Vassar's allegations

[Gladeskat]

Ah another accusation. Please tell me who I am supposed to be. Then please show me your proof.

I probably could if the posts in question haven't been deleted. But why bother? My curiosity has been entirely sated. I don't need proof to convince you that I'm correct, either.

I assume that my views aren't just not welcomed because I do not conform to your opinions and apparently those of our allies.

Not at all. We share similar thoughts on many issues and I enjoy your posts. You know that, too. You're one of my favorite posters and I'm glad you've toned things down after 2-3 bannings. I just find your creepy, stalky way of reporting on others you've seen at games to be, well, creepy.

It is a shame that a substantive thread is reduced to unfounded accusations about a poster and by such pillars of their community too.

LOL!

 

[NUCat320]

Can a mod rename this thread?
I'd suggest:
"Vassar's Allegations (and also Virginia and mikewebb and Glades' allegations)"

 

[Gladeskat]

Can a mod rename this thread?
I'd suggest:
"Vassar's Allegations (and also Virginia and mikewebb and Glades' allegations)"

Change that to "Glades' facts".

 

[YesterdaysCat]

I probably could if the posts in question haven't been deleted. But why bother? My curiosity has been entirely sated. I don't need proof to convince you that I'm correct, either.

Not at all. We share similar thoughts on many issues and I enjoy your posts. You know that, too. I just find your creepy, stalky way of reporting on others you've seen at games to be, well, creepy.

LOL!

You and your two friends here really, really have confused me with someone else. I won't be back. Not solely because of tonight's bizarre personal attack by mikewebb -- admittedly mostly but not solely--but partially due to you three and your 'intelligent design' of what makes an NU fan. It's all total agreement or 'you must be DocCats' or 'you're Purp.' You three really need to lease an apartment together and codify your definitions and come up with more old enemies that you have imagined every newish poster to be. It can be your Chasing Amy moment.

Bon soir!

 

[Gladeskat]

You and your two friends here really, really have confused me with someone else. I won't be back. Not solely because of tonight's bizarre personal attack by mikewebb -- admittedly mostly but not solely--but partially due to you three and your 'intelligent design' of what makes an NU fan. It's all total agreement or 'you must be DocCats' or 'you're Purp.' You three really need to a lease an apartment together and codify your definitions and come up with more old enemies that you have imagined every newish poster to be. It can be your Chasing Amy moment.

Bon soir!

LOL! I hope you come back under yet another handle. I do enjoy your posts. Just don't use "bon soir" or talk about "fan Intelligent design" in one of your first posts, OK?

 

[Medill90]

But he felt wronged because the benefits he was promised (training table, gym access, tutors, athletic trainers, prime class registration access, gear, as well as the intrinsic benefit of having a group and a team to being to) were revoked despite his abiding by the terms of the non-participant agreement.

The university accepts that he is not a member of the basketball team and so why does it have an obligation to offer benefits designed to facilitate participation on one of the school's teams to a non participant?

The complaint says that he wants to use these benefits so that he can continue to train and workout so that he can play elsewhere, presumably after getting his NU degree. But, does the university have a responsibility to provide support to students so that they can potentially play for a different university? If you want to play for a different university, take the money behind door number two and go play for a different university.

He could make the argument that he should also be allowed to work out and practice with the team. (perhaps he's made that argument)

He's either on the team or not on the team. The line has to be drawn somewhere and he certainly helped to draw that line with his tweet. I don't see a judge being sympathetic to that piece of it.

 

[thewildcat2011]

You guys are mostly getting the legal side of it mixed up with the NCAA side and the ethical side. The legal antitrust side basically rests on whether the one-year sit out rule unfairly restricts the market. The crux of that is whether schools actually said he could have a spot if he'd play immediately. There's a 0% chance any schools with a dept. worth anything would have written that, and I doubt JV recorded conversations with AD reps. So, legally, this case, much like a lot of the Hagens Berman transfer cases, will be a loser.

