SOURCE: UF NOT pursuing Chip Kelly or Dan Mullen

[Slevin]

I would be shocked if we haven't met face to face with Frost yet. Even just to shake hands. Orlando is 2 hours away for gods sake

 

[GMDGator]

I didn't like the idea of Kelly to begin with either.. Mullen goes without saying

 

[InstiGATOR1]

Actually do the contractual obligation we have the SEC and the SEC having a rules in place about coaches hires. The SEC actually would have a say, in fact due to Kelly's issues with the NCAA. The Administration is obligated to contact and speak with the commissioners office before making a hire due to SEC rules.

I guess I need to be direct rather than just say ask Congress or you US attorney:.

1. Contracts that break federal antitrust law are illegal and not enforceable.

2. Point 1 makes it is illegal for UAL, UAR, AU, UF, UGa, UK, LSU, Ms State, UMs, UMo, SoCar, UTn, aTm and Vandy to join together to restrict hirings, ie labor market activity, at UF of any other member or non-member of the SEC.

3. You don't get to restrain trade and if you do, there are criminal and tort sanctions. The sanctions can include treble damages for the person harmed by your illegal actions conspiring to limit the market for hiring football coaches. Though the coach has to mitigate damages, still head coaching salaries are enough nobody wants to risk triple damages.

4. In addition the SEC is UF and aTm. Those are the big dogs of the SEC. They are the schools in the two biggest states, they are AAU members giving them academic leadership clout in the conference too.

5. So add in point 4 as I and others said earlier any consultation will go something like this:

Dr. Fuchs: We are hiring Chip Kelly.

Whoever is SEC commissioner, ie the little guy the schools hired to run the jock conference the schools put together: Yes sir.

But apparently UF is not hiring Chip Kelly according to this thread making this whole discussion moot.

 

[Homer J]

THANK YOU, JESUS!!!

 

[Homer J]

If Kelly is out of the picture because Frost is the guy, I’m down with that. I’m just not feeling Campbell, Norvell, etc.

Campbell probably has the most impressive resume - he did well at Toledo.

 

[ChiefGator]

I guess I need to be direct rather than just say ask Congress or you US attorney:.

1. Contracts that break federal antitrust law are illegal and not enforceable.

2. Point 1 makes it is illegal for UAL, UAR, AU, UF, UGa, UK, LSU, Ms State, UMs, UMo, SoCar, UTn, aTm and Vandy to join together to restrict hirings, ie labor market activity, at UF of any other member or non-member of the SEC.

3. You don't get to restrain trade and if you do, there are criminal and tort sanctions. The sanctions can include treble damages for the person harmed by your illegal actions conspiring to limit the market for hiring football coaches. Though the coach has to mitigate damages, still head coaching salaries are enough nobody wants to risk triple damages.

4. In addition the SEC is UF and aTm. Those are the big dogs of the SEC. They are the schools in the two biggest states, they are AAU members giving them academic leadership clout in the conference too.

5. So add in point 4 as I and others said earlier any consultation will go something like this:

Dr. Fuchs: We are hiring Chip Kelly.

Whoever is SEC commissioner, ie the little guy the schools hired to run the jock conference the schools put together: Yes sir.

But apparently UF is not hiring Chip Kelly according to this thread making this whole discussion moot.

So you actually think that the NCAA or the SEC can't have rules related to the hiring of coaches? I am not a lawyer but I bet the NCAA has rules related to coaches who have violated their rules, they seem to have no issue with enforcing them. This is just an extension of them, and as such I bet is legal. Perhaps Alex the Gator might comment on the specifics.

And as I understand it the AD is separate from the school so the president is not going to tell them to hire anybody, yes they might have an opinion and in the past they had connections that facilitated a great hire.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

So you actually think that the NCAA or the SEC can't have rules related to the hiring of coaches? I am not a lawyer but I bet the NCAA has rules related to coaches who have violated their rules, they seem to have no issue with enforcing them. This is just an extension of them, and as such I bet is legal. Perhaps Alex the Gator might comment on the specifics.

And as I understand it the AD is separate from the school so the president is not going to tell them to hire anybody, yes they might have an opinion and in the past they had connections that facilitated a great hire.

I am not an attorney either, but yes I am pretty sure it is illegal and a tort to conspire to restrict freedom of contract in the labor market. A number of years back the NCAA passed a rule designating "restricted earnings coaches." They were sued and lost that decision and the damages were automatically tripled to $67 million. This was eventually settled with the NCAA lifting the earning restrictions, so I don't know how much they actually paid out.

