|
Post by 5100 on Sept 7, 2006 21:10:19 GMT -5
hi, peeps. so is the klineman girl coming to uh next year? thanks, in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 7, 2006 21:11:14 GMT -5
"K?" <---- that's mine. Don't use it. K?
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 21:11:49 GMT -5
k.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 7, 2006 21:12:26 GMT -5
hi, peeps. so is the klineman girl coming to uh next year? thanks, in advance. You heard it here first. No one knows.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 7, 2006 21:37:40 GMT -5
But then we did have a long related discussion on this issue. We'd only be repeating our views. The sense I get is that the University of Hawaii athletic department is trying to avoid becoming a test case. This kind of litigation is expensive, and very few schools want to tick off the NCAA by suing them. Almost all the lawsuits against the NCAA I've seen have been by individuals. They're taking the prudent approach by trying to work within the rules as they stand.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 21:39:53 GMT -5
Yes, through moderation and common sense things will become workable.
|
|
|
Post by cdizzle on Sept 7, 2006 21:41:01 GMT -5
My understanding is that the NCAA could just punish the athletic department or the team for "lack of institutional control" by fining them or taking away scholarships. Although, it seems that schools usually will save the NCAA any trouble by punishing themselves if they catch wind of any NCAA investigation. As a side note, even students are not immune: last year the student section at Stanford basketball games caught wind that two prized recruits were coming and printed it in the bulletin, telling students to make signs welcoming them to The Farm. Fearing NCAA reprisal, the school banned the newsletter from being distributed at all of the remaining games.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 21:51:02 GMT -5
"Institutional control" may be feasible over student sections in athletic events. But my point is it should have no jurisdiction over private citizens (people with no official involvement with the schools). Try to quell them might be construed as violating civil rights (freedom of speech). Now if these private individuals should hoist signs encouraging a recruit to sign with their favorite team, it would be interesting to see if the school would try to stop them too.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 21:56:50 GMT -5
I noticed no school officials tried to stop the Wahine fans from doing that at SSC.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Sept 7, 2006 22:33:27 GMT -5
"Institutional control" may be feasible over student sections in athletic events. But my point is it should have no jurisdiction over private citizens (people with no official involvement with the schools). Try to quell them might be construed as violating civil rights (freedom of speech). Now if these private individuals should hoist signs encouraging a recruit to sign with their favorite team, it would be interesting to see if the school would try to stop them too. Free speech isn't absolute. Reasonable limits are permissible. (Bearclause touched on this...) Invoking a right of free speech doesn't hinge on whether someone is a private or public individual. It depends on where it is being invoked (and to an extent) for what purpose. The SSC isn't a public forum that is open to all. The typical public fora are public streets, parks, etc. The SSC just does not fall in this category. The fact that the SSC has restrictions on speech indicates that the arena has not been designated as a forum for free speech. And so, signs can be censored even if they're being held up by die-hard old ladies who bring leis for the players after every game.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Sept 7, 2006 22:46:01 GMT -5
One of the criteria for "booster" is one who has been involved, in any way, in the promotion of the respective school's athletic program. Once a booster, you're identified as a booster for life. This is vague and impossible to regulate. This can easily be challeneged in the court of law. Since there is no legal penalty for the alleged booster, I don't think there's an easy way to challenge it in court.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:34:54 GMT -5
But I would let the court and my attorneys decide; all I know as a recruit that I've been denied enrollment to an institution I chose to attend on my own free will. The institution should be penalized, but not in ways to flowover to me an innocent party. .
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Sept 7, 2006 23:49:46 GMT -5
But I would let the court and my attorneys decide; all I know as a recruit that I've been denied enrollment to an institution I chose to attend on my own free will. The institution should be penalized, but not in ways to flowover to me an innocent party. . Umm, I don't think the recruit would be denied the opportunity to enroll at the school of her choice. But the NCAA would be able to deny her the opportunity to participate in its organized sporting events.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:51:57 GMT -5
"Institutional control" may be feasible over student sections in athletic events. But my point is it should have no jurisdiction over private citizens (people with no official involvement with the schools). Try to quell them might be construed as violating civil rights (freedom of speech). Now if these private individuals should hoist signs encouraging a recruit to sign with their favorite team, it would be interesting to see if the school would try to stop them too. Free speech isn't absolute. Reasonable limits are permissible. (Bearclause touched on this...) Invoking a right of free speech doesn't hinge on whether someone is a private or public individual. It depends on where it is being invoked (and to an extent) for what purpose. The SSC isn't a public forum that is open to all. The typical public fora are public streets, parks, etc. The SSC just does not fall in this category. The fact that the SSC has restrictions on speech indicates that the arena has not been designated as a forum for free speech. And so, signs can be censored even if they're being held up by die-hard old ladies who bring leis for the players after every game. SSC is a public place, as it was funded by the taxpayers. Of course there should be controls over rowdiness. But free speech? The SSC has no exemption, it cannot deprive an individual of one of the most important civil rights- free speech.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:54:12 GMT -5
But I would let the court and my attorneys decide; all I know as a recruit that I've been denied enrollment to an institution I chose to attend on my own free will. The institution should be penalized, but not in ways to flowover to me an innocent party. . Umm, I don't think the recruit would be denied the opportunity to enroll at the school of her choice. But the NCAA would be able to deny her the opportunity to participate in its organized sporting events. Again the recruit becomes an innocent victim. I as the recruit would sue.
|
|