| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/06/15 4:06 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| 22 wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" eexception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
(d) says notwitstanding (all of) section 1(b), international players --as defined in (e) are eligible at 20.
So she doesn't even need to be 22, no? |
Not exactly. (e) defines "international player" as someone "born and residing outside the United States who participates in the game of basketball as an amateur or a professional." It then continues that " An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above."
Since Zahui B exercises basketball eligibility in the US, she is governed by Section 1(b)(iii).
It's kind of like the baseball draft rules. A high school player is eligible if they have graduated from high school and have not yet attended college. But if they attend a four year college they aren't eligible until they have completed their junior year or are at least 21 years old.
An international player can be drafted in the WNBA at age 20 if they only play in Europe, but if they play for a US college then they are subject to the collegiate eligibility rules. My question is whether that includes all the college eligibility rules, or only the "graduating class" rule as the text suggests. |
As an object lesson for other and more important issues, Art and 22 have two interpretive choices. Each can:
1. Struggle as best they can to apply the literal words of the contract to the international player.
-- OR --
2. Choose to interpret the words in accordance with their personal policy preferences for international players. They can rationalize this by purporting to find a "deep structure" within the "entirety of the contract", which reveals to them the "true intent of the signatories" notwithstanding the actual words used in the contract (= statute = Constitution).
In either case, both Art and 22 will be qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court.
How about a different question. If AZB declares, gets drafted, and then decides she doesn't want to go into the W, can she just chuck the whole draft thing, go back to school next year, and enter the draft again in a later year? |
So instead of being snide, why don't you give your interpretation of the rule. It seems pretty plain on its face. How do you read it? |
I wasn't being snide in that post or this one.
I assume lawyers for AZB and the WNBA will interpret the rules such that AZB can enter the draft this year, that Minnesota will not challenge this interpretation even if it's the weaker one, and that, therefore, no interested party with standing will be proffering the counter-interpretation even if it is stronger. Thus, the interpretation issue will probably never go "to court". If it did, the judges have the two options I describe.
What if she changes her mind if she finds out she's going to Tulsa? |
If anyone would object I would assume it would be the players union, since she may take away the job of a member.
I'd like to hear your interpretation because there seems to only be one, yet everyone seems to be relying on the "age 22" rule, and I'm curious how they get there. A logical explanation of how (b)(i) becomes applicable to a player covered by (e) would be of interest to me. Do you have one?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8231
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 4:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
After pondering these CBA words, I think the issue of AZB's eligibility for the draft depends on the interpretation of the words "original class" in Section 1(b)(iii).
Here's my analysis.
Section 1(b) provides three paths for players to enter the draft, and all three paths assume the player has had or has used some form of US collegiate eligibility.
Section 1(d) is a general rule for international players that says to forget the three paths in Section 1(b) for international players because they can enter the draft at age 20.
Section 1(e)(second sentence) is a later and more specific rule for international players who use US collegiate eligibility. A later and more specific rule usually trumps, in law, an earlier and more general rule. This trumping rule says that international players who partake of US collegiate eligibility are subject to one (and only one) of the paths in Section 1(b) -- namely, the Section 1(b)(iii) path that allows college students to enter the draft if their "original class" has already graduated or will graduate within three months of the April 16 WNBA draft.
To summarize with respect to AZB: Had she never partaken of US collegiate eligibility, she could have entered the WNBA draft at age 20 (under Section 1(d)). However, given that she has undertaken collegiate eligibility, she is only eligible (under Sections 1(e)(second sentence)) if her "original class" (under Section 1(b)(iii)) will have graduated by July 16, 2015.
That leaves the issue as to what is meant by AZB's "original class". If that means the class she's actually currently in at Minnesota, which is the class of 2017, she's not eligible for the WNBA draft, in my opinion.
However, if "original class" means the class she hypothetically could have gotten into if she had she promptly applied to a US college when she was first eligible for a US college, then her "original class" could mean the class of 2015. In that hypothetical case interpretion of "original class", AZB is eligible to enter the draft under the graduated/ing original class path.
Comments? Or do y'all need Adderall. |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7373
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 4:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I can see where the phrase "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" came from. Do you really have nothing better to do than this?
She's now declared for the draft. Apparently somebody who writes this gobbledegook for a living said she was eligible to do so. Game over. Next.
