I think it’s unusual and noteworthy when a party represented by a lawyer files a submission in favor of a position and then decline an opportunity to submit a further response after the other side puts in an additional submission rebutting your first brief. As a matter of advocacy that is jarring enough that it strongly signals weakness (ordinarily). That doesn’t mean the other side is necessarily going to win but it certainly doesn’t seem like a completely neutral development or one that could be interpreted in completely opposite ways.
Some of the media reports say that the ruling will be made by a panel of only three members of the Legislative Relief Committee, which appears to have seven members total, rather than by the whole committee, for whatever that’s worth.
Everything is so opaque. No access to the filings; I can’t even find the NCAA rules and procedures (other than fragmentary quotes and synopses on message boards). Does anyone happen to know if the Patterson eligibility decision will be subject to judicial review, and, if so, what the standard of review would be and how realistic a favorable court decision might be in the event of an adverse NCAA decision?
We were in Ann Arbor on a tour of the big house yesterday (part of a college visit for my high school kid) and saw these guys suited up on the field. Nice to read who they were.
Step one is: “The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.” I read this as saying you have to compare the teams’ records. Are you reading it as meaning that you look at only head-to-head games? If that were the intended meaning it seems to me they would have inverted the phrases and said “The records of the three tied teams against each other will be compared.” Maybe it’s ambiguous and I don’t know how it has been applied in the past, but I think the head-to-head reading is more strained.
First post. Let me ask why MSU needs a second loss for us to win the division. I’m not saying the following analysis is correct but I’d be curious to hear what’s wrong with it.
Suppose we win out (big if), OSU beats MSU (looking highly likely), and Penn State loses one of its remaining games (very unlikely but let’s assume).
Penn State would have three conference losses and be out of the picture. We would’ve tied with OSU and MSU with two conference losses each. The rule says that “[i]f three teams are tied,” you start by looking at “[t]he records of the three tied teams,” not in the division (a later step), but rather presumably as a whole.
This knocks out MSU thanks to their out of conference loss to Notre Dame. The rule goes on to say that “[i]f only two teams remain tied after any step,” which would be the case here after you filter for total record, “the winner of the game between the two tied teams” wins the division, which on our assumptions would be us, since we have to beat Ohio State to get to this scenario.
Again, I’m happy to be corrected on this. Just curious.
Go Blue
Recent Comments