Marvin Mitchell

[OldVol]

I certainly don't need debate tips from you. It is your typical tactic to make these broad generalizations of how not bowing mindlessly to authority is terrible, then, when confronted with examples that show that premise to be asinine, you say the person who disagrees is overreaching. I would love to know what your legal background is. You make these proclamations as to things courts have ruled, when in fact they have never addressed such issues. The Courts have never been asked to classify college football in any manner, GAME or otherwise. Maurice Clarett's suit was against the NFL, it had absolutely nothing to do with college football. It was simply a dispute as to the degree to which the NFL could regulate their workplace.

A tip: Actually use court decisions for the propositions they address, not those you simply wish to vindicate.

Wrong.

The courts have decided, by virtue of the Clarett vs. NFL case that the NFL may indeed limit their age of draft which does embrace previous court decisions that apply.

Just because you don't agree with them, or perhaps don't understand them, or are obviously just unaware of since you state the courts have "Never addressed such issues."

Since Clarett was unable to return to Ohio State, should he have desired, once seeking relief from the court. I guess that would bring institutions under the umbrella of the ruling, as it relates to what a student athlete can and cannot do in regards to seeking employment in the NFL as it relates to eligibility.

Perhaps you should consider the 70 some-year old ruling of the courts regarding Major League Baseball.

If you could grasp an understanding of the underlying principles in that ruling you would understand why there is a vast gulf between sport and commerce. Then, attempt to explain why the court’s position regarding baseball is different from all other professional sports.

Attempting to explain this to you would probably be futile.

 

[OldVol]

Oldvol...in light of the Henderson and Mitchell debacles concerning discipine....i went to ESPN.com and clicked on the college football page....

here's thier list of headlines:
• No horse play: Ohio football player charged for hit
• Shula gets new deal worth $1.55M a year at Alabama
• Former New Mexico coach Weeks dies at 76
• Carroll on possible penalties: 'I'm not concerned'
• Mississippi State to reinstate six suspended for assault
• Hawkins' son will compete for Colorado QB spot
• Sooners fullback Zaslaw arrested on misdemeanors
• Man charged in Alabama under sports agent law

Now, strictly from a PR standpoint, this is a Wed. in May...and 5 of the 8 stores are about football players or programs getting in to trouble.

this is why i feel the way i do....they are held to higher standard and should be...the exposure is so much greater these days....

If being more visible is your point, then I agree. But, I also believe, without being to redundant, that the cases must be handled similarly. I know they aren't always, and I believe it is because of the reasons you state. But there can be challenges if kids decide their treatment is discriminatory.

The Duke case was a very odd one. The media just went crazy over this. I've never seen a case that brought out such varying points of view and such heated opinion from the media.

And it could set a dangerous precedent for Duke athletics.

 

[jakez4ut]

If being more visible is your point, then I agree. But, I also believe, without being to redundant, that the cases must be handled similarly. I know they aren't always, and I believe it is because of the reasons you state. But there can be challenges if kids decide their treatment is discriminatory.

The Duke case was a very odd one. The media just went crazy over this. I've never seen a case that brought out such varying points of view and such heated opinion from the media.

And it could set a dangerous precedent for Duke athletics.

agreed.

 

[therealUT]

You probably know as much as anyone. I was disappointed to find out that he was out at 3:37 am at the strip with alcohol on his breath. CPF better get involved quickly and put a stop to this nonsense.

CPF needs to throw his weight around and get the Knoxville Police to chill out. Who doesn't have alcohol on their breath at 3:37 am, especially on the Strip? Last I checked, Marvin Mitchell was 21.

 

[OldVol]

CPF needs to throw his weight around and get the Knoxville Police to chill out. Who doesn't have alcohol on their breath at 3:37 am, especially on the Strip? Last I checked, Marvin Mitchell was 21.

I just wish our kids could come to grips with the fact that they are going to be scrutinized more than anyone else in Knoxville. I know that's not fair, but it doesn't hurt to walk away for the better of the team.

That's a principle they need to adhere to.

 

[therealUT]

I disagree. I understand that collegiate athletes are held to a higher standard than other college students, but that does not make it right. The NCAA is cracking down on drinking incidents because the NCAA is anti-alcohol (NCAA sanctioned events are dry, and the NCAA is curbing beer ads for the 2006 seasons.) I think it is wrong that just because the NCAA views drinking as wrong, they are forcing others to believe the same way.

