News: John Wilkins files injunction against the NJCAA

[tornado]

Under the 5 years to use 4 years of playing in.. if Wilkens never plays JC ball.. he still only has 3 years at BU. Is that right?

Wilkins enrolled in juco last January and will also burn an entire year this year at juco...so he will have already used most of two seasons even if he gets to BU in Fall 2010...thus he'd have 3 years left to complete 3 years of college eligibility.

But there is one oddball fact....when BU finishes their 2012-2013 season, Wilkins might appeal and ask the NCAA to grant him the opportunity to play.
it's a longshot, but...he would have only used 3 years of athletic eligibility, and only 4.5 years of "ticking clock" since he enrolled at juco midyear...
I know it's a 1 in a million, but you could ask...

[DoubleJayAlum]

the NJCAA has severely limited his options, and signing a LOI will also severely limit his options. Why not accept that the kid is getting decent legal advice and doing the best he can?

Why automatically assume that the legal advice he is getting is decent?

Also, why wait so long before filing for the injunction? Why didn't his legal team file for it right after the NJCAA issued its ruling?

[tornado]

Because we have sources that report that he is, rather than just guesses like others here have.

and anyway...what kind of attitude is that...?
If I lived by the credo...
"Why automatically assume.."
then I guess I would and could doubt every single thing you say or anyone anywhere says...right?

Why automatically assume the President knows what he's doing, and why automatically assume that any of the top BCS schools like Duke, UNC, Kansas, have a clue what they are doing??

[Da Coach]

Why automatically assume that the legal advice he is getting is decent?

Also, why wait so long before filing for the injunction? Why didn't his legal team file for it right after the NJCAA issued its ruling?

Who said they didn't? It's my understanding from separate sources that this injunction was filed very quickly after the NJCAA's final ruling on this last appeal. Just because it is only now being reported by the PJ Star doesn't mean they just filed it (I knew about this more than a week and a half ago). And even you know that a legal filing can't be done instantaneously. John Wilkins did not have a lawyer until after the final NJCAA ruling that denied his last appeal, as he expected a different outcome (since the NCJAA had never banned anyone before for the entire season for such an issue). So he had to first consult with his coach and family, then seek out and consult with a lawyer who has experiance in this area, then consider his options and their costs, and then prepare the request for the injunction and then file it. All that takes time. Anyone who has ever dealt with the legal system in our country surely knows that nothing happens quickly. Every incentive lawyers and judges have is to draw out legal cases for the longest possible time periods.

Why are there so many who immediately question that someone must have screwed up every time something like this happens?

[DoubleJayAlum]

Who said they didn't? It's my understanding from separate sources that this injunction was filed very quickly after the NJCAA's final ruling on this last appeal. Just because it is only now being reported by the PJ Star doesn't mean they just filed it (I knew about this more than a week and a half ago). And even you know that a legal filing can't be done instantaneously. John Wilkins did not have a lawyer until after the final NJCAA ruling that denied his last appeal, as he expected a different outcome (since the NCJAA had never banned anyone before for the entire season for such an issue). So he had to first consult with his coach and family, then seek out and consult with a lawyer who has experiance in this area, then consider his options and their costs, and then prepare the request for the injunction and then file it. All that takes time. Anyone who has ever dealt with the legal system in our country surely knows that nothing happens quickly.

Well, if we believe what we are told, he apparently already had lawyers at the time of the LOI signing period since those lawyers advised him to not sign an LOI.

By the way, I agree that legal cases are not resolved quickly. I completely disagree that injunction actions are not filed quickly. In fact, one of the main components of an injunction action is the fact that the alleged action is causing immediate harm and needs to be corrected before further harm is caused.

[tornado]

duhhh...the final NJCAA ruling was - 11/4

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x896789152/Wilkins-eligibility-appeal-denied

Wilkins' decision NOT to sign a LOI came after the NCAA LOI signing period began 11/11...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli

if you do the math properly, then there's plenty of time between Nov. 4 and Nov. 11 to seek out legal help and be in precise line with what Da Coach is saying,
and what somehow you keep manufacturing concerns and facts to doubt.

[georgethedog]

duhhh...the final NJCAA ruling was - 11/4

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x896789152/Wilkins-eligibility-appeal-denied

Wilkins' decision NOT to sign a LOI came after the NCAA LOI signing period began 11/11...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli

if you do the math properly, then there's plenty of time between Nov. 4 and Nov. 11 to seek out legal help and be in precise line with what Da Coach is saying,
and what somehow you keep manufacturing concerns and facts to doubt.

I do math quite well... Statisitically speaking, of course.