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| How about a different question. If AZB declares, gets drafted, and then decides she doesn't want to go into the W, can she just chuck the whole draft thing, go back to school next year, and enter the draft again in a later year? |
No, she has to sign a form renouncing her eligibility in order to be eligible for the draft. |
She does? Under what Section? What about Section 1(d)? This goes to the Art-22 debate. |
In 2 different sections from what you posted about it says
| Quote: |
| she either has no remaining intercollegiate eligibility or renounces her remaining intercollegiate eligibility by written notice to the WNBA at least ten (10) days prior to such Draft. |
So presumable the written notice is a form she has to sign, not just her typing up on a piece of paper she is declaring for the draft.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 5:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Really wanted to see Zahui B and Banham play together so this is a bummer. Stollings did a really nice job this year as a first year coach when she had to adjust on the fly to not having Banham but this might set them back in her rebuilding process. 1 more year of Banham and then the roster in 2 years will have lost Banham, Zahui B and Kelley that is a lot of fire power to replace.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 6:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| How about a different question. If AZB declares, gets drafted, and then decides she doesn't want to go into the W, can she just chuck the whole draft thing, go back to school next year, and enter the draft again in a later year? |
No, she has to sign a form renouncing her eligibility in order to be eligible for the draft. |
She does? Under what Section? What about Section 1(d)? This goes to the Art-22 debate. |
In 2 different sections from what you posted about it says
| Quote: |
| she either has no remaining intercollegiate eligibility or renounces her remaining intercollegiate eligibility by written notice to the WNBA at least ten (10) days prior to such Draft. |
So presumable the written notice is a form she has to sign, not just her typing up on a piece of paper she is declaring for the draft. |
In contracts, "written notice" generally means just that - a piece of paper (in some cases an email will do) that tells the other party that you intend to do whatever it is that requires the written notice. Sometimes a contract will specify a form, but usually it does not. In some cases, a party that is supposed to receive a notice will create a form that it will accept as meeting the requirements (here, that she's renouncing her college eligibility), and generally you'd want to use that form, but wouldn't be required to do it so long as you said everything that had to be said.
My reading of the rule is as follows:
1. Start with 1(b)(i) - If you're 22 years old, you're eligible.
2. 1(d) is an exception to 1(b), but only expands the pool of eligible players. In other words, if you're eligible under some other part of 1(b), you don't need to read 1(d) at all.
3. 1(e) looks like sloppy drafting to me, but I read it as an exception to the exception - if you'd otherwise be eligible at 20 but are playing college ball in the U.S., you're not eligible at 20 and are eligible, at a minimum, when your class would graduate. In any event, I don't think you get to it until you get to 1(d).
4. Just as a footnote, remember that the international player exception applies to players who were born and *are* residing outside the U.S., so if you're living in the U.S. (say, if you just finished a season of college basketball), you might not fall within the exception anyway. That strikes me, personally, as another example of sloppy drafting, but maybe someone was thinking of a specific example of a player who played a couple of years for some college in the U.S. and then went home when it was written.
Of course, whatever any of us think, the key point on the interpretation is that the WNBA has to have agreed with her that all she needs to do is to be 22 and renounce her eligibility or she wouldn't be entering the draft. The union potentially could disagree, but that probably would require an arbitration. I expect that her people spoke to the WNBA and maybe the union and were told that, yes, she is eligible. Minnesota has no power to stop her, as she's free to leave school whenever she wants.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63785
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 6:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Durantula wrote: |
| Really wanted to see Zahui B and Banham play together so this is a bummer. Stollings did a really nice job this year as a first year coach when she had to adjust on the fly to not having Banham but this might set them back in her rebuilding process. 1 more year of Banham and then the roster in 2 years will have lost Banham, Zahui B and Kelley that is a lot of fire power to replace. |
For me, jury's still out on Stollings. In my opinion she was outcoached in her last game, losing a 15 pt lead in the second half.
Remember, Stollings' situation was very similar to Borton's situation when she started at Minnesota. Borton adopted great players in Whalen and McCarville and took them to the Final Four to start her stay at Minnesota. Did that mean she was a great coach? Apparently not.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 6:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| How about a different question. If AZB declares, gets drafted, and then decides she doesn't want to go into the W, can she just chuck the whole draft thing, go back to school next year, and enter the draft again in a later year? |
No, she has to sign a form renouncing her eligibility in order to be eligible for the draft. |
She does? Under what Section? What about Section 1(d)? This goes to the Art-22 debate. |
In 2 different sections from what you posted about it says
| Quote: |
| she either has no remaining intercollegiate eligibility or renounces her remaining intercollegiate eligibility by written notice to the WNBA at least ten (10) days prior to such Draft. |
So presumable the written notice is a form she has to sign, not just her typing up on a piece of paper she is declaring for the draft. |
In contracts, "written notice" generally means just that - a piece of paper (in some cases an email will do) that tells the other party that you intend to do whatever it is that requires the written notice. Sometimes a contract will specify a form, but usually it does not. In some cases, a party that is supposed to receive a notice will create a form that it will accept as meeting the requirements (here, that she's renouncing her college eligibility), and generally you'd want to use that form, but wouldn't be required to do it so long as you said everything that had to be said.