 

[hatvol96]

Wrong.

The courts have decided, by virtue of the Clarett vs. NFL case that the NFL may indeed limit their age of draft which does embrace previous court decisions that apply.

Just because you don't agree with them, or perhaps don't understand them, or are obviously just unaware of since you state the courts have "Never addressed such issues."

Since Clarett was unable to return to Ohio State, should he have desired, once seeking relief from the court. I guess that would bring institutions under the umbrella of the ruling, as it relates to what a student athlete can and cannot do in regards to seeking employment in the NFL as it relates to eligibility.

Perhaps you should consider the 70 some-year old ruling of the courts regarding Major League Baseball.

If you could grasp an understanding of the underlying principles in that ruling you would understand why there is a vast gulf between sport and commerce. Then, attempt to explain why the court’s position regarding baseball is different from all other professional sports.

Attempting to explain this to you would probably be futile.

Given that I am a cum laude JD from the University you hold in such high esteem, I'm confident I have a far greater grasp of the legal principles involved than you possess. First, Ohio State was not a party, nor did Maurice Clarrett seek reinstatement. If you knew your legal history, the ruling in the baseball case you cite is arguably the most ridiculed case currently not completely overturned. Antitrust exemption, such as that given to baseball, has been denied to the NFL and all other professional sports leagues. That why Al Davis is able to sue, and defeat, the NFL on a regular basis. The key portion of the "baseball as pastime" ruling, the reserve clause, has already been abolished. The simple difference between the baseball ruling and all other rulings is timing. The baseball decision was rendered at a time when sport was a quaint distraction. If you notice, everytime Congress or the Union really threaten the MLB owners with a challenge to that decision, the owners cave. Why? They know the precedential value of the decision is nonexistant. It is a relic of a simpler, stupider America.

 

[OldVol]

I disagree. I understand that collegiate athletes are held to a higher standard than other college students, but that does not make it right. The NCAA is cracking down on drinking incidents because the NCAA is anti-alcohol (NCAA sanctioned events are dry, and the NCAA is curbing beer ads for the 2006 seasons.) I think it is wrong that just because the NCAA views drinking as wrong, they are forcing others to believe the same way.

Well, let's put alcohol aside for a moment.

Last year's actions by some of our players have put us in the limelight of national attention, and all of it negative.

Is it too much to ask a young man to just do the right thing? Regardless of how crass the police officer might have been, the right thing to do when asked to leave, or step over there, is to just obey.

Regardless of how unfair it may be, why is it too much to ask that these youngsters stop and think before they mouth off to a cop while drinking, punch someone, or any host of other offenses, that they just stop, think about the consequences and say to themselves, "Self, I'm going to be a bigger man than this arrogant cop (supposing that's a posibility) and I'm going to put my teammates, my school, my fans before my personal desire to lash out?"

I think that's what CPF has demanded and I for one think it's a reasonable demand.

 

[therealUT]

Well, let's put alcohol aside for a moment.

Last year's actions by some of our players have put us in the limelight of national attention, and all of it negative.

Is it too much to ask a young man to just do the right thing? Regardless of how crass the police officer might have been, the right thing to do when asked to leave, or step over there, is to just obey.

Regardless of how unfair it may be, why is it too much to ask that these youngsters stop and think before they mouth off to a cop while drinking, punch someone, or any host of other offenses, that they just stop, think about the consequences and say to themselves, "Self, I'm going to be a bigger man than this arrogant cop (supposing that's a posibility) and I'm going to put my teammates, my school, my fans before my personal desire to lash out?"

I think that's what CPF has demanded and I for one think it's a reasonable demand.

If you are given an unlawful directive, there is nothing right about obeying it. I also know of no statutes (maybe Hatvol can help on this) in which it is illegal to mouth off to cops.

