Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Title IX violations


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#76 Eli

Eli

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:29 AM

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 


Edited by Eli, 28 December 2017 - 09:31 AM.

GO DANES!!!


#77 dslyank

dslyank

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:42 AM

 

 

For you lawyers out there:  According to the article, the judge sent the case back to state court, which Graham says he actually never really filed? So it appears the judge is waiting a "week" for the state to rule on a case that they do not even have? What does this all mean or is the article typical TU bad reporting????

 

Also, still interested if anyone knows what UA's response/remedy to the ncca was/is or even if it was ever made????????



#78 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 02:28 PM

 

 

 

For you lawyers out there:  According to the article, the judge sent the case back to state court, which Graham says he actually never really filed? So it appears the judge is waiting a "week" for the state to rule on a case that they do not even have? What does this all mean or is the article typical TU bad reporting????

 

Also, still interested if anyone knows what UA's response/remedy to the ncca was/is or even if it was ever made????????

 

 

I just spoke directly with someone that was in the courtroom for the hearing as an observer (they're from the Binghamton area and had a law student visiting them. Thought it would be "fun.") 

 

The judge did NOT send it back to state court.  The attorney representing UAlbany claimed that the case had been ruled on in state court which would mean that he (Fed judge) wouldn't have jurisdiction. He was giving both sides a change to respond before he issues his ruling on the injunction.   

 

Plaintiff's attorney has 7 days to file a brief explaining that they did not actually file in state court and therefore the Fed Court has jurisdiction.  State has 7 days to respond. Judge stated from the bench that he would then issue a ruling on jurisdiction and injunction at the same time.

 

Apparently the the judge said that he couldn't find anything to indicated that it had been ruled on previously but he wanted to make certain before issuing his ruling.

 

Feedback from the observer was that it came at the last minute like the attorney for UAlbany was scrambling and trying to come up with a way to delay things. And that he had presented something the Fed Judge said didn't have anyone's signature on it (state court judge?). There was some question about why it wasn't included when the school originally responded to the plaintiff's motion.

 

Here's the thing - you can check online as to whether the case was done in state court. Hell, I did. If the online system is accurate, UAlbany is really really screwed. It's not good to waste a judge's time.  


Edited by kikuria, 28 December 2017 - 02:47 PM.


#79 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 02:43 PM

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.



#80 Clickclack

Clickclack

    BPF Bracket Challenge Winner

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,768 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 03:09 PM

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4697236

 

I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?

 

We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost? 


Edited by Clickclack, 28 December 2017 - 03:11 PM.


#81 Eli

Eli

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 03:10 PM

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

 

We definitely screwed the pooch. BIG time. Clack's post makes you scratch your head...what is the school doing? So many blunders. So many.

And my point wasn't anti-tennis at the same time either...if we must re-instate the sport; fine. Bring it back. But do it without Graham. I would be willing to bet that if the sport wasn't cut, Graham would have kept quiet even though he knew the school was in violation. As soon as HIS sport was cut, he got all cranky and here we are. THAT is what, in my opinion, makes him a whiner/loser. Dude is just mad that HIS stuff got cut and he can't find a job elsewhere so he's trying to create himself a job by having the program re-instated. This doesn't excuse Benson or others from the issue (it IS an issue). We need to correct this. PRONTO.


Edited by Eli, 28 December 2017 - 03:12 PM.

GO DANES!!!


#82 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 08:00 PM

 

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4697236

 

I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?

 

We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost? 

 

 

I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.

 

Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program.  If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. 

 

Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit.  If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made.  Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.

 

Please someone talk some sense into Benson.


Edited by kikuria, 28 December 2017 - 08:01 PM.


#83 Dane96

Dane96

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,799 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 08:02 PM

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.
EDIT: Yep, I/we did:
 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.
 
Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.
 
The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.
Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,
and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 
I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.
 
I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.
 
Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  
 
Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
 
tenor.gif?itemid=4697236
 
I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?
 
We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?
I woundt jump the gun and attack UA on any legal procedures. This is the Assistant Attorney General for New York State that is defending the case...not a UA attorney. All matters against a state entity are generally litigated but he AGs office.

And, Kikurias statements are not entirely accurate from a procedural standpoint.

Let this play out and see what happens. I would guess there will be some middle ground decision made here unless it was completely nefarious in how this played out.

Edited by Dane96, 28 December 2017 - 08:06 PM.


#84 Dane96

Dane96

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,799 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 08:04 PM

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.
EDIT: Yep, I/we did:
 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.
 
Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.
 
The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.
Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,
and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 
I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.
 
I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.
 
Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  
 
Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
 
tenor.gif?itemid=4697236
 
I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?
 
We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?
 
I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.
 
Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program.  If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. 
 
Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit.  If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made.  Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.
 
Please someone talk some sense into Benson.

Completely inaccurate on so many levels.

1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever.
2. Benson doesn’t have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.’s office.

Everyone take a damn breath.

And no, I’m not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...let’s not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room.
  • Eli likes this

#85 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 08:08 PM

 

 

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.
EDIT: Yep, I/we did:
 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.
 
Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.
 
The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.
Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,
and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 
I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.
 
I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.
 
Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  
 
Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
 
tenor.gif?itemid=4697236
 
I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?
 
We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?
 
I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.
 
Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program.  If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. 
 
Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit.  If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made.  Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.
 
Please someone talk some sense into Benson.

Completely inaccurate on so many levels.