My reading of the rule is as follows:
1. Start with 1(b)(i) - If you're 22 years old, you're eligible.
2. 1(d) is an exception to 1(b), but only expands the pool of eligible players. In other words, if you're eligible under some other part of 1(b), you don't need to read 1(d) at all.
3. 1(e) looks like sloppy drafting to me, but I read it as an exception to the exception - if you'd otherwise be eligible at 20 but are playing college ball in the U.S., you're not eligible at 20 and are eligible, at a minimum, when your class would graduate. In any event, I don't think you get to it until you get to 1(d).
4. Just as a footnote, remember that the international player exception applies to players who were born and *are* residing outside the U.S., so if you're living in the U.S. (say, if you just finished a season of college basketball), you might not fall within the exception anyway. That strikes me, personally, as another example of sloppy drafting, but maybe someone was thinking of a specific example of a player who played a couple of years for some college in the U.S. and then went home when it was written.
Of course, whatever any of us think, the key point on the interpretation is that the WNBA has to have agreed with her that all she needs to do is to be 22 and renounce her eligibility or she wouldn't be entering the draft. The union potentially could disagree, but that probably would require an arbitration. I expect that her people spoke to the WNBA and maybe the union and were told that, yes, she is eligible. Minnesota has no power to stop her, as she's free to leave school whenever she wants. |
Interesting, given the circumstances, I thought it would need to be some type of legal document or notarized or something other than just writing/typing it up on your own piece of paper.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 6:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 8:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 9:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players. |
Fine, then we disagree. But your back must hurt from those contortions. It's really not that complicated.
(e) is quite clear. You want to try to read it as saying "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b) above. And that's what they would have written if they wanted your outcome. But they didn't. They were very specific in their reference. They wrote "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " They referenced 1(b)(iii) and only 1(b)(iii) and said that's what they're subject to.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8231
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
After pondering these CBA words, I think the issue of AZB's eligibility for the draft depends on the interpretation of the words "original class" in Section 1(b)(iii).
Here's my analysis.
Section 1(b) provides three paths for players to enter the draft, and all three paths assume the player has had or has used some form of US collegiate eligibility.
Section 1(d) is a general rule for international players that says to forget the three paths in Section 1(b) for international players because they can enter the draft at age 20.
Section 1(e)(second sentence) is a later and more specific rule for international players who use US collegiate eligibility. A later and more specific rule usually trumps, in law, an earlier and more general rule. This trumping rule says that international players who partake of US collegiate eligibility are subject to one (and only one) of the paths in Section 1(b) -- namely, the Section 1(b)(iii) path that allows college students to enter the draft if their "original class" has already graduated or will graduate within three months of the April 16 WNBA draft.
To summarize with respect to AZB: Had she never partaken of US collegiate eligibility, she could have entered the WNBA draft at age 20 (under Section 1(d)). However, given that she has undertaken collegiate eligibility, she is only eligible (under Sections 1(e)(second sentence)) if her "original class" (under Section 1(b)(iii)) will have graduated by July 16, 2015.
That leaves the issue as to what is meant by AZB's "original class". If that means the class she's actually currently in at Minnesota, which is the class of 2017, she's not eligible for the WNBA draft, in my opinion.
However, if "original class" means the class she hypothetically could have gotten into if she had she promptly applied to a US college when she was first eligible for a US college, then her "original class" could mean the class of 2015. In that hypothetical case interpretion of "original class", AZB is eligible to enter the draft under the graduated/ing original class path.
Comments? Or do y'all need Adderall. |
I still think this analysis of mine is the correct one if AZB is an "international player" -- which we've all been assuming, perhaps incorrectly -- and if the analysis is correct, AZB would have to renounce her remaining eligibility under Section 1(b)(iii).
If AZB is not an international player because she "resid[es] outside" the U.S., then she is eligible for the draft as a 22 year old under Section 1(b)(i) and must renounce further eligibility under that section. |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players. |
Fine, then we disagree. But your back must hurt from those contortions. It's really not that complicated.