 

[OldVol]

Given that I am a cum laude JD from the University you hold in such high esteem, I'm confident I have a far greater grasp of the legal principles involved than you possess. First, Ohio State was not a party, nor did Maurice Clarrett seek reinstatement. If you knew your legal history, the ruling in the baseball case you cite is arguably the most ridiculed case currently not completely overturned. Antitrust exemption, such as that given to baseball, has been denied to the NFL and all other professional sports leagues. That why Al Davis is able to sue, and defeat, the NFL on a regular basis. The key portion of the "baseball as pastime" ruling, the reserve clause, has already been abolished. The simple difference between the baseball ruling and all other rulings is timing. The baseball decision was rendered at a time when sport was a quaint distraction. If you notice, everytime Congress or the Union really threaten the MLB owners with a challenge to that decision, the owners cave. Why? They know the precedential value of the decision is nonexistant. It is a relic of a simpler, stupider America.

Typically uniformed reply.

The reason any precedent is untested is because of its viability.

Please, for the sake of your fraternity, don't name it.

 

[OldVol]

If you are given an unlawful directive, there is nothing right about obeying it. I also know of no statutes (maybe Hatvol can help on this) in which it is illegal to mouth off to cops.

Any mouthing is unlawful if you've been asked to comply by an officer.

That in itself can be deemed as disorderly conduct.

 

[hatvol96]

Wrong.

The courts have decided, by virtue of the Clarett vs. NFL case that the NFL may indeed limit their age of draft which does embrace previous court decisions that apply.

Just because you don't agree with them, or perhaps don't understand them, or are obviously just unaware of since you state the courts have "Never addressed such issues."

Since Clarett was unable to return to Ohio State, should he have desired, once seeking relief from the court. I guess that would bring institutions under the umbrella of the ruling, as it relates to what a student athlete can and cannot do in regards to seeking employment in the NFL as it relates to eligibility.

Perhaps you should consider the 70 some-year old ruling of the courts regarding Major League Baseball.

If you could grasp an understanding of the underlying principles in that ruling you would understand why there is a vast gulf between sport and commerce. Then, attempt to explain why the court’s position regarding baseball is different from all other professional sports.

Attempting to explain this to you would probably be futile.

You are mixing a number of unrelated issues. The only parties to the Clarett case were Clarett and the NFL. It was purely a workplace issue. Had the NFLPA not collectively bargained the age limit, it would have been struck down. That's the key variable people leave out. NCAA eligibility rules have nothing to do with the decision. The NCAA could have treated Clarett and Mike Williams the same way they treat guys who declare and then withdraw from the NBA draft. They chose not to do so. It had nothing to do with the ruling in the Clarett case. The baseball decision is lampooned in legal circles as an outdated piece of work based on silly, naive notions of the world. Pull some law review articles on it. You won't find much in the way of edefense for the decision.

 

[therealUT]

Wrong. Even when arrested, you are allowed to say whatever you want, however, you have the Right to Remain Silent. It is not mandatory.

Small town police officers, who are upset that their dreams of fighting crime in bigger cities have been overrun by the reality of writing parking tickets in Knoxville, on power trips, this is all this is a case of.

 

[hatvol96]

Typically uniformed reply.

The reason any precedent is untested is because of its viability.

Please, for the sake of your fraternity, don't name it.

Actually, I'm not a lemming. Never saw any reason to join a fraternity. Using your logic, precedent would never be overturned. Given that the Messersmith/McNally decisions and subsequent strikes have given the players what they want, there's no real reason to attack the decision. The only vested stakeholders in the antitrust exemption are the owners, who don't want a visionary like Al davis to join their ranks and start operationg as he sees fit. That's why Congress can lord the antitrust exemption over baseball to force stiffer penalties for steroid use. The dolts who run baseball don't want to deal with the possibility of actually having to compete.

 

[Lexvol]

Given the impossibility of paying collegiate athletes what would you suggest? Club teams perhaps? By taking away the revenue source of football and basketball (to a lesser degree) then title 9 seems uneforceable due to the lack of revenue to support so many other sports.

 

[hatvol96]

Any mouthing is unlawful if you've been asked to comply by an officer.

That in itself can be deemed as disorderly conduct.

You've obviously never read the disorderly conduct statute. There is absolutely no mention in it of conduct involving police officers. Officers often fall back on the vague language of the poorly written disorderly conduct statute to justify charging someone whose only real crime was having the misfortune of encountering a prissy b***h in a badge.

