Paxton withdraws from University of Kentucky

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If the player does not like the NCAA regulations he can go JUCO or NAIA or go pro out of HS--it is really that simple

And when blacks didn't like the rules of not using white facilities, they could simply use those reserved for blacks.

Historically, the way rules, specifically those who some may argue affect any of our freedoms, get changed is by someone violating them.

The "rules are the rules" mantra has, in our country's history, been used most by those who are shown eventually, to be on the losing end.

Paxton didn't argue that the rule existed. He argued that it shouldn't.

Remember,after an Ohio court ruled against them in a previous and similar battle, NCAA settled their way out to avoid a more wide sweeping ruling.

Certainly Paxton won't be the last to challenge NCAA in this regard.

Curt Flood lost his battle, too. But it was the beginning of the end of the reserve clause. Although the final ruling did not cite Flood's arguments, his efforts encouraged those who followed.

It really is simple. Don't confuse what you feel is right or wrong with the right of a private organization to set it's own rules.
Adam Loewen was offered 2.7 million by the Orioles. He had an agent and they wanted 3.4 million. They didn't sign so he went to Chippola JC and eventually signed for 3.4 million. That is how it is done.
The NCAA has lots of rules we don't like but we are careful not to break them if we want to play for a NCAA team.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
It really is simple. Don't confuse what you feel is right or wrong with the right of a private organization to set it's own rules.
Adam Loewen was offered 2.7 million by the Orioles. He had an agent and they wanted 3.4 million. They didn't sign so he went to Chippola JC and eventually signed for 3.4 million. That is how it is done.
The NCAA has lots of rules we don't like but we are careful not to break them if we want to play for a NCAA team.

MLB was a private organization and even had congressional "permission" for some of their rules. They were, none-the-less forced to change them when challenged legally.

We can add to that the Elks Club, the Boy Scouts, Stanford University, various Railroad companies and numerous others.

It really is simple, rules get changed by those willing to pay the consequences of violating them.

quote:

Paxton didn't argue that the rule existed. He argued that it shouldn't.

Maybe he should have argued that before he broke the rule.

What about the right of people to enter into contracts.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If the player does not like the NCAA regulations he can go JUCO or NAIA or go pro out of HS--it is really that simple

And when blacks didn't like the rules of not using white facilities, they could simply use those reserved for blacks.

I find it hilarious when people used the utmost example of change in regard to freedom, as the benchmark for "fairness". If you want to compare the plight of the black man to the rights of a few premodonna athletes then you really have an issue on the realities and complexities of todays life. This happens all around us from family rules, to corporate rules, religious rules, and moral rules. It would be different if there were no other options, but, there are.

If I don't like the rules of my community, and my issues only affect only a few within the community I have a choice, abide by those rules, or move to a community that has different rules.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

quote:

Paxton didn't argue that the rule existed. He argued that it shouldn't.

Maybe he should have argued that before he broke the rule.

With some exceptions, courts normally require evidence of harm from the rule, law or situation before they will accept a suit.

quote:

What about the right of people to enter into contracts.

A similar argument was made by Bowie Kuhn.

People have every right ot enter into contracts. If they are legal, they are usually enforceable.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

[QUOte]I find it hilarious when people used the utmost example of change in regard to freedom, as the benchmark for "fairness". If you want to compare the plight of the black man to the rights of a few premodonna athletes then you really have an issue on the realities and complexities of todays life.

Was it hilarious when the reserve clause was compared to slavery? We may not feel as strongly when an rule allegedly affects freedoms when it isn't ours or doesn' affect a large class. However,that isn't a consideration.

Additionally, courts don't disregard cited cases becsuse they may have affected more people than the one being considered.

quote:

If I don't like the rules of my community, and my issues only affect only a few within the community I have a choice, abide by those rules, or move to a community that has different rules.

If you reside in the United States and if you feel the rules are illegal or infringe on your rights, you also have the choicing of fighting to change the rules. The normal first steo is to violate them.

Look, I am not saying that the rule is right or wrong or good or bad. I am arguing only against the ridiculous reliance on "the rule is the rule" as the justification for anything. People have the right to challenge rules, and thankfully we have long history of the courts being willing to listen.

quote:

With some exceptions, courts normally require evidence of harm from the rule, law or situation before they will accept a suit.

There is also a principle in law that you can't go forward and break a rule knowingly and claim foul after. Bearing that in mind is Paxton not the author of his own fate ?

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

quote:

With some exceptions, courts normally require evidence of harm from the rule, law or situation before they will accept a suit.

There is also a principle in law that you can't go forward and break a rule knowingly and claim foul after. Bearing that in mind is Paxton not the author of his own fate ?

That is not applied when the argument centers on "rights" Remember Rosa Parks? And courts have long ago ruled the an individual has the right not to have his access to gainful and appropriate employment for which he is qualified unreasonably hindered. Many so-called non-compete agreements have been voided because they violated this.

Simply having other choices is not an excuse to force someone to accept rules that are deemed to be inappropriate or illegal.

You will note that when a the people of a state approve a "proposition" by ballot, the losers have to wait until enforcement before they can file suit.

Of course Paxton is responsbile for his actions when he loses. That is part of the deal when violating a rule or law to test it. One must be willing to accept the conseqeunces of their actions.

Again...I don't know if this rule is good or bad, however I do know that Paxton has the right to challenge it. That's all I'm saying.