As far as NCAA rule violating coaches, the NCAA sometimes gives them a show cause letter. It basically means any school that hires them during a period of the show cause must explain to the NCAA why they are hiring this coach. So it is much like this SEC consultation rules. You can still hire a coach under a show cause. When Auburn recently hired Pearl he had a couple of weeks or months left on his show cause from his UTn days, but they hired him anyway.

So the SEC rule is a bit like a second show cause step. Still again the SEC has no veto. The SEC is not in a position to order UF around one way or another. The SEC or NCAA can sanction you heavily if you hire a Chip Kelly and he gets caught cheating, but they can not interfere in UF's hiring process.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

Niether are creditable... it's like a contest of the tallest midget, URG maybe the tallest, he is still a midget.

Where is all the evidence against WG? We now have plenty of mounting evidence against MacButters. Grier is a kid from a good family that went to a 1A private Christian school, not the sort of kid who shows up at college and starts doing rails, right? Since he has left there have been nothing but great things said about him. I doubt 19,20 year olds just decide to turn a page and start walking the straight and narrow....if that were the case how come everyone of our guys seems to get busted for pot about 7 or 8 times when they're here....Mac tried to destroy this kid because he is a selfish, lying individual.

 

[biggator6]

Where is all the evidence against WG? We now have plenty of mounting evidence against MacButters. Grier is a kid from a good family that went to a 1A private Christian school, not the sort of kid who shows up at college and starts doing rails, right?

Yeah, because those kids at private christian schools NEVER do drugs, right?

Grier's whole family are attention whores (his brothers are apparently youtube/instagram "celebrities"). Doesn't everyone remember his dad going all over social media with his 'free willy' shirt? They're trying to be the kardashians.

 

[TheDouglas78]

[

Where is all the evidence against WG? We now have plenty of mounting evidence against MacButters. Grier is a kid from a good family that went to a 1A private Christian school, not the sort of kid who shows up at college and starts doing rails, right? Since he has left there have been nothing but great things said about him. I doubt 19,20 year olds just decide to turn a page and start walking the straight and narrow....if that were the case how come everyone of our guys seems to get busted for pot about 7 or 8 times when they're here....Mac tried to destroy this kid because he is a selfish, lying individual.

Crete, multi people have posted stories of both Wil and his family... yet, you dismiss them as hearse, but your hearse is fact? Maybe you aren't honestly taking in all the data that has been offered. Either your love of Grier or your hatred of McElwain isn't allowing you to take in the full situation.

As for your Grier resume, are you saying kids that go to a small private school where his father is heavily involved, couldn't have some red flags that are swept under the rug? I went to a small 1A private school where a lot of things were swept under the rugs for players going to D1 schools, including a few that became Gators. We only know what the Grier family has allowed us to see, just like McElwain has only allowed what he and the UAA have allowed us to see.

 

[Alagator]

I feel this way. If it's not Kelly or Frost, then slitting my wrists will remain the final option. There's no reason to watch Gator football under the other stiffs on the list.

Really, Correct me if I'm wrong but I read Norvell has a top 10 ranked passing offense. Now... He's not the top of my wish list (Kelly and Frost are my top two) but I wouldn't slit my wrist over hiring a guy who can complete a forward pass. Hell...top 10 in passing.?.?.?.?. That'd be fun as hell to watch!

 

[oxrageous]

Really, Correct me if I'm wrong but I read Norvell has a top 10 ranked passing offense. Now... He's not the top of my wish list (Kelly and Frost are my top two) but I wouldn't slit my wrist over hiring a guy who can complete a forward pass. Hell...top 10 in passing.?.?.?.?. That'd be fun as hell to watch!

Why do I have the feeling that we'd remain ranked 100+ in offense if Norvell was brought in? Fortunately, there wouldn't be anyone left in the Swamp to see it.

 

[ChiefGator]

I am not an attorney either, but yes I am pretty sure it is illegal and a tort to conspire to restrict freedom of contract in the labor market. A number of years back the NCAA passed a rule designating "restricted earnings coaches." They were sued and lost that decision and the damages were automatically tripled to $67 million. This was eventually settled with the NCAA lifting the earning restrictions, so I don't know how much they actually paid out.

As far as NCAA rule violating coaches, the NCAA sometimes gives them a show cause letter. It basically means any school that hires them during a period of the show cause must explain to the NCAA why they are hiring this coach. So it is much like this SEC consultation rules. You can still hire a coach under a show cause. When Auburn recently hired Pearl he had a couple of weeks or months left on his show cause from his UTn days, but they hired him anyway.

So the SEC rule is a bit like a second show cause step. Still again the SEC has no veto. The SEC is not in a position to order UF around one way or another. The SEC or NCAA can sanction you heavily if you hire a Chip Kelly and he gets caught cheating, but they can not interfere in UF's hiring process.

