- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU, Alabama, others inquired about hiring Freeze, were shut down by Stankey
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:47 pm to The Pirate King
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:47 pm to The Pirate King
If true, this presents some interesting legal arguments. In essence, the SEC is preventing Freeze from being employed not by the league, but by one of their member schools.
The SEC bylaw referenced in the article states:"...President or Chancellor of that member institution is expected to consult directly with the Commissioner prior to offering
employment to the individual." The bylaw does not say that it's mandatory a school do so (i.e. "shall"), only that the school is "expected" to consult with the Commissioner. No where does it say a school "can't" hire Freeze, only that the league expects to be consulted if a school wants to.
So what if a school decides they want to hire Freeze and doesn't feel they owe the SEC any deference in that decision? Arguably, they don't. But does that mean the SEC then has a basis to become vindictive to said school?
Also, pretty interesting quote from the legal expert consulted for the story:
Obviously Freeze, Saban, etc. did not want to press the issue. However, it sounds like the legal expert is implying that the more clout you have in the league, the more favoritism you can gain.
Certainly Saban is the top in coach in the league without question. So is the implication that Saban could likely get the blessing of the league to do something like this whereas Jeremy Pruitt, Derrick Mason, etc. couldn't?
The SEC bylaw referenced in the article states:"...President or Chancellor of that member institution is expected to consult directly with the Commissioner prior to offering
employment to the individual." The bylaw does not say that it's mandatory a school do so (i.e. "shall"), only that the school is "expected" to consult with the Commissioner. No where does it say a school "can't" hire Freeze, only that the league expects to be consulted if a school wants to.
So what if a school decides they want to hire Freeze and doesn't feel they owe the SEC any deference in that decision? Arguably, they don't. But does that mean the SEC then has a basis to become vindictive to said school?
Also, pretty interesting quote from the legal expert consulted for the story:
quote:
Roger I. Abrams, the Richardson Professor of Law at Northeastern University, says the SEC bylaw doesn't legally prevent a school from hiring someone like Freeze -- a school could have its president make a case to Sankey on why it wants to hire him -- but "it's exactly what the SEC wanted to happen."
"We have seen especially in basketball that coaches who get their programs into NCAA hot water, if they are a good coach, they'll get another job fairly quick," Abrams said. "What the SEC is saying is 'Not in our conference.' I think it makes a lot of sense. Like everything else, the effect of the consultation with the commissioner depends on the personalities involved. Not all universities are equal within any conference."
Obviously Freeze, Saban, etc. did not want to press the issue. However, it sounds like the legal expert is implying that the more clout you have in the league, the more favoritism you can gain.
Certainly Saban is the top in coach in the league without question. So is the implication that Saban could likely get the blessing of the league to do something like this whereas Jeremy Pruitt, Derrick Mason, etc. couldn't?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 4:17 pm to Alt26
quote:
If true, this presents some interesting legal arguments. In essence, the SEC is preventing Freeze from being employed not by the league, but by one of their member schools.
I agree, it does present an interesting argument. However, it is unlikely that any member school would be the one to make the argument, as it is Freeze that is most effected. And while an argument could be found for him, he would have a very difficult time proving the argument. He would need to have someone testify to the fact that the league office specifically and directly told a member school they could not hire Freeze and what said repercussions would be for doing so. Highly unlikely anyone would step forward to do that.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:39 am to Alt26
I would like him as OC if he hadn't left OM the way he did. If LSU was to hire him as OC, you could bet the folks in Birmingham would rat on LSU to the NCAA at every turn in every sport. While protecting some of the other schools.
Not worth it.
Not worth it.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)