Good Idea? Should states be able to sue boosters who cause violations?

[belcherboy]

You can really sue for anything, but you won't win for just anything. Typically you have to sue them for breaking the law that caused damages or because you entered into some form of agreement or contract and the other party hasn't delivered. If I stand outside of Applebee's with a sign that says, "don't shop here, it's gross", Applebee's isn't winning a lawsuit against me for damages. Giving someone money is not illegal. Boosters are under no contract with Universities, they simply have had ties to that University at some point. The University can ban them internally, or fire them, but there is no legal issue here unless the parties have formally entered into a contract.

So what is this law all about then? From what I can tell from the article, schools are not legally allowed to sue athletic boosters. This new law would allow them to do that. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

So if an athletic booster purposely does something that ends up harming your business, then I don't see why that institution could not sue them.

 

[USCDoom]

Lets Recap

School - We Want Money because we are Greedy so We will Have Boosters, But if you do ANYTHING bad we will Sue.


Ya, lets Enable THAT mentality....

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

So what is this law all about then? From what I can tell from the article, schools are not legally allowed to sue athletic boosters. This new law would allow them to do that. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

So if an athletic booster purposely does something that ends up harming your business, then I don't see why that institution could not sue them.

In Oklahoma it's now law and can happen. But a new law would have to be created in all 50 states for this to be universally a thing.

People and other companies/entities do things all the time to hurt other's businesses, especially competitors. There's nothing illegal about that; especially when the "hurting" is self-inflicted. Universities create, vote on and accept these rules that end up hurting them.

 

[belcherboy]

Bull, I cannot sue a School for allowing a player to Cheat on a Test and get suspended from a Game, even though that Harmed Me as a Fan...

Here is an Idea, dont want Boosters to screw up your team, DONT HAVE BOOSTERS!!!!!!!

Can we Sue the School for Having Boosters that Hurt The Program and because of that Hurt Me as a Fan?!?!?

How does that player cheating on a test hurt you as a fan? I guess if you're a season ticket holder, but still, you don't have to buy season tickets.

Sports is a big business for colleges, and if a booster comes around and willful does things that end up harming your program, I don't see why they should be shielded from lawsuits.

 

[USCDoom]

How does that player cheating on a test hurt you as a fan? I guess if you're a season ticket holder, but still, you don't have to buy season tickets.

Sports is a big business for colleges, and if a booster comes around and willful does things that end up harming your program, I don't see why they should be shielded from lawsuits.

Schools Dont have to Have Boosters. Correct?

 

[USCDoom]

How does that player cheating on a test hurt you as a fan? I guess if you're a season ticket holder, but still, you don't have to buy season tickets.

Sports is a big business for colleges, and if a booster comes around and willful does things that end up harming your program, I don't see why they should be shielded from lawsuits.

What happens when the School, like North Carolina, Harms its PUBLIC Program? Can Tax Payers Sue North Carolina University?

 

[belcherboy]

Schools Dont have to Have Boosters. Correct?

I guess they don't have to. Good point. I still don't see why they shouldn't have the freedom to sue a booster if he breaks rules that end up harming their business. Maybe I'm wrong here.

 

[belcherboy]

What happens when the School, like North Carolina, Harms its PUBLIC Program? Can Tax Payers Sue North Carolina University?

Would it be illegal for the tax payers to sue UNC? I really don't know, I imagine they could. This law seems to allow schools the opportunity to sue, and from my limited understanding, they cannot do that right now.

 

[USCDoom]

I guess they don't have to. Good point. I still don't see why they shouldn't have the freedom to sue a booster if he breaks rules that end up harming their business. Maybe I'm wrong here.

Because the School has to Allow the Boosters to Break the Rules First.

You cannot have a Booster breaking the Rules without the School first Allowing him to Break the Rules.

A bum on the Street cannot Harm a College Football Program because the School would Never allow that person Access to the Program.

Every Booster is ALLOWED Access to the Program by the School.

Instead of Suing maybe they should Police themselves more... But that would cost Money, Suing is about Making Money.

 

[belcherboy]

Because the School has to Allow the Boosters to Break the Rules First.

You cannot have a Booster breaking the Rules without the School first Allowing him to Break the Rules.

A bum on the Street cannot Harm a College Football Program because the School would Never allow that person Access to the Program.

Every Booster is ALLOWED Access to the Program by the School.

Instead of Suing maybe they should Police themselves more... But that would cost Money, Suing is about Making Money.

How does the school "allow the boosters to break the rules first"? Just because I invite someone to my house, doesn't mean that they can start breaking things without the threat of being sued.

If a booster knows the rules, and breaks them anyway, why should they be shielded from lawsuits if they hurt the business side of the institution?

 

[USCDoom]

How does the school "allow the boosters to break the rules first"? Just because I invite someone to my house, doesn't mean that they can start breaking things without the threat of being sued.

If a booster knows the rules, and breaks them anyway, why should they be shielded from lawsuits if they hurt the business side of the institution?

