I don't have any idea of the normal course here. Is it possible the NCAA smacks UofL then gives some of that ground back on appeal? Better said - I know it's possible - anyone with knowledge of the NCAA's enforcement proceedings know how likely it is?
Anyone know likelihood of success on appeal?
- Thread starter Mojocat
- Start date
Don't think it will fly. The NCAA said it wasn't the amount of money the benefits constituted it was the (horrid) nature of the benefits. Prostitution involving 17 yr old recruits parents dropped off and trusted they would be treated correctly. Hard to get around that AND rightfully so!
I don't really care. I just want to see a Louisville lawyer in court defending buying prostitutes for 17 year olds just to verify just what slimeballs they actually are for the world.
Well, until I heard what it would be, I didn't think it had a shot. But according to Howie Lindsey it will be that the impermissible benefits are being treated as Level 1 violations, which according to UL is unprecedented.
On the other hand, the NCAA has shown that they don't care about precedents.
On the other hand, the NCAA has shown that they don't care about precedents.
I'd say, there's a very slim chance they win.That F4 and Title banners are coming down
Untrue, they lost their appeals process twice and had to vacate 101 victories which was apart of the initial ruling.
I just found this in the NCAA Bylaws. I heard a couple of people on local radio speculating that maybe the Appeals Committee will see things differently, won't be so offended by the salacious nature of the acts, and go easier on UofL. But the standard of review is "abuse of discretion." Which means the Appeals Committee can only reverse the decision if the Infractions Committee really screwed up, either getting a material fact wrong or getting a rule wrong or screwing up procedurally. It's not like a mere difference of opinion as to what the appropriate penalty should be can save Louisville.
19.10.1.1 Penalties. A penalty prescribed by the hearing panel, including determinations regarding the existence and weighing of any aggravating or mitigating factors, shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that the panel abused its discretion. The Infractions Appeals Committee may affirm a penalty for any reason in the record. (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)
19.10.1.2 Findings and Conclusions. A hearing panel’s factual findings and its conclusion that one or more violations occurred shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that: (Adopted: 10/30/12, effective 8/1/13, Revised: 7/31/14)
1. A factual finding is clearly contrary to the information presented to the panel;
2. the facts found by the panel do not constitute a violation of the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
3. there was a procedural error and but for the error, the panel would not have made the finding or conclusion.
19.10.1.1 Penalties. A penalty prescribed by the hearing panel, including determinations regarding the existence and weighing of any aggravating or mitigating factors, shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that the panel abused its discretion. The Infractions Appeals Committee may affirm a penalty for any reason in the record. (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)
19.10.1.2 Findings and Conclusions. A hearing panel’s factual findings and its conclusion that one or more violations occurred shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that: (Adopted: 10/30/12, effective 8/1/13, Revised: 7/31/14)
1. A factual finding is clearly contrary to the information presented to the panel;
2. the facts found by the panel do not constitute a violation of the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
3. there was a procedural error and but for the error, the panel would not have made the finding or conclusion.
Last edited:
Legally, abuse of discretion is a high bar to reach. Don't see it here for sure.
They will only rule in favor of UL if there was something ruled incorrectly.
If you look at the violations and the ruling, it's cut and dry. Louisville will have to essentially argue that selling 17 year old recruits some prostitutes doesnt meet the appropriated punishment. Good luck with that.
Also, Louisville is doing what every program does. "We didn't know, doing this will only hurt the children" routine. That my friends is the call of a defeated program. For this reason strict liability was written, and to my knowledge only Duke has been given a pass pertaining to that.
I'd say the Ncaa just doesnt care enough about louisville to overturn this. Its a good credibility case for them, and a good situation to calm the carolina storm for now. Louisville overplayed their worth, they simply forgot that they are a small fish. The bcs bowl, heisman, 2013 title, inviation to the ACC, The yum center etc. Made them feel like Alabama and Kentucky, and the whole time they had never really left the basement.
If you look at the violations and the ruling, it's cut and dry. Louisville will have to essentially argue that selling 17 year old recruits some prostitutes doesnt meet the appropriated punishment. Good luck with that.
Also, Louisville is doing what every program does. "We didn't know, doing this will only hurt the children" routine. That my friends is the call of a defeated program. For this reason strict liability was written, and to my knowledge only Duke has been given a pass pertaining to that.
I'd say the Ncaa just doesnt care enough about louisville to overturn this. Its a good credibility case for them, and a good situation to calm the carolina storm for now. Louisville overplayed their worth, they simply forgot that they are a small fish. The bcs bowl, heisman, 2013 title, inviation to the ACC, The yum center etc. Made them feel like Alabama and Kentucky, and the whole time they had never really left the basement.
I'd say there's a better chance of the penalties getting worse after appeal than of them being lessened.
The appeals committee can only lessen the penalties, they cannot appropriate more punishment.
The ability of the committee to exercise discretion gives them a wide range of penalties they could impose. The committee cited to the Memphis 2010 and Syracuse 2015 case in the record when vacating UofLs wins. Both of those cases withstood appeals from the institutions.
So, yeah, it's a steep mountain to climb for the redbirds.
Maybe someone can chime in, but I dont believe appeals committees are designed to do anything more than agree with the findings or rule the punishment unfit.
Just for reference sake.
http://www.syracuse.com/orangebaske...ar_in_ncaa_appeal_still_must_vacate_wins.html
You are correct. I think the USC situation involved additional witnesses coming forward so the NCAA restarted their investigation process.
Thank you. I wasn't sure. Now if Andre McGee finally comes forward and cooperates with the NCAA appeal committee could that mean more penalties for UofL?