 

[OldVol]

Actually, I'm not a lemming. Never saw any reason to join a fraternity. Using your logic, precedent would never be overturned. Given that the Messersmith/McNally decisions and subsequent strikes have given the players what they want, there's no real reason to attack the decision. The only vested stakeholders in the antitrust exemption are the owners, who don't want a visionary like Al davis to join their ranks and start operationg as he sees fit. That's why Congress can lord the antitrust exemption over baseball to force stiffer penalties for steroid use. The dolts who run baseball don't want to deal with the possibility of actually having to compete.

The baseball ruling created a horrible work condition for players for some 40 years.

If the verdict had not had merits it would have been challenged.

The reserve clause was intact and provided unlimited latitude for owners to abuse players.

This is not to say the ruling could not be overturned (any verdict could be overturned given the right bench), but it is clearly not the cake-walk you made it out to be. If it were, the players would not have struggled for 4 decades under the iron hand of the owners.

I'm sure we can agree that the owner's treatment was shameful.

 

[Lexvol]

Pardon my ignorance, but is a disorderly conduct charge better or worse than resisting arrest? Seems like at times it may actually be used to give the suspect lesser charge.

 

[hatvol96]

Any mouthing is unlawful if you've been asked to comply by an officer.

That in itself can be deemed as disorderly conduct.

Absolutely, 100% inaccurate. You don't lose your First Amendment rights just because you are told to do something by a goon with a nightstick. OldVol acts like just because a cop levels a charge, there's validity to it. If any officer tells me to move quicker across a street, unless I do so in a manner that causes undue disturbance, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell him to go have a conjugal visit with one of his relatives.

 

[hatvol96]

The baseball ruling created a horrible work condition for players for some 40 years.

If the verdict had not had merits it would have been challenged.

The reserve clause was intact and provided unlimited latitude for owners to abuse players.

This is not to say the ruling could not be overturned (any verdict could be overturned given the right bench), but it is clearly not the cake-walk you made it out to be. If it were, the players would not have struggled for 4 decades under the iron hand of the owners.

I'm sure we can agree that the owner's treatment was shameful.

OldVol, that's the point. The essential, relevant results of that decision have already been overturned. Messersmith/McNally gutted the reserve clause. The cultural climate now is completely different. The baseball decision references the place of baseball in America's collective conscience. From the '30s through the early '60s, the vast majority of Americans did see baseball as a pastime. Now everyone sees it for what it is, a business. The conditions that buttressed the decision no longer exist.

 

[hatvol96]

Pardon my ignorance, but is a disorderly conduct charge better or worse than resisting arrest? Seems like at times it may actually be used to give the suspect lesser charge.

It is a lesser offense.

 

[OldVol]

Absolutely, 100% inaccurate. You don't lose your First Amendment rights just because you are told to do something by a goon with a nightstick. OldVol acts like just because a cop levels a charge, there's validity to it. If any officer tells me to move quicker across a street, unless I do so in a manner that causes undue disturbance, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell him to go have a conjugal visit with one of his relatives.

Do you try to be this uninformed.

Let me just quote the statute for Knoxville.

ARTICLE III. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE

Sec. 19-61. Disorderly conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
(2) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
(3) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose. A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise which prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
(Code 1962, §§ 28-300, 28-305)

Way to go, Mr. cum laude JD.

 

[hatvol96]

Given the impossibility of paying collegiate athletes what would you suggest? Club teams perhaps? By taking away the revenue source of football and basketball (to a lesser degree) then title 9 seems uneforceable due to the lack of revenue to support so many other sports.

Do you mean under a scenario which the athletes in the revenue generating sports are made employees? If the Universities aren't giving out scholarships, there's no Title IX implication.

 

[Lexvol]

Do you mean under a scenario which the athletes in the revenue generating sports are made employees? If the Universities aren't giving out scholarships, there's no Title IX implication.

When is employment terminated? Is amatuer status lost? Would this essentially make this a club team?

 

[hatvol96]

Do you try to be this uninformed.

Let me just quote the statute for Knoxville.

ARTICLE III. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE

Sec. 19-61. Disorderly conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
(2) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
(3) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose. A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise which prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
(Code 1962, §§ 28-300, 28-305)

Way to go, Mr. cum laude JD.

That has nothing to do with mandatory obedience to anything an officer says. That touches on situations where a danger is at hand. It, A) Doesn't mantion police officers, and B) Doesn't remotely have anything to do with the type of situations we've been discussing.