A better analogy would be you Invited someone into your Home who Paid you to be Invited, then he Beats up a Guest and YOU want to Sue Him. YOU WERE ALREADY PAID!!! Should YOU have not done more to make sure he did not break the rules? After all you were Paid to give access.

 

[TheReal_NU]

A better analogy would be you Invited someone into your Home who Paid you to be Invited, then he Beats up a Guest and YOU want to Sue Him. YOU WERE ALREADY PAID!!! Should YOU have not done more to make sure he did not break the rules? After all you were Paid to give access.

Unless I'm missing something here, then you're good with the punishment that the NCAA imposed on USC for Reggie Bush and the Lack of Institurional Control tag that came with it? Or were those guys just "agents" so the school shouldn't have know about them?

 

[Cowboyinexile]

Law gets passed in Oklahoma and baylor lite's class dries up within hours.

Coincidence?

 

[TexasExes98]

New Oklahoma law allows schools to sue athletic boosters

Recently Oklahoma signed into law that universities would be able to sue boosters who help invite or encourage the opportunity for potential sanctions resulting in financial hardships?




Do you think is a good idea? Should it be done across the board?

OU would have had to drop football altogether and would have ZERO nattys if this law was passed back in 1950.

 

[TexasExes98]

universities or states?

Schools should be able to, but they won't because it will kill their private donations

I don't see where states should be able to.

FIFY.....

 

[Goldbug]

If the law is only effective/enforced in Oklahoma then it's going to put OU and OSU at a competitive disadvantage because somewhere along the way we'll miss out on a difference-maker when a booster is skittish about doing ANYTHING that could get his/her ass sued and a contact isn't made or some "inducement" isn't given to the recruit/player. I'm all for this type of law if it's in every state but not if it's only in Oklahoma. It's obvious some do-gooder politician is pushing the envelope which will adversely affect an Oklahoma school and its boosters at some point in time. Typical New Law = Unintended Consequences P.S. Fuck politicians. Let the NCAA hammer people who cheat. Keep the government out of our sports.

 

[USCDoom]

Unless I'm missing something here, then you're good with the punishment that the NCAA imposed on USC for Reggie Bush and the Lack of Institurional Control tag that came with it? Or were those guys just "agents" so the school shouldn't have know about them?

You do know there is a Difference between a Booster and an Agent right? A Booster PAYS Money to the School for Access, a Agent tries to Poach Players from ANY School, not just one.

It has already been Proven the NCAA punished USC with NO Proof, not one Shred of Proof, to the Point the Coach sued the NCAA and Won in a Court of Law. As McNair had Proof of a Malicious Vendetta, while the NCAA had NO PROOF.

See the NCAA can Punish Any School for Any Reason with No Proof. All they have to do is Say "They SHOULD HAVE".

But this is Beside the Point, No One who gave money to USC had ANYTHING to do with the Bush thing.

 

[4down20]

FIFY.....

Yes, I didn't speak clearly there. I was thinking to be able to sue both the boosters and the guilty players.

The way I see it, these players are basically committing fraud. The players sign things saying they haven't accepted money/gifts etc.

Take Reggie Bush. He cost the university and the football program dearly, but that wasn't something USC did. They pay the punishment, but they were basically defrauded by Reggie Bush, who presented himself falsely.

But if USC were to sue Reggie Bush, it would just hurt them in recruiting and not accomplish much. So it'll never happen.

 

[USCDoom]

Yes, I didn't speak clearly there. I was thinking to be able to sue both the boosters and the guilty players.

The way I see it, these players are basically committing fraud. The players sign things saying they haven't accepted money/gifts etc.

Take Reggie Bush. He cost the university and the football program dearly, but that wasn't something USC did. They pay the punishment, but they were basically defrauded by Reggie Bush, who presented himself falsely.

But if USC were to sue Reggie Bush, it would just hurt them in recruiting and not accomplish much. So it'll never happen.

You are missing the Point.

The NCAA had no Proof, they just Punished USC because they "Should Have Known". It is why they lost in a Court Of Law.

Lets just say USC Could sue Reggie Bush.
If the NCAA can Punish for No Reason, No Proof, and No legitimate Explanation.

How can USC then Sue the Player? They Need a Reason, They Need Proof, They Need an Explanation.

It is why McNair Sued the NCAA and Won, in Court you need Proof.

So how could USC even Win... The Judge would say you should sue the NCAA.

 

[4down20]

You are missing the Point.

The NCAA had no Proof, they just Punished USC because they "Should Have Known". It is why they lost in a Court Of Law.

Lets just say USC Could sue Reggie Bush.
If the NCAA can Punish for No Reason, No Proof, and No legitimate Explanation.

How can USC then Sue the Player? They Need a Reason, They Need Proof, They Need an Explanation.

It is why McNair Sued the NCAA and Won, in Court you need Proof.

So how could USC even Win... The Judge would say you should sue the NCAA.

You're the one missing the point.

Go cry somewhere else.