I have never seen a lawsuit against the NCAA as being realistic or even wise. Still probably hold to that position but there is a line in the ruling which is interesting. Something along the lines of self reporting only being mitigating if the institution had in place a policy to discover and/or prohibit the wrongdoing. That invites the question what policy could MU have had in place to,have accomplished that.
What policy did the NCAA recommend that MU failed to implement to discover what a few people do it secret? What do other member institutions have in place to satisfy that requirement? The report introduces that as a issue and to me invites the question. Maybe there is an easy answer but I am somewhat doubting that. Maybe I am misreading that but that's the way I read it. How can you deny MU the benefits of mitigating circumstances based on something in theory they can't truly articulate let alone point to. That is a necessary element of breach in the law. Absent that then it is strict liability and their own language indicates this is not strict liability .
It is said there is nothing like God on earth like a general on the battlefield. A close second is a federal judge in their courtroom. The right judge might take a close look at this. (Venue in the 9th Circuit?)
Maybe there is an easy answer but I have looked for it and can't find it. That is at least the basis of a lawsuit. Not pleading the NCAA is corrupt yadad yada but using their own language and showing they aren't properly applying it. Probably tilting at windmills but that could be an opening that demands an answer.
One last thing after reading further. This review like most appeals seems to defer to the lower tribunal and only overturns on lack of evidentiary foundation, abuse of discretion etc. Some appeals are de novo which means the reviewing panel rules without giving any deference to the earlier finding. Thus theoretically everyone one of the people on the appeals panel could have felt they would have ruled differently if it was up to them but didn't find a basis to overturn the earlier ruling based on their standard of review.
What policy did the NCAA recommend that MU failed to implement to discover what a few people do it secret? What do other member institutions have in place to satisfy that requirement? The report introduces that as a issue and to me invites the question. Maybe there is an easy answer but I am somewhat doubting that. Maybe I am misreading that but that's the way I read it. How can you deny MU the benefits of mitigating circumstances based on something in theory they can't truly articulate let alone point to. That is a necessary element of breach in the law. Absent that then it is strict liability and their own language indicates this is not strict liability .
It is said there is nothing like God on earth like a general on the battlefield. A close second is a federal judge in their courtroom. The right judge might take a close look at this. (Venue in the 9th Circuit?)
Maybe there is an easy answer but I have looked for it and can't find it. That is at least the basis of a lawsuit. Not pleading the NCAA is corrupt yadad yada but using their own language and showing they aren't properly applying it. Probably tilting at windmills but that could be an opening that demands an answer.
One last thing after reading further. This review like most appeals seems to defer to the lower tribunal and only overturns on lack of evidentiary foundation, abuse of discretion etc. Some appeals are de novo which means the reviewing panel rules without giving any deference to the earlier finding. Thus theoretically everyone one of the people on the appeals panel could have felt they would have ruled differently if it was up to them but didn't find a basis to overturn the earlier ruling based on their standard of review.