On the NCAA side, if they decide to investigate, the crux will be whether JV did anything to place him in bad standing with the dept. Asking to be able to transfer counts.

 

[NUCat320]

The university accepts that he is not a member of the basketball team and so why does it have an obligation to offer benefits designed to facilitate participation on one of the school's teams to a non participant?

The complaint says that he wants to use these benefits so that he can continue to train and workout so that he can play elsewhere, presumably after getting his NU degree. But, does the university have a responsibility to provide support to students so that they can potentially play for a different university? If you want to play for a different university, take the money behind door number two and go play for a different university.

He could make the argument that he should also be allowed to work out and practice with the team. (perhaps he's made that argument)

He's either on the team or not on the team. The line has to be drawn somewhere and he certainly helped to draw that line with his tweet. I don't see a judge being sympathetic to that piece of it.

By the CBS account, which is primarily Vassar's, the team asked him to leave, but allowed him to maintain his athletic scholarship. He abided by the terms of the agreement, and then they took it away.

When the team asked him to leave but maintained his scholarship, he no longer was under obligation to be on the team. NU's mistake was not converting him to academic scholarship immediately. They changed his terms, but not his 'payment'.

In other news, can you imagine how terrible that meeting must have been?
"Okay guys, everybody here? Team meeting time."
"Uhh, Coach, were missing someone."
"Johnnie, he's not here. We're talking about him."
(People weirded out, but what can you say?"
Coach continues: "So Johnnie, he sucks, right? And he's got a bad attitude right? And he's bringing us down with his garbage time minutes, right?
"Cool. Anybody disagree?" (Pauses)
(Nobody in the room says anything.)
"Okay. Cool then. He's off the team. Practice at 10 tomorrow. Study table tonight at 7. Johnnie will be there - please don't mention this to him."

I hope ccc can look back on that moment as a huge early mistake, and one that teaches him to be more judicious in his scholarship offers.

 

[thewildcat2011]

By the CBS account, which is primarily Vassar's, the team asked him to leave, but allowed him to maintain his athletic scholarship. He abided by the terms of the agreement, and then they took it away.

When the team asked him to leave but maintained his scholarship, he no longer was under obligation to be on the team. NU's mistake was not converting him to academic scholarship immediately. They changed his terms, but not his 'payment'.

In other news, can you imagine how terrible that meeting must have been?
"Okay guys, everybody here? Team meeting time."
"Uhh, Coach, were missing someone."
"Johnnie, he's not here. We're talking about him."
(People weirded out, but what can you say?"
Coach continues: "So Johnnie, he sucks, right? And he's got a bad attitude right? And he's bringing us down with his garbage time minutes, right?
"Cool. Anybody disagree?" (Pauses)
(Nobody in the room says anything.)
"Okay. Cool then. He's off the team. Practice at 10 tomorrow. Study table tonight at 7. Johnnie will be there - please don't mention this to him."

I hope ccc can look back on that moment as a huge early mistake, and one that teaches him to be more judicious in his scholarship offers.

You're making a crap ton of assumptions based on one side of the story.

 

[NUCat320]

You're making a crap ton of assumptions based on one side of the story.

I know. But could you *imagine* if a coach actually held a team meeting with 12 players to talk about the 13th?!

That would be such a colossal failure of leadership.

I assume the falsified documents exist - they must be intended as evidence. Those are a bad look for the university. And I assume he won his appeal, because that those words must appear on a judgment, along with the justification for the downgrade. The contradiction in terms of winning the appeal but losing the athletic scholarship seems another bad look.

 

[HawkCat]

It's a fascinating question.

The CBS story tells a fascinating story. In April of this year, NU revoked his athletic scholarship for non-compliance. He won his appeal before a Northwestern committee, the ruling issued in May. That is, NU actually said he was in the right. Concurrently, they downgraded his scholarship. So he won his appeal, just not what he was appealing for.
Oh.

