jayday wrote:What a crock of ----.
Just another instance of a lawyer being able to fight the wording of a rule and not the intent.
Masoli was suspended from Oregon's team. If he hadn't been suspended from Oregon, he would've never transferred to Ole Miss. He worked the system by transferring to Ole Miss because he completed his bachelor's at Oregon and saying "Ohh, yes I totally want to enroll in Ole Miss's basket weaving master's program because Oregon doesn't offer a master's degree in basket weaving."
He worked the system, and he's going to get away with it.
Also, incoming derray post saying don't blame the lawyer for fighting the wording...i'e. it's not the lawyer's fault, it's the guy who wrote the rule. Love ya, dee. I would agree to an extent, the wording needs to be changed, but that doesn't make the ruling 'okay' in my opinion.
Took the words from my mouth, I agree with the ruling because that is how it is written. I do contract defense. Contracts are construed against the drafter. That means if you want to prevent something, write it properly.
I would also like to point out that I called the fact that he would win the appeal