1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever.
2. Benson doesn’t have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.’s office.

Everyone take a damn breath.

And no, I’m not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...let’s not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room.

 

 

 

Benson and company have complete control over whether this continues forward.  They are the named defendants.   They tell the AG's office to settle and it's done. 

 

I take no issue if anything that I stated needs to be corrected. Would rather have accuracy than anything else so please share if you have something specific in mind.  But I think you would correct on at least one aspect - I left out showing an irreparable harm.  I think we could probably agree that not being able to play this spring would be, by definition, irreparable. 


Edited by kikuria, 28 December 2017 - 08:17 PM.


#86 Dane96

Dane96

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,799 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 08:46 PM


 

 

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.
EDIT: Yep, I/we did:
 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.
 
Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.
 
The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.
Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,
and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 
I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.
 
I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.
 
Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  
 
Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
 
tenor.gif?itemid=4697236
 
I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?
 
We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?
 
I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.
 
Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program.  If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. 
 
Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit.  If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made.  Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.
 
Please someone talk some sense into Benson.
Completely inaccurate on so many levels.

1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever.
2. Benson doesnt have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.s office.

Everyone take a damn breath.

And no, Im not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...lets not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room.
 
 
 
Benson and company have complete control over whether this continues forward.  They are the named defendants.   They tell the AG's office to settle and it's done. 
 
I take no issue if anything that I stated needs to be corrected. Would rather have accuracy than anything else so please share if you have something specific in mind.  But I think you would correct on at least one aspect - I left out showing an irreparable harm.  I think we could probably agree that not being able to play this spring would be, by definition, irreparable. 
You're completely wrong on both what the injunction means (and why it may be given) and on what entity controls this case.

Edited by Dane96, 28 December 2017 - 08:47 PM.


#87 MRSGDG

MRSGDG

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,870 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:40 PM

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.
EDIT: Yep, I/we did:
 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.
 
Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.
 
The school year was over.  The students weren't thrown out on the street.
Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash.  He's throwing a hissy fit,
and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 
I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.
 
I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.
 
Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right?  Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.  
 
Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.  
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
 
tenor.gif?itemid=4697236
 
I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?
 
We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?
 
I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.
 
Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program.  If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. 
 
Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit.  If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made.  Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.
 
Please someone talk some sense into Benson.
Completely inaccurate on so many levels.

1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever.
2. Benson doesnt have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.s office.

Everyone take a damn breath.

And no, Im not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...lets not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room.
How do you know this is an AG case?

I work for a state agency and when we go to court our agency counsel is in charge not the AG at at our agency law suits.

Edited by MRSGDG, 28 December 2017 - 09:40 PM.


#88 Dane96

Dane96

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,799 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 10:07 PM

The article states it is the AAG Mark Mitchell who is defending UA.

 

The AG's office sole purpose (other than clerical items listed in the State Constitution) is to defend both the State and the people of the State.  As such, the AG's office has the sole discretion to choose when they would like to intervene on a particular case that lists the State as a defendant.  As an arm of a State Agency (SUNY), a claim against UA as a defendant is actually a claim against the State.  

 

You are correct, in most instances (NY and MA follow similar laws and I was an Associate General Counsel for a major MA agency)  in-house agency lawyers will often times go to court.  However, in cases involving high stakes (whether it be media coverage, politics, monetary claims, or new precedent) you will often see the AG's office step in.

 

Under NY law, generally the DA's (District Attorneys) deal with the local cases.  However, this case fits the high-profile concept on many levels, including the fact that the State needs to defend itself in a claim that the State violated Federal Law.

 

So, if the TU reported this improperly (about Mark Mitchell being an AAG) then I stand corrected.  But the above is factually correct from a procedural standpoint.


Edited by Dane96, 28 December 2017 - 10:15 PM.

  • Eli likes this

#89 UAalum72

UAalum72

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts

Posted 28 December 2017 - 10:29 PM

This thread wins a Major Award for most embedded quotes per post

 

41i4pHWCUiL._AC_US327_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg



#90 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 29 December 2017 - 07:00 AM

The article states it is the AAG Mark Mitchell who is defending UA.

 

The AG's office sole purpose (other than clerical items listed in the State Constitution) is to defend both the State and the people of the State.  As such, the AG's office has the sole discretion to choose when they would like to intervene on a particular case that lists the State as a defendant.  As an arm of a State Agency (SUNY), a claim against UA as a defendant is actually a claim against the State.  

 

You are correct, in most instances (NY and MA follow similar laws and I was an Associate General Counsel for a major MA agency)  in-house agency lawyers will often times go to court.  However, in cases involving high stakes (whether it be media coverage, politics, monetary claims, or new precedent) you will often see the AG's office step in.

 

Under NY law, generally the DA's (District Attorneys) deal with the local cases.  However, this case fits the high-profile concept on many levels, including the fact that the State needs to defend itself in a claim that the State violated Federal Law.

 

So, if the TU reported this improperly (about Mark Mitchell being an AAG) then I stand corrected.  But the above is factually correct from a procedural standpoint.

 

No disputes on the AAG and their purposes. Standard procedure in face.  But Benson is named personally in this case rather than just in his capacity at A.D. None of this negates the fact that the individual campuses and individuals have the ability, if not the desire, to settle the case.  Another way to say it - a  settlement would not be negotiated without them (unless they are terminated.)

 

The crux of my point is that Benson and company need to get this thing settled. Doubling down is ego driven at best.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users