Category Archives: See You In Court

For want of a (pinkie) nail

I’ve got to give some credit to’s Michael McCann for writing an entire column on the legal ramifications of the Mays family saga.  If you’re looking for an end game on Cade’s transfer waiver request, this is probably as good a suggestion as you’ll get:

Mays would seem to have a more compelling waiver argument by arguing that a transfer to Tennessee would reflect family hardship. Such hardship is an accepted rationale for a waiver. Mays would need to show that the transfer is motivated by a recent injury or illness to an immediate family member. He would also need corroborating documentation from the Vols’ athletic department that he would be allowed to depart from the team to provide care to this family member. Under NCAA rules, this family member must be located within 100 miles of the university.

Mays could argue that he is transferring back home to help out his parents, particularly his dad, in light of the hand injury. His parents’ lawsuit, which details the suffering of Kevin Mays, could help him in that regard. While the injury occurred more than two years ago, it stands to reason that Kevin Mays’s recovery—which has included multiple operations—has not gone as well as he hoped. Perhaps he needs care from sons Cade and Cooper, both of whom will be with the Vols next season. Kevin Mays is also from Knoxville, the same city as the University of Tennessee, meaning the 100-mile stipulation would be easily satisfied.

That would explain why Mars has indulged in a public pissing match with Greg McGarity.  Playing the family hardship card, I don’t think Georgia’s cooperation is necessary to get the waiver, so crap like this is merely gratuitous flexing.


Filed under Georgia Football, See You In Court, The NCAA

A brief bad news buffet

Let’s get it out of the way…

  • You know the expression, “don’t make a federal case out of it”?  I think this is what they’re talking about.
  • And you never know what an open records request will turn up.  In this case, we’ve got UGA penalizing itself over football recruits receiving discounted or free school apparel three times between March 2017 and January 2019.  (Weiszer hints that may be tied to the Dacia King dismissal.)  Oh, and let’s hear it for diligence:  “The other football violation on Oct. 30 occurred when a football player’s photo was posted on a commercial entity’s social media account wearing their product. The player granted permission to use the photo without knowing how it would be used, the school said. The player wasn’t paid by the company.The school had the photo removed on the same day it was posted and the player received rules education.”


Filed under Georgia Football, Recruiting, See You In Court

Cost of doing business

What a waste.

A federal magistrate judge on Monday awarded lawyers representing the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s athlete-compensation limits $33.2 million in attorney’s fees and costs.

The case is on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but if the award stands, it means the NCAA will have had to pay a total of more than $75 million to plaintiffs’ lawyers in connection with two antitrust cases that have been a major part of the college sports landscape over the past 10 years.

The NCAA and various conference co-defendants have combined to spend millions more defending the cases, although some of those costs have been offset by insurance.

Forget that this money could have been spent on player compensation.  How about spending it to increase scholarships in programs like baseball?  Assholes.


Filed under See You In Court, The NCAA

“It is our policy to not comment on pending litigation.”

Evidently, stiffing your former employer on a contract provision is something else you can do at Georgia Tech.

Georgia Tech athletic director Todd Stansbury has been sued for breach of contract by Oregon State, his former employer, according to court documents obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The story was first reported by The Oregonian earlier Saturday.

Oregon State, from where Stansbury was hired in September 2016, alleged in its lawsuit, filed Wednesday, that Stansbury stopped making payments on money owed the school as part of his buyout for leaving before his contract was completed.

Stansbury left his position as Oregon State AD a little more than a year into the job. He signed a five-year contract in 2015.

Stansbury owed about $2.1 million when he left for Tech and had been making payments through July before stopping, according to court documents.

Maybe he forgot.

Given that Stansbury had made considerable progress in repaying the debt, reducing the principal owed from the original $2.1 million to $1.4 million as of Oct. 31 of this year, along with interest accruing at the contracted 9 percent, the dispute may concern how much is still owed or the rate of its repayment.

Or not.

The best thing here is that he’s playing both ends against the middle.

The buyout was a central element of the contract that Tech and Stansbury crafted together. Stansbury had strong interest in taking the job, as did Tech in hiring him, but the buyout was a major obstacle for him to accept.

To help him handle the obligation, then-president G.P. “Bud” Peterson agreed on a contract that included a $1.1 million loan from the athletic association to Stansbury to help cover the buyout. The loan would be forgiven if he were to stay through his five-year deal. (He would owe the entire amount immediately, plus interest, if he were to leave early, a term that Stansbury accepted as an indication of his commitment to Tech.)

His salary also was generous, at least in part to further assist with the buyout. Stansbury’s starting salary was $900,000, an 80 percent raise from his Oregon State salary and $200,000 more than predecessor Mike Bobinski was making at the time he took the AD job at Purdue.

You know, we give SEC ADs crap all the time for the way Jimmy Sexton runs all over them, but the way Georgia Tech handles contract negotiations with its athletic hires pretty much qualifies as Olympic level buffoonery all on its own.  They can do that!


Filed under Georgia Tech Football, See You In Court

Your player compensation round up

One day after California’s Fair Pay to Play Act is signed into law:


Filed under Political Wankery, SEC Football, See You In Court, The NCAA

A pay for play buffet

A few morsels rounded up for your reading pleasure:

  • A reminder about the value of that free education the NCAA touts:  “According to 2018 report from USC’s Race and Equity Center, just 55% of black athletes from the Power Five conferences, which include college sports’ most profitable programs, graduate in six years as compared to 69.3% of all student-athletes.”
  • This is a detailed breakdown of how we got to California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, as well as what we might expect to see if there’s a court challenge (assuming it passes, of course).
  • Scratch Mike Leach on the subject of paying players and he sounds a lot more like Dabo than Mike Leach.
  • For those of you who don’t get how antitrust law and cartels work, remember that you don’t have to buy tuna fish.


Filed under Academics? Academics., Mike Leach. Yar!, Political Wankery, See You In Court, The NCAA

Wednesday morning buffet

Soon, grasshoppers, soon.


Filed under ACC Football, Alabama, College Football, Georgia Football, SEC Football, See You In Court, What's Bet In Vegas Stays In Vegas