I'm relatively new here and almost afraid to ask--but can someone explain to me what this weekly thread is? I'm so confused...