I am curious as to why the irreparable harm can be identified or quantified and why it is specific to the student athlete. Is there no consideration to the university at all? Seems these judgments can impact a university. And that impact could easily be for a decade. As for the student athlete, there are many intangibles. Talent in itself is not quantifiable. For example, would Jalin Hyatt have won the Bilitnikoff at ANY school? And what impact did that have on his earnings at the next level? What needs to happen is a class action lawsuit with every player that sat 1 game due to delays at the NCAA. And the attorneys need to bring in lost post season revenue due to punitive actions and explain that the loss is not quantifiable to said university nor is the gain to any university who benefited from said university’s fail to participate or gain. And for that matter, throw in the recruiting impact of the result of any unfair punitive action and that impact on the university’s recruiting, on the field success, recruiting impact, and the impact on players that missed opportunities to play in high profile games. I see no reason to believe this is all beyond quantifiable. For that reason a TRO was justified however the injunction is more critical. And, if I am the attorney ( who is scorched earth intense) I would recruit other power 2 universities to threaten some heat. If I’m UT, I say join us or get exposed. but remember, I would never have resided at the Woodlands
To be clear all I was trying to do re: the irreparable harm discussions in preceding pages was to call our attention to the fact that it was one of the hurdles the AG had to prove to get the Temporary Restraining Order. There may have been other hurdles, like the time between the TRO and the actual Injunction case. I just don't know. I don't know if this what you meant to write, "I see no reason to believe this is all beyond quantifiable.", or if there was a typo. But if you did mean it, the AG had to prove that the harm was so great that it was beyond quantifiable. There is also the issue of the time between the TRO hearing and the Feb 13 hearing. I don't know what the law states regarding the time, but when it is short, like this case, I expect that is another hurdle. It seems, some of this TRO burden has bleed over into the actual injunction filing and the bigger picture. The AGs were smart to file the TRO, win or lose. The bigger picture, being many of the things and potential liabilities you describe. These things are most likely the things not said out loud and are what others have been trying to convey to the NCAA. By attacking UT, they have brought all these potential liabilities and NCAA incompetence to the surface rather focusing on a solution that benefits the student-athletes. I think it is interesting that the NCAA has yet to formally present UT with a Notice of Aligations. As they say, "The shits about to get real."
As far as the bolded, we will just have to disagree. You cannot prove me any more wrong than I can prove you. That's fine. I believe you are incorrect. You believe I am incorrect. So be it. As far as the rest, none of it pertains to anything I have posted concerning the ruling on the restraining order.
The NCAA hasn’t punished us yet. They haven’t even made a formal declaration that an investigation is happening. Tennessee is free to continue doing what they have been doing as far as a judge might see it. I guess you could argue that the leak could cause damage but other than that, I don’t see much there to support the TRO. It was worth a shot and serves as a way to keep it in the news for a longer period leading up the hearing. I think that was part of the strategy as well. Also gives some insight into what the judge is thinking.
I will admit to being somewhat obtuse and naive in the whole realm of interwebz discourse. I was not trying to prove you "incorrect" or me "correct". That was not my intent. If it came across that way, then I need to work on my delivery. I was trying to present the legal reasons as to "why" I thought we lost the TRO case and answers to your questions as to bad and correct. My take away is, I think the TRO ruling was "correct" (OK) given the context and you think the TRO ruling was "incorrect" (not OK) despite the context. And we are both OK with our respective POVs. As far as the unbolded stuff, you did ask me if I thought the ruling was bad. I was trying to simply respond to it/restate it and other stuff that you had brought up in the "replied to" and previous posts. That being said, the ruling on the preliminary injunction, (Feb 13?), will be interesting. I suspect AGs will do better. At least I hope they do. @SetVol13 I understood your post and thought it was germane to the TRO ruling/discussion Then again that understanding may not be very useful or sought after. As I admitted previously, I am naive to the ways of the interwebz convos.
It's the last stand. I'm glad the University of Tennessee athletics program has a history of being treated fairly in all situations.
I'm going to go ahead and suggest they have too much money if they can bring that many lawyers to Greeneville, TN for a preliminary injunction hearing. Where is that money coming from, if not the labor and NIL of the student athletes?
They have 38 on another suit somewhere else. Way too many to make sense. You don't need 15 lawyers if you have a good argument.
How could they? You come in with a gaggle, then there is no coherent message. We're just seeing them use up their dragon horde on the way out.
Cadre of attorneys in the courtroom is just a tactic. Like lowering all the chairs, except yours and your team, around a conference table during negotiations, etc. And/or each attorney is assigned to a narrow piece of the case and will hand info (references, etc) to mouthpiece (lead) attorney as needed. This tells me that NCAA does not feel comfortable in their grasp or their argument on the issue. And/or are trying to cover all perceived bases and obfuscate with various arguments and legal "data". It should not be overlooked that the NCAA has not submitted a formal Letter of Allegations to UT (or any others on their NIL list). We'll see how prepared and competent the Tennessee and Virginia Attorneys General are.
