McAdoo lawsuit dismissal upheld

[hudlow]

" The N.C. Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling dismissing former Tar Heel football player Michael McAdoo's lawsuit against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the NCAA."

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/01/15/3274924/nc-court-upholds-dismissal-of.html

Still keeping that can o' worms covered up....

[MCFinARL]

" The N.C. Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling dismissing former Tar Heel football player Michael McAdoo's lawsuit against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the NCAA."

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/01/15/3274924/nc-court-upholds-dismissal-of.html

Still keeping that can o' worms covered up....

Well, sure, but if you are suggesting that is why this case came out the way it did, I don't think that is fair. The court apparently concluded that McAdoo's claim that his suspension from football hurt his NFL prospects was mooted by the fact that he has since left school and is on an NFL roster. Without closely examining the case that seems like a plausible conclusion.

Also, McAdoo may not have been the most sympathetic plaintiff since the paper he claimed to have written himself, rather than receiving improper assistance, was largely plagiarized. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/08/unc-ncaa-michael-mcadoo/index.html

[hudlow]

Well, sure, but if you are suggesting that is why this case came out the way it did, I don't think that is fair. The court apparently concluded that McAdoo's claim that his suspension from football hurt his NFL prospects was mooted by the fact that he has since left school and is on an NFL roster. Without closely examining the case that seems like a plausible conclusion.

Also, McAdoo may not have been the most sympathetic plaintiff since the paper he claimed to have written himself, rather than receiving improper assistance, was largely plagiarized. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/08/unc-ncaa-michael-mcadoo/index.html

Not suggesting that at all, but had it not been dismissed, think of the implications for UNC-CH and the NCAA. I'm sure they are relieved.

[CDu]

Not suggesting that at all, but had it not been dismissed, think of the implications for UNC-CH and the NCAA. I'm sure they are relieved.

The court case really has no bearing or implications for the UNC and the NCAA. There is no question that he plagiarized the paper. The NCAA and UNC have agreed on that. The potential court case had virtually nothing to do with matters that concern the NCAA. It was strictly a matter of whether UNC unfairly prevented McAdoo from making money as an NFL player.

In fact, I'd argue that, from the NCAA's perspective, a court case would be a (very slight) positive for UNC. If McAdoo won on the grounds that UNC unfairly dismissed him from the team, then that would suggest that McAdoo didn't cheat, and thus would suggest that the cheating problem was slightly less of an issue. But, since it was clear that he plagiarized, that's not going to change anything.

There is the UNC academic fraud scandal. There is the "sour grapes" McAdoo lawsuit. The two are only tangentially related, and the outcome of the McAdoo suit has no bearing on the NCAA situation (either way).

[hudlow]

From the article...


Attorneys for UNC and the NCAA argued that students can't claim a right to play college football.

Basing my opinion, although I have no legal experience, on what the lawyers for the NCAA and UNC argued, it seems that if McAdoo had won it would have changed things drastically for the NCAA and UNC.

[Turtleboy]

From the article...



Attorneys for UNC and the NCAA argued that students can't claim a right to play college football.


Basing my opinion, although I have no legal experience, on what the lawyers for the NCAA and UNC argued, it seems that if McAdoo had won it would have changed things drastically for the NCAA and UNC.Would an overturning of the dismissal necessarily have validated a claim to a right to play football? It certainly wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with upholding the dismissal.


"First, McAdoo has not sustained any 'injury in fact' because his scholarship was never terminated," said Appeals Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr., writing for the court. "Second, plaintiff has accomplished the goal he sought to achieve-playing in the NFL."

[hudlow]

Would an overturning of the dismissal necessarily have validated a claim to a right to play football? It certainly wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with upholding the dismissal.

Don't know....seems like McAdoo was arguing for one thing and the NCAA & UNC lawyers were arguing against something else.

[Turtleboy]

Don't know....seems like McAdoo was arguing for one thing and the NCAA & UNC lawyers were arguing against something else.It seems to me to be extraordinarily unlikely that a court would ever validate a claim to a right to play college football. If it is a right, then it is a right possessed by all students. Can you imagine that can of worms? How would you ever field a team if no one could be excluded from your roster? Food and equipment expenses alone ... How many coaches would a university such as UNC have to hire in order to coach the entire student body?

[CDu]

Basing my opinion, although I have no legal experience, on what the lawyers for the NCAA and UNC argued, it seems that if McAdoo had won it would have changed things drastically for the NCAA and UNC.

There is no way a court was going to recognize a claim that playing college football is a "right." As such, there was never a threat for the NCAA or UNC from that front.

But even if it was deemed a "right", that would be an issue for EVERY school, and would have no implications on how the NCAA handles the UNC scandal.

But again, that's an argument that was never going to win. Playing college football, on scholarship or not, is a privilege, not a right. Some people may think of it as a right, but they are very mistaken.

[hudlow]

I'm just going on what the article says...McAdoo is arguing his right to due process was violated and the NCAA and UNC are arguing no one has a right to play football.

Sounds like two entirely different things to me.

[ForkFondler]

The lawyers and especially the judges all came from THAT PLACE, so what can you really expect?

[Turtleboy]

I'm just going on what the article says...McAdoo is arguing his right to due process was violated and the NCAA and UNC are arguing no one has a right to play football.

Sounds like two entirely different things to me.If there is no right to play football, what does due process have to do with anything? In other words, if playing football is a privilege, it can be withheld for any reason or no reason at all, except for claims of discrimination, and due process does not enter into it. So arguing that there is no right to play ball is in effect arguing that due process was not violated.

At any rate, the judges rendered the matter moot by finding that there were no damages.