(e) is quite clear. You want to try to read it as saying "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b) above. And that's what they would have written if they wanted your outcome. But they didn't. They were very specific in their reference. They wrote "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " They referenced 1(b)(iii) and only 1(b)(iii) and said that's what they're subject to. |
It's rather more of a contortion to assume that the "notwithstanding" language overrides 1(b)(i), when it's pretty obvious that 1(d) is intended to create additional eligibility for the draft, not to restrict it.
When people write contracts (or laws, for that matter), they almost always write the general rule first, then exceptions (and exceptions can either expand the general rule or narrow it). Think of the language as a flow chart for draft eligibility, which works like this:
1. Do you meet any of the 1(b) standards? If so, you're eligible; if not, move on to 2.
2. Would you meet the 1(b) standards if you weren't competing in the NCAA tournament at the deadline? If so, you can make yourself eligible later than the deadline. If not, move on to 3.
3. Are you an international player who's at least 20 years old? If no, you're not eligible; if yes, move on to 4.
4. If you're an international player and haven't exercised college eligibility, you're eligible for the draft. If you exercise college eligibility in the U.S., you can enter the draft if your class has graduated or is set to graduate this year.
One important point here is that reading the eligibility rule any other way would have the impact of making it harder for international players who play college ball in the U.S. to enter the draft than for U.S. players, which makes no sense. For instance, assuming that (e) overrides 1(b) means that an international player who has graduated isn't eligible for the draft.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15743
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 9:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Durantula wrote: |
| Really wanted to see Zahui B and Banham play together so this is a bummer. Stollings did a really nice job this year as a first year coach when she had to adjust on the fly to not having Banham but this might set them back in her rebuilding process. 1 more year of Banham and then the roster in 2 years will have lost Banham, Zahui B and Kelley that is a lot of fire power to replace. |
I was also thinking right away how disappointed Banham must be to lose that caliber of teammate. One more year might have produced a REALLY great season for MN, and translated into a crop of outstanding recruits.
But, good for her! Hopefully she'll translate well into the pro level.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 10:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players. |
Fine, then we disagree. But your back must hurt from those contortions. It's really not that complicated.
(e) is quite clear. You want to try to read it as saying "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b) above. And that's what they would have written if they wanted your outcome. But they didn't. They were very specific in their reference. They wrote "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " They referenced 1(b)(iii) and only 1(b)(iii) and said that's what they're subject to. |
It's rather more of a contortion to assume that the "notwithstanding" language overrides 1(b)(i), when it's pretty obvious that 1(d) is intended to create additional eligibility for the draft, not to restrict it.
When people write contracts (or laws, for that matter), they almost always write the general rule first, then exceptions (and exceptions can either expand the general rule or narrow it). Think of the language as a flow chart for draft eligibility, which works like this:
1. Do you meet any of the 1(b) standards? If so, you're eligible; if not, move on to 2.
2. Would you meet the 1(b) standards if you weren't competing in the NCAA tournament at the deadline? If so, you can make yourself eligible later than the deadline. If not, move on to 3.
3. Are you an international player who's at least 20 years old? If no, you're not eligible; if yes, move on to 4.
4. If you're an international player and haven't exercised college eligibility, you're eligible for the draft. If you exercise college eligibility in the U.S., you can enter the draft if your class has graduated or is set to graduate this year.
One important point here is that reading the eligibility rule any other way would have the impact of making it harder for international players who play college ball in the U.S. to enter the draft than for U.S. players, which makes no sense. For instance, assuming that (e) overrides 1(b) means that an international player who has graduated isn't eligible for the draft. |
I understand your last point. But I don't know the reasons. Your reading permits one year wonders. A 22 year old foreign player could come to the US, play one year of college ball to get known, and immediately go pro. Maybe they wanted to prevent that. Maybe they wanted to follow the MLB and NHL approach of giving you a choice. Go to school, or go pro, but if you choose school you have to stay in school. It's actually a perfectly reasonable outcome.
I know how to write and interpret a contract. And when you set out a particular treatment for a specific class of persons it's because you intend that treatment to govern that class. If you intend it as only an alternative you'd better say so explicitly.
Besides, if (b) governs all college players - US and international - then the second sentence of (e) would be completely superfluous because by your view intl players in college would would already be covered by (b). Must mean something else than that.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 10:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players. |
Fine, then we disagree. But your back must hurt from those contortions. It's really not that complicated.
(e) is quite clear. You want to try to read it as saying "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b) above. And that's what they would have written if they wanted your outcome. But they didn't. They were very specific in their reference. They wrote "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " They referenced 1(b)(iii) and only 1(b)(iii) and said that's what they're subject to. |
It's rather more of a contortion to assume that the "notwithstanding" language overrides 1(b)(i), when it's pretty obvious that 1(d) is intended to create additional eligibility for the draft, not to restrict it.