So this explaining means nothing, I could explain by saying I think it is a good idea?

So his contract that has a lot of show cause elements in it must be illegal as well.

http://www.al.com/auburnbasketball/index.ssf/2014/06/bruce_pearls_15_million_contra.html

Not to mention the part that his assistants need positive input from the NCAA.

Even if it is not legal, it is an issue, one that UF does not need.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Alagator]

https://florida.247sports.com/Article/Scott-Frost-denies-hearing-from-Florida-Gators-109706353
One of the hottest names during this upcoming coaching carousel is UCF head coach Scott Frost. UCF currently leads the nation with 51 points per game....


............Frost is in the midst of a 7-0 season, and feels it would be a disservice to his team to allow his focus to waver.


“It would be a crime for me to do that with the sacrifices that our team and coaching staff have made, and the type of season these guys are putting together. They deserve my 100-percent focus, and they have it.”

The only part he left out is: "And that is why I'm allowing my agent to handle negotiations as we speak."

 

[B52G8rAC]

I guess I need to be direct rather than just say ask Congress or you US attorney:.

1. Contracts that break federal antitrust law are illegal and not enforceable.

2. Point 1 makes it is illegal for UAL, UAR, AU, UF, UGa, UK, LSU, Ms State, UMs, UMo, SoCar, UTn, aTm and Vandy to join together to restrict hirings, ie labor market activity, at UF of any other member or non-member of the SEC.

3. You don't get to restrain trade and if you do, there are criminal and tort sanctions. The sanctions can include treble damages for the person harmed by your illegal actions conspiring to limit the market for hiring football coaches. Though the coach has to mitigate damages, still head coaching salaries are enough nobody wants to risk triple damages.

4. In addition the SEC is UF and aTm. Those are the big dogs of the SEC. They are the schools in the two biggest states, they are AAU members giving them academic leadership clout in the conference too.

5. So add in point 4 as I and others said earlier any consultation will go something like this:

Dr. Fuchs: We are hiring Chip Kelly.

Whoever is SEC commissioner, ie the little guy the schools hired to run the jock conference the schools put together: Yes sir.

But apparently UF is not hiring Chip Kelly according to this thread making this whole discussion moot.

I am not a lawyer or an naval aviator; my parents were married. But I do seem to remember a court ruling about NCAA Sports along the lines of "not being subject to antitrust laws and specifically exempted from labor laws." The ruling is parallel to the NFL treatment as a sport and not a business. Of course I could be remembering incorrectly.

 

[Alagator]

Why do I have the feeling that we'd remain ranked 100+ in offense if Norvell was brought in? Fortunately, there wouldn't be anyone left in the Swamp to see it.

IDK... I'm not saying we should hire the guy... But he did pretty well at Toledo and as I said, currently has Memphis with the 10th ranked passing offense.

I think we'd be significantly better on offense.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

I am not a lawyer or an naval aviator; my parents were married. But I do seem to remember a court ruling about NCAA Sports along the lines of "not being subject to antitrust laws and specifically exempted from labor laws." The ruling is parallel to the NFL treatment as a sport and not a business. Of course I could be remembering incorrectly.

You are remembering incorrectly. It was baseball, technically major league baseball that the US Supreme Court held:

".. the 1922 case—Federal Baseball Club v. National League—in which the court ruled that federal antitrust laws did not apply to baseball because, in the mind of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the business of baseball was “giving exhibitions of base ball,” not making money, and therefore was not interstate commerce, thus relieving the league and its owners from compliance with federal law."

It has never been extended to other sports or college sports. The NFL was sued for anti trust and lost though damages were found to be $1 trebled to $3. And in fact it has done baseball little good as for the last 95 years they have most spent avoiding getting sued again for antitrust and having this ruling overturned.

 

[TheDouglas78]

You are remembering incorrectly. It was baseball, technically major league baseball that the US Supreme Court held:

".. the 1922 case—Federal Baseball Club v. National League—in which the court ruled that federal antitrust laws did not apply to baseball because, in the mind of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the business of baseball was “giving exhibitions of base ball,” not making money, and therefore was not interstate commerce, thus relieving the league and its owners from compliance with federal law."

It has never been extended to other sports or college sports. The NFL was sued for anti trust and lost though damages were found to be $1 trebled to $3. And in fact it has done baseball little good as for the last 95 years they have most spent avoiding getting sued again for antitrust and having this ruling overturned.

the USFL case was a little different than barring coaches from coaching at an organization...

 

[InstiGATOR1]

the USFL case was a little different than barring coaches from coaching at an organization...

I was answering a question about a supreme court decision exempting some sport(s) from antitrust law. So naturally I spoke to that issue not the show cause issue that discussed in a prior post.