If you are referring to a test case you are right and if you lose you still end up in the penalty box.
The examples you use are totally different than the breaking of rules set by a private organization. Even the NCAA has to follow constitutional rights and legal precedents.
The court ruled against Paxton because he had a choice and the rule didn't breach his rights.
Equating the rights of races and for that matter Women, to a rule of eligibility set by the NCAA is inappropriate.
The argument of right or wrong is a separate issue.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

The court ruled against Paxton because he had a choice and the rule didn't breach his rights.
Equating the rights of races and for that matter Women, to a rule of eligibility set by the NCAA is inappropriate.
The argument of right or wrong is a separate issue.

The court ruled against Paxton because he had an appropriate and accceptable alternative. Not simply because I choice existed. There is a difference.

When I am suggesting is that should he pursue this, which it seems obvious that he will not, he still has options to argue, one being that the court erred in ruling his available choices were appropriate and equal.

Of course right and wrong are separate issues. They always are.

And if one is arguing a violation of any freedom, it is never inappropriate to equate it with civil rights. In fact it is quite common, acceptsble and expected.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Was it hilarious when the reserve clause was compared to slavery?
Could you look me straight in the eye and draw comparisons between the slavery of a human being, and the livelihood of a baseball player

I am arguing only against the ridiculous reliance on "the rule is the rule" as the justification for anything.
Are you arguing only because TR said it? He came back with a great alternative of If you dont like, it play somewhere else. Sometimes the KISS (keep it simple stupid) is the best way to explain and get a point across.

People have the right to challenge rules, and thankfully we have long history of the courts being willing to listen.
The rich feeding the rich in these cases IMO. Usually the ones with the money are the ones that try to end run the rules, trying to apply the laws that were applied for the real victims of our society. Those poor rich babies who feel so deprived

Only if you like paying legal bills. His case is doomed from the start and I am surprised anyone would take it unless it is Pro Bono. I doubt that using the words "Appropriate and equal" will be considered material enough to warrant an appeal.I am sure his Lawyers have told him it is over.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Was it hilarious when the reserve clause was compared to slavery?
Could you look me straight in the eye and draw comparisons between the slavery of a human being, and the livelihood of a baseball player

I could. There are a great many similarities to slavery and the reserve clause. Curt Flood looked everyone in the eye and made that argument, and he was black.

Just because one is more catastrophic and more broadly impactual, doesn't diminish the similarity of the other.

Why in the world would you categorize people who challenge rules in this society as rich poor babies? That's pretty revisionist of real history.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

The court ruled against Paxton because he had an appropriate and accceptable alternative.

All Paxton asked for was an injunction so that he didn't have to answer to the NCAA until after the season ended. So are you saying that he had a right (lawful) to wait to answer those questions? If the court had ruled in his favor, boy would they have opened a can of worms.

quote:

BTW, I do not think that any offer has to be made, this is just an incentive called a bonus to get one to give up their other opportunity. No where in son's first contract did it say what his signing bonus would be, that's only an addendum to the contract.

they have to offer a contract if they draft you. otherwise they'd just be tieing players up.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:

quote:

rz1 quote:
Could you look me straight in the eye and draw comparisons between the slavery of a human being, and the livelihood of a baseball player

I could. There are a great many similarities to slavery and the reserve clause. Curt Flood looked everyone in the eye and made that argument, and he was black.

I guess in a sense, me forcing my kids to shovel snow with the only payment being room-n-board could also be looked at as a form of slavery, and even a child labor law offense if turned at the right angle.

With the right colored glasses anything can have drawn comparisons

20Dad,
I thought that you meant $$.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
Why in the world would you categorize people who challenge rules in this society as rich poor babies? That's pretty revisionist of real history.

IMO cases like this I feel that the only societal winners are the elitists who can afford lawyers to stretch past law to write new laws that satisfies those within their own eco-groups

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
Why in the world would you categorize people who challenge rules in this society as rich poor babies? That's pretty revisionist of real history.

IMO cases like this I feel that the only societal winners are the elitists who can afford lawyers to stretch past law to write new laws that satisfies those within their own eco-groups

Cases like this? This is a case of an entity placing restrictions on a person for no apparent or good reason.

The reason our constitution requires representation for criminal matters is to insure that the less educated are entitled to have educated people defend them against educated people. It's a basic tenet of our sense of fairness as Americans. The NCAA's rule goes counter to everything that tenet stands for.

Does it mean that people may become more wealthy as result of overturning it? Probably. But why should that be the determining factor in whether we pursue fairness? If the old rule/law is unfair, it should be changed, regardless of societal winners. Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
Cases like this? This is a case of an entity placing restrictions on a person for no apparent or good reason.
The "no apparent reason" might be your opinion, but I wonder with the huge anti-NCAA faction out there why there has been no success changing the NCAA rules and regs. Do you think lawyers wanting change, have not been able to find legit loop hole that would force the courts hand? I don't know. I'm anti a lot of things, but not pro-NCAA I just don't see the problem due to alternatives at hand. A "student-athlete" is one thing an "aspiring pro" is another. IMO, The NCAA is trying to bring "academic credence" to the athletic dept and a black mark is the impression that an athletes can use college as a bargaining chip in regard to their personal pro career.

The reason our constitution requires representation for criminal matters is to insure that the less educated are entitled to have educated people defend them against educated people. It's a basic tenet of our sense of fairness as Americans.
I think you keyed it "criminal matters", which this scenario is not. Or, would you argue the NCAA is a criminal ? It's not only about "less educated", but also about the ability to afford representation. Besides, a defendant using a public defender is playing with the jv team when compared to a defendant with a big dollar lawyer. That "right" IMHO, in many cases, is nothing more than a smokescreen pretending to portray equal "justice for all".

Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason.
Maybe Justice should take a peek from to time to see whos pulling the wool over her eyes