When people write contracts (or laws, for that matter), they almost always write the general rule first, then exceptions (and exceptions can either expand the general rule or narrow it). Think of the language as a flow chart for draft eligibility, which works like this:
1. Do you meet any of the 1(b) standards? If so, you're eligible; if not, move on to 2.
2. Would you meet the 1(b) standards if you weren't competing in the NCAA tournament at the deadline? If so, you can make yourself eligible later than the deadline. If not, move on to 3.
3. Are you an international player who's at least 20 years old? If no, you're not eligible; if yes, move on to 4.
4. If you're an international player and haven't exercised college eligibility, you're eligible for the draft. If you exercise college eligibility in the U.S., you can enter the draft if your class has graduated or is set to graduate this year.
One important point here is that reading the eligibility rule any other way would have the impact of making it harder for international players who play college ball in the U.S. to enter the draft than for U.S. players, which makes no sense. For instance, assuming that (e) overrides 1(b) means that an international player who has graduated isn't eligible for the draft. |
I understand your last point. But I don't know the reasons. Your reading permits one year wonders. A 22 year old foreign player could come to the US, play one year of college ball to get known, and immediately go pro. Maybe they wanted to prevent that. Maybe they wanted to follow the MLB and NHL approach of giving you a choice. Go to school, or go pro, but if you choose school you have to stay in school. It's actually a perfectly reasonable outcome.
I know how to write and interpret a contract. And when you set out a particular treatment for a specific class of persons it's because you intend that treatment to govern that class. If you intend it as only an alternative you'd better say so explicitly.
Besides, if (b) governs all college players - US and international - then the second sentence of (e) would be completely superfluous because by your view intl players in college would would already be covered by (b). Must mean something else than that. |
Oddly enough, I know how to write and interpret contracts, too.
Anyway, the explanation for (e) is simple enough - it's an exception to (d), narrowing it rather than broadening it. That's not very unusual. And you're incorrect to say it's superfluous. Imagine an international player who comes to the U.S. at 18 or 19 and plays 2 years - she's not 22, she hasn't graduated and her class hasn't graduated. She doesn't fit into (b) as a consequence, and (e) makes her ineligible for the draft even though under (d) she normally would be eligible as an international player. I don't know why they did it, but there are situations in which it would apply. Heck, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Letitia Romero falls into this category.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8231
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/15 10:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare |
Oh . . . I must have gotten confused with the ages of AZB, Romero and Loyd while all this researching and writing about the CBA was going on. I thought AZB was 19 or 20.
If AZB will be 22 this year, I agree with Myrtle's simple analysis. I read the CBA to say that anyone can enter the draft at age 22 under Section 1(b)(i) whether they are domestic or international players.
If an international player is in a U.S. college and is not yet 22 or graduated -- which I erroneously thought was AZB's situation -- then that international player can't rely on the age 20 rule of Section 1(d). Per Section 1(e)(2d sentence), such a player must enter the draft under the original class graduated/ing rule of Section 1(b)(iii), which then may require an interpretation of "original class". However, none of this complexity applies if AZB will in fact be 22 in 2015 (particularly if she is not an "international player" at all, which also has not yet been factually established, at least to my knowledge). |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/15 11:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_27858179/minnesota-gophers-zahui-b-declares-wnba-draft
Ouch!
| Quote: |
Banham received a medical waiver and will return for the 2015-16 season, but she will be surrounded by perimeter players.
Three returning starters are guards: freshman Carlie Wagner and juniors Shayne Mullaney and Mikayla Bailey. The only returning center on the roster is redshirt freshman Josie Buckingham, who is 6-5 but very raw.
First-year Gophers coach Marlene Stollings also had six players transfer from the team since midseason, so depth is a concern.
Even with the addition next season of four-star Canadian recruit Danielle Garven and junior college transfers Kynadi Johnson and Keyondra Jenkins, Minnesota still has an unbalanced roster with seven guards, one forward and one center. |
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/15 11:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
http://www.artesianews.com/1037106/ap-source-minnesotas-zahui-b-declares-for-wnba-draft.html
According to the above story, Zahui B has declared for the draft. I'm disappointed, as I had really looked forward to seeing her play alongside Banham. I guess, with that and all the transfers, you might as well stick a fork in the Gophers. They're done already, Banham or no Banham.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/15 11:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| So Banham will now likely join the list of best players never to play in an NCAA Tournament game.
|
|
|
|
