IUFB forced a lot of people into a 180*. Pate picked against us every time. I get it's all about content and clicks vs. being right, but just sayin'...
I see Pate just dropped this too. I don't know about this guy lol.
https://twitter.com/JoshPateCFB/status/2025935480273932585?s=20
When a plaintiff (Moore) dismisses his own case, which is what happened here, he can do so with prejudice (which means he cannot refile the suit), or, with permission of the court, dismiss it without prejudice, which means he could refile the lawsuit. Neither scenario gives the defendant the right to resurrect the case. If the news reports are correct, the NCAA wants to appeal the court's granting of Moore's motion for a preliminary injunction even though the case has been dismissed. There are problems with this argument, and even if it is successful, there are numerous obstacles to it winning that appeal, and even more obstacles to any effort to vacate IU's wins.@812jmac legally they have and everyone has the right to an appeal as long as there is a legal basis. They’re arguing that the case shouldn’t have been rendered moot. They’re may not win, but you can’t just appeal because you didn’t like the outcome.
The NCAA fumbled all of this with inaction. We all saw NIL coming a mile away and they didn’t put in guardrails.
Couldn't read the ON3 story, so not sure I have the full story here., but from what I've read the NCAA didn't lose the case on the merits, so an 'appeal' would be premature.
As I understand matters, Moore's attorneys voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice, meaning it could be renewed by him or, presumably, continued by the NCAA to a conclusion.
What I don't understand is that there was originally already a 5 hour hearing on the matter. The Judge apparently had the option to make a ruling on the merits, but instead chose just to continue the injunction, and schedule another hearing for after the season. Why would they want to have another hearing before the same judge? Seems likely he'd rule against the NCAA.
What's also strange is that Moore and his attorneys have zero financial interest in going to court again. He's already won as far as they are concerned, from his perspective. The NCAA has an incentive to proceed with a trial so they have finality concerning the rule (unless they just want to drop their opposition, which doesn't appear to be the case).
While Moore has no financial stake in the outcome IU, and to a lesser extent, SDS and Memphis, sure do. If there is to be a trial, I would think IU would want to intervene to be named a party to the case, given that the school has now been threatened by the NCAA. IU could argue 2 points 1. Moore should win on the merits, and 2. IU, Memphis, and SDS had no legal right to deny participation to the players once the injunction/waivers were granted. To punish these affected schools under these circumstances would be arbitrary punishment/revenge in the extreme. Thus, the rule should only be confirmed to have effect going forward.
I understand the NCAA's desire to stand up for their rule. What I don't understand is why they want to punish IU, SDS, and Memphis. None of the Us were a party to the lawsuits. And as someone pointed out, the NCAA issued a blanket waiver of the rule for all players potentially affected for last season. Are these the only three players that benefitted from the waiver? If not, why wouldn't very school who benefited from the rule have to FF their wins? Also, would Vandy/Pavia be affected by a ruling favoring the NCAA? Was his case appealed? (Don't know...haven't looked at it that closely).
To me, the NCAA probably loses anyway, but I would think their best legal position would be to say we don't intend to enforce the rule for 2025-26, but only going forward. I thought that was the message they delivered with their waiver.
@janitor14 yeah, I’m not worried about them vacating IU’s wins. Thank you for the legal clarification though.
@tammany it’s February and the list did its thing…got you talking LOL
The NCAA opened the door for all this to happen by adding a Covid year. Perhaps it's that useless, clueless organization that should be punished.
@bucketgetter He's pretty well-known and just got an interview with the President. He's got the SEC/Southern bias, but I believe he grew up on FL. Pretty smart, funny and insightful. I'm not sure I'd recognize him on the street, but have known his name for awhile. He didn't say the IU fans recognized or knew him, just lauded us for being supportive and nice folks.
@kkott Correct. But he surely insinuated he was surprised they didn't give him more crap than they did (which was zero). It's about like me spouting on all the hot socials how i was shocked the Miami fans didn't yell obscenities in my direction at Hard Rock. 
@bucketgetter I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you have a well-known national podcast I don't know about and have the draw to get the President on it? So, no, it's not quite the same as you not getting crap from Miami fans, as Josh not taking heat from IU fans. Many may not recognize him, but many also did, especially the folks running in and around his hotel and circles. Just like all these guys, he has to have a persona for his show and his certainly has a preference for southern football, but he also is pretty honest about being wrong and making fun of himself like with the clown nose. I think he's more open and honest than say, Brandon Walker, who has the same southern bias, but I think is slower to admit the B10 has surpassed the SEC. Heck, look at Pate's coaches rankings above. 3 of the top 4 are B10 teams.
IUFB forced a lot of people into a 180*. Pate picked against us every time. I get it's all about content and clicks vs. being right, but just sayin'...
I see Pate just dropped this too. I don't know about this guy lol.
https://twitter.com/JoshPateCFB/status/2025935480273932585?s=20
I think putting Ryan Day at #1 is hard to prove/argue.