[DoubleJayAlum]

duhhh...the final NJCAA ruling was - 11/4

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x896789152/Wilkins-eligibility-appeal-denied

Wilkins' decision NOT to sign a LOI came after the NCAA LOI signing period began 11/11...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli

if you do the math properly, then there's plenty of time between Nov. 4 and Nov. 11 to seek out legal help and be in precise line with what Da Coach is saying,
and what somehow you keep manufacturing concerns and facts to doubt.

Since you are the resident math whiz, maybe you can answer these questions:

1. Assuming that legal counsel was retained on 11/11, how many days after the retention of said counsel was it before an injunction request was actually filed with the court?

2. How many games were missed during that time frame?

3. How many days are there between the date when the injunction request was filed and the date of the corresponding hearing?

[tornado]

Since you are the resident math whiz, maybe you can answer these questions:

1. Assuming that legal counsel was retained on 11/11, how many days after the retention of said counsel was it before an injunction request was actually filed with the court?

2. How many games were missed during that time frame?

3. How many days are there between the date when the injunction request was filed and the date of the corresponding hearing?

1. not sure why you pick date of 11/11, as he knew by 11/4 that his final appeal through NJCAA was denied, and it seem quite likely he sought legal help very shortly thereafter. In fact, there were reports at that time (11/4) that he had indeed already made up his mind to seek legal help.

I would assume when you walk into a lawyer's office, it would still take a few days and possibly even weeks before the lawyer can gather facts, read of other precedent and prepare the request for an injunction, but I don't know enough details to know that answer, although I am satisfied that getting an injunction filed within a month seems like it's a reasonable time span and not some sort of negligence or stupidity as you seem to hint.


2. Obviously Wilkins has missed all of Southeastern's games, but not sure how that can be avoided...the coach would certainly lose his job if he knowingly played ineligible players.
Since I am not sure we have any valid evidence of whether or when the injunction request is or will be filed, then I can only speculate on your question #3...that the legal system moves at it's own pace, and I suspect you'll hear experts say things like "you can't fight city hall" and "justice may be blind but it's awfully slow..."
Maybe if you know a great way to get the injunction filed pronto and get the desired results, then you should be in the lawyer-advising profession.
But there is evidence out there as to who Wilkins has consulted and who guided him to the legal help, and I am likewise satisfied that JW has done very well for himself.

Since I am a Bradley booster, I obviously can't give the kid money to help pay for his lawyer, but I will give my opinion -- and take it or leave it -- he is getting fine legal representation and if anyone can get him eligible, the guys working on it can.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Maybe if you know a great way to get the injunction filed pronto and get the desired results, then you should be in the lawyer-advising profession.

Has it ever occurred to you that I am and that is why I am such a huge critic of the legal advice proffered so far?

By the way, I used the date of 11/11 to give the legal staff the benefit of the doubt. If, in fact, Wilkins retained counsel immediately after the adverse ruling was issued on 11/4 and said counsel is just now getting around to filing the injunction request, it is borderline malpractice IMO.

[tornado]

Of course it occurred to me,...
and I am confident he would not feel the need to check a message board to get more help

[Da Coach]

Has it ever occurred to you that I am and that is why I am such a huge critic of the legal advice proffered so far?

By the way, I used the date of 11/11 to give the legal staff the benefit of the doubt. If, in fact, Wilkins retained counsel immediately after the adverse ruling was issued on 11/4 and said counsel is just now getting around to filing the injunction request, it is borderline malpractice IMO.

I am aware that you are an attorney.
But how in the world can you assert that JW has gotten lousy legal advice, when you don't have any knowledge of what that advice is, or the timeline of the happenings?

I have spoken to a source close to the Wilkins, and I can assure you, without revealing confidential information, that he has gotten great legal advice, and their actions have been in a timely manner. The reports in the news, and that you believe are true, are wrong and quite a bit outdated.

[MacabreMob]

.... The reports in the news, and that you believe are true, are wrong and quite a bit outdated.

What???

News reporting wrong???

News reporting outdated???

[MacabreMob]

... In addition, I see no compelling legal reason whatsoever why failing to sign an LOI helps his case. One can't hide the fact that a scholarship offer was available. Failing to sign the LOI doesn't change this fact. If that is the kind of "great legal advice" that he is receiving, you and I define the adjective "great" differently.

And I guess that's for the court/judge to decide? Not for you, me or anyone else. Then after it is over - we'll all find out whether it actually was "great legal advice". So let's wait and see how it plays out.

[georgethedog]

And I guess that's for the court/judge to decide? Not for you, me or anyone else. Then after it is over - we'll all find out whether it actually was "great legal advice". So let's wait and see how it plays out.

I agree with Mr. Mob on this one. Well put Mac.