Vassar met the terms of his non-participation agreement, but NU still chose to downgrade his scholarship.

We would need to know more about the appeal process before reaching any such conclusions. For example, it seems possible to me that the appeals board merely concluded that NU had not met its burden of proving that JV was the one who wrote his name on the time cards of other students in order to take credit for time he did not work. The board could certainly have reached that conclusion with making any factual finding about who falsified the cards--and without finding affirmatively that JV actually did not. Such a ruling may have been merely that NU failed to meet its burden of proof. That would not reflect the appeals board saying JV "was in the right."

Again, one would need to know more before reaching the conclusions folks are reaching here, based on hearing one side of the story.

 

[HawkCat]

I assume the falsified documents exist - they must be intended as evidence. Those are a bad look for the university. And I assume he won his appeal, because that those words must appear on a judgment, along with the justification for the downgrade. The contradiction in terms of winning the appeal but losing the athletic scholarship seems another bad look.

As you were writing this post, I was writing one of my own that explains how winning the appeal might not mean what you assume it means in terms of fact findings.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I know. But could you *imagine* if a coach actually held a team meeting with 12 players to talk about the 13th?!

That would be such a colossal failure of leadership.

I assume the falsified documents exist - they must be intended as evidence. Those are a bad look for the university. And I assume he won his appeal, because that those words must appear on a judgment, along with the justification for the downgrade. The contradiction in terms of winning the appeal but losing the athletic scholarship seems another bad look.

Here's what I'll say on this, mostly based on my (short) time spent clerking in a judge's chamber: there's a ton of timeline missing from JV's complaint. At one point, it jumps many months between two paragraphs. Usually when there's a ton of time missing from a complaint it means that there's stuff that happened in there that the plaintiff doesn't want you to know, but that ends up being extremely important in the end. If all you ever did was read complaints, no one would lose a law suit.

I definitely agree there's stuff in there that is a bad look for NU. I also definitely think all of it could be true and NU was completely in the wrong here...but something tells me there's more to it, and we'll see where that leads.

 

[NUCat320]

I've spent enough time on this in he past 24 hours - but it is ultimately so interesting that NU is being sued, because there is so little to gain from the university. All of the things that are listed (primo registration time, etc.) are benefits that will no longer be possible by the time the suit goes to trial. Even if he wins, he'd have been better off taking the hush money.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I've spent enough time on this in he past 24 hours - but it is ultimately so interesting that NU is being sued, because there is so little to gain from the university. All of the things that are listed (primo registration time, etc.) are benefits that will no longer be possible by the time the suit goes to trial. Even if he wins, he'd have been better off taking the hush money.

NU is really only tangentially being sued as a member of the NCAA. The target is the NCAA rule, and, honestly, all of that stuff about what NU did or didn't do to JV is legally irrelevant. This case makes more sense if you think about it as a cut and paste job by a law firm trying to build enough cases for a much bigger class action against the overall transfer system. Hagens Berman was also heavily involved in the concussion lawsuits against the NCAA.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Wrong. All NU scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years and have been for some time. Most other Big 10 schools adopted that practice, and it is now the rule for the Big 10.

No, I wasn't wrong; the great majority of NCAA scholarships are renewed annually, and four-year scholarships are the exception. I wasn't sure about the situation with NU, which is why I asked. It reflects well on the university and the Big Ten that they make this sort of commitment to the players.

 

[Deeringfish]

Non disclosure agreements.

Yes, this happens all the time even in churches. There is nothing illegal about it. "We like our reputation, here is $50,000.00. Sign here, don't talk about it or we will take it back."

 

[IGNORE2]

Yes, this happens all the time even in churches. There is nothing illegal about it. "We like our reputation, here is $50,000.00. Sign here, don't talk about it or we will take it back."

Sure, the Catholic Church is a prime example on the goodness of NDAs. Just ask your local choir boy.