1) I defer to your expertise on saying that Underwood has to play him, but still struggle to see how that could actually be enforced. Like if the university tried to argue that the coaching staff felt that the disruption and distraction of trying to re-insert a player into the lineup now would be detrimental to the team’s long-term success (even if that’s objectively hard to believe), is a federal judge able to tell a basketball coach how many minutes he has to play guys?
2) In isolation, what the judge ruled on last week technically has nothing to do with the merits of the criminal charge. But in reality, do you think it factored into her decision even if she can’t come out and say that? Like what if there was DNA evidence and/or he was caught on the bar’s camera with the girl. By the narrow scope of what she was ruling on, none of that should have impacted her decision if I understand the process correctly. But I just feel like we wouldn’t be seeing him on the court right now if the evidence was stronger. I didn’t read the whole opinion but saw the one quote about him “not even knowing who the accuser was,” felt like that was hinting at her skepticism about the merits of the case.
Previous Message
Still need to purge maryland debacle vibes out of the SFC. So Rutgers could zone us to death and whatnot?