If you took him as I did... iffy gameday coach, great talent evaluator, then you knew he was cooked no matter where he went because they wanted improvements right away with no backwards steps. It hurt more that over the time the game also passed him by. Edsall had so much at UConn but like all people he got an ego thinking he was better than what he was getting. Hathaway harmed the school so bad by his inactivity around the school. So i'm sure Edsall wanted to get out while the price was good.
OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR
- Thread starter Greedo
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 12,424
- Reaction Score
- 19,890
I put a ton of blame on Warde too. He was hired because he had an award from the NCAA for cleaning up Buffalo’s APR mess. But he was never ever committed to UConn. Nothing but a stepping stone for him. He was talking about Michigan from his first day on the job it seemed. He and Lax Susie were a horrible team at a critical moment. He hired both Diaco AND Ollie. He didn’t take Louisville seriously as a rival for the ACC.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 87,808
- Reaction Score
- 328,372
Florida AG files lawsuit against ACC in FSU case
Florida's attorney general sued the Atlantic Coast Conference on Thursday in an attempt to receive the media rights contracts with Florida State University as part of an ongoing dispute as FSU seeks to leave the conference.www.espn.com
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,517
- Reaction Score
- 8,017
McMurpjy is uninformed on the subject re Florida..obviously.
...just maybe different states have different laws re what are confidential and not public information.
But...that is not as click worthy as his "rah, rah, Big 12" comment.
Case Law exists in Florida...the NCAA tried to maintain that a record that they let FSU attorneys access in a read only mode were confidential and thus were not released. The Associated Press filed suit to access that information.
Judge Cooper in Florida's Leon County Court (the same judge hearing FSU vs NCAA currently) ruled that the NCAA must release the documents.
It was appealed to the Appeals Court...the NCAA lost..
Records created and maintained by the NCAA are not generally subject to public disclosure. However, the documents at issue in this case were examined by lawyers for a public agency, Florida State University, and used in the course of the agency's business. Because the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records. The NCAA has failed to show that an exception applies under state or federal law, and thus the records must be disclosed.
.....
The term “received” in section 119.011(12) refers not only to a situation in which a public agent takes physical delivery of a document, but also to one in which a public agent examines a document residing on a remote computer. If that were not the case, a party could easily circumvent the public records laws. The appeal by the University is a matter of public concern. It is not transformed into a private matter merely because the documents the University lawyers used to prepare the appeal reside on a computer owned by a private organization. As the plaintiffs expressed this point, the definition of a public record does not turn on the sender's method of transmission.
The lawyers signed a confidentiality agreement with the NCAA, but that has no impact on our decision that the transcript and response are public records. A public record cannot be transformed into a private record merely because an agent of the government has promised that it will be kept private. See Gadd v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 412 So.2d 894, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Browning v. Walton, 351 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Nor is it material that the NCAA had an expectation that the documents would remain private. As we explained in Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), “[A] private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information it furnishes a governmental agency confidential.” The right to examine these records is a right belonging to the public; it cannot be bargained away by a representative of the government.
For law weenies only:
...just maybe different states have different laws re what are confidential and not public information.
But...that is not as click worthy as his "rah, rah, Big 12" comment.
Case Law exists in Florida...the NCAA tried to maintain that a record that they let FSU attorneys access in a read only mode were confidential and thus were not released. The Associated Press filed suit to access that information.
Judge Cooper in Florida's Leon County Court (the same judge hearing FSU vs NCAA currently) ruled that the NCAA must release the documents.
It was appealed to the Appeals Court...the NCAA lost..
Records created and maintained by the NCAA are not generally subject to public disclosure. However, the documents at issue in this case were examined by lawyers for a public agency, Florida State University, and used in the course of the agency's business. Because the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records. The NCAA has failed to show that an exception applies under state or federal law, and thus the records must be disclosed.
.....
The term “received” in section 119.011(12) refers not only to a situation in which a public agent takes physical delivery of a document, but also to one in which a public agent examines a document residing on a remote computer. If that were not the case, a party could easily circumvent the public records laws. The appeal by the University is a matter of public concern. It is not transformed into a private matter merely because the documents the University lawyers used to prepare the appeal reside on a computer owned by a private organization. As the plaintiffs expressed this point, the definition of a public record does not turn on the sender's method of transmission.
The lawyers signed a confidentiality agreement with the NCAA, but that has no impact on our decision that the transcript and response are public records. A public record cannot be transformed into a private record merely because an agent of the government has promised that it will be kept private. See Gadd v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 412 So.2d 894, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Browning v. Walton, 351 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Nor is it material that the NCAA had an expectation that the documents would remain private. As we explained in Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), “[A] private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information it furnishes a governmental agency confidential.” The right to examine these records is a right belonging to the public; it cannot be bargained away by a representative of the government.
For law weenies only: