S
seawaterland
Guest
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4489855">
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4489855</a>
"Johnson added that the NCAA Eligibility Center is "a wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit NCAA," which has no authority to communicate with student-athletes."
Well, they just did.
</p>
"Student-athletes, who are young, generally unsophisticated and unable to hire legal counsel, are being intimidated to give up all sorts of rights that no sane person would agree to do," Johnson said.
</p>
If they are "for profit" thats a whole different deal. That could get real expensive. Judges look at things different when you are a for profit business. They would be wise to prove something are punt.
If they have violated The civil rights of these baseball/basketball players , I could see a mass tort case. You talk about some money. Scruggs will be breaking out of jail for this one.
This is the same guy that did Sidney's interview today.
Hell UK or UCLA could be the <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">anonymous sources</span> .
If this is a for profit company, whose to say UK didn't grease the wheels to get Wall in, or keep Sidney out. Why did Reik get 9 games and Wall get one? Wall had to pay back more money. Why did Wall exibition game count and Riek didn't? This deal could easily be hidden under lawyer/ client privilage.
There is a reason this has been drawn out. I not sure what it is. But I know UM went after Jackie with NCAA invisigator in there pocket. Don't tell me Lawyers can't be bought.
This thing is stinking up the place.
I heard Wall got flew around to AAU games. NCAA does that count as Anonymous Source? This is Bull ****. </p>
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4489855</a>
"Johnson added that the NCAA Eligibility Center is "a wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit NCAA," which has no authority to communicate with student-athletes."
Well, they just did.
</p>
"Student-athletes, who are young, generally unsophisticated and unable to hire legal counsel, are being intimidated to give up all sorts of rights that no sane person would agree to do," Johnson said.
</p>
If they are "for profit" thats a whole different deal. That could get real expensive. Judges look at things different when you are a for profit business. They would be wise to prove something are punt.
If they have violated The civil rights of these baseball/basketball players , I could see a mass tort case. You talk about some money. Scruggs will be breaking out of jail for this one.
This is the same guy that did Sidney's interview today.
Hell UK or UCLA could be the <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">anonymous sources</span> .
If this is a for profit company, whose to say UK didn't grease the wheels to get Wall in, or keep Sidney out. Why did Reik get 9 games and Wall get one? Wall had to pay back more money. Why did Wall exibition game count and Riek didn't? This deal could easily be hidden under lawyer/ client privilage.
There is a reason this has been drawn out. I not sure what it is. But I know UM went after Jackie with NCAA invisigator in there pocket. Don't tell me Lawyers can't be bought.
This thing is stinking up the place.
I heard Wall got flew around to AAU games. NCAA does that count as Anonymous Source? This is Bull ****. </p>