The only place Day has been a head coach is Ohio State. Even an average coach should be able to win with all the advantages that entails.
It is clear that Day isn't a bad coach but there is no data to say where he falls between average and great because he is with a program that could literally go on cruise control due to the talent.
Everyone thought Bill Bilecheck was God's gift to NFL coaching but he didn't accomplish much of anything post-Tom Brady. How well would Day have done if he took over IU in 2024?
That said, Day MAY be great, he may not but no one knows because OSU has a talent advantage in 90% of their games.
@hurryinghoosiers They are all hard to prove/argue. Personally, I don't believe anyone could have come in and engineered a turnaround at IU like Cig has done. I think it's the best 2 year coaching job ever, and don't think it's really close. I'm primarily saying that because he did it at IU, and not one of the traditional powers. But, I think it's fair to have Cig at #3 behind those guys, that's still great company. I also agree with you on Day. If I was ranking I'd have Kirby #1, because he's done it for longer, then Day and then Cig.
But, I'm making the assumption that he's looking at the complete body of work, because otherwise, how could you not have Cig #1, if it was just for this moment?
@hurryinghoosiers They are all hard to prove/argue. Personally, I don't believe anyone could have come in and engineered a turnaround at IU like Cig has done. I think it's the best 2 year coaching job ever, and don't think it's really close. I'm primarily saying that because he did it at IU, and not one of the traditional powers. But, I think it's fair to have Cig at #3 behind those guys, that's still great company. I also agree with you on Day. If I was ranking I'd have Kirby #1, because he's done it for longer, then Day and then Cig.
But, I'm making the assumption that he's looking at the complete body of work, because otherwise, how could you not have Cig #1, if it was just for this moment?
I don't think they are all hard to prove/argue or at least not to the same level. Although prove may not be the right term since it is all opinion.
Coaches that have entered bad situations and turned them around (like Cig) are much easier to argue. The only counter (weak one at that) for Cigs would be saying "well, he has had the same assistants for a long time, one of them may actually be the reason for success" (similar to when Allen did well when he had top notch coordinators for a short period of time but faltered with more questionable coordinators).
Of course choosing and keeping the right guys is a huge part of an HC’s success.@hurryinghoosiers They are all hard to prove/argue. Personally, I don't believe anyone could have come in and engineered a turnaround at IU like Cig has done. I think it's the best 2 year coaching job ever, and don't think it's really close. I'm primarily saying that because he did it at IU, and not one of the traditional powers. But, I think it's fair to have Cig at #3 behind those guys, that's still great company. I also agree with you on Day. If I was ranking I'd have Kirby #1, because he's done it for longer, then Day and then Cig.
But, I'm making the assumption that he's looking at the complete body of work, because otherwise, how could you not have Cig #1, if it was just for this moment?
I don't think they are all hard to prove/argue or at least not to the same level. Although prove may not be the right term since it is all opinion.
Coaches that have entered bad situations and turned them around (like Cig) are much easier to argue. The only counter (weak one at that) for Cigs would be saying "well, he has had the same assistants for a long time, one of them may actually be the reason for success" (similar to when Allen did well when he had top notch coordinators for a short period of time but faltered with more questionable coordinators).
Of course choosing and keeping the right guys is a huge part of an HC’s success.@hurryinghoosiers They are all hard to prove/argue. Personally, I don't believe anyone could have come in and engineered a turnaround at IU like Cig has done. I think it's the best 2 year coaching job ever, and don't think it's really close. I'm primarily saying that because he did it at IU, and not one of the traditional powers. But, I think it's fair to have Cig at #3 behind those guys, that's still great company. I also agree with you on Day. If I was ranking I'd have Kirby #1, because he's done it for longer, then Day and then Cig.
But, I'm making the assumption that he's looking at the complete body of work, because otherwise, how could you not have Cig #1, if it was just for this moment?
I don't think they are all hard to prove/argue or at least not to the same level. Although prove may not be the right term since it is all opinion.
Coaches that have entered bad situations and turned them around (like Cig) are much easier to argue. The only counter (weak one at that) for Cigs would be saying "well, he has had the same assistants for a long time, one of them may actually be the reason for success" (similar to when Allen did well when he had top notch coordinators for a short period of time but faltered with more questionable coordinators).
Yup. It would be interesting to see an alternate reality where IU paid DeBoer and Wommack whatever it took to get them to stay and had given Allen the same resources to keep a staff together.
Would we have done well enough to stick with Allen or would it have eventually faltered anyway? Would have to think he would have been above .500 regularly and made it harder to make the switch (back then, most would have been happy with over .500). Allen obviously isn't anywhere near the head coach that Cigs is so cutting bait on Allen worked out well for us in the long run.
Latest Post: Live Thread: Big Ten Tournament (Indiana vs. Northwestern) Our newest member: Joel Wonder Recent Posts Unread Posts
