DCI partnering with Varsity Performing Arts to launch "SoundSport Scholastic" events

[N.E. Brigand]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

Anyone read the whole complaint?  I have.  Here's the link:  http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/KX330R32.pdf

For those of you who are curious about this notion that Varsity awarded points for teams using Varsity gear, it's not quite that way.  A couple of paragraphs out of 93 pages of the actual legal complaint addresses this contention with this language:

Page 31 shows that teams were allowed to use any suppliers "props" (pom-poms, etc) but non-Varsity suppliers were not allowed to sell their wares at Varsity events.

Page 32 shows, and I quote: "During the 'spirit' portion of the competition [evidenced elsewhere in the claim as the one minute period at the beginning of competitions where teams were rewarded for inciting excitement in the crowd] cheerleading teams were awarded for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; [elsewhere in the claim is evidence that other suppliers sold props and teams were allowed to use those props]; the more props the team uses, the more points that team receives."

There was never any restriction to use only Varsity gear and nothing in the judging rubric (found on the Varsity website itself) that states using Varsity gear awards additional points.

Let's all agree on one basic point to start: that's not a complaint.

It says right there on the first page: "Memorandum of Decision".

[GUARDLING]

53 minutes ago, E3D said:

Yeah maybe in the germ factory of the north east.

But in the sunbelt children are out playing soccer, cheerleaders are cheering, ballet academy's are dancing. 

I ust saw a few days ago schools opening and somewhere in central Fl closing down as fast as they opened..Remember Fl. was the example of what to do, then the rush to open, then they weren't.

Oh wait, this thread was about DCI and Varsity ,oops sorry

Edited September 2, 2020 by GUARDLING

[garfield]

17 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Let's all agree on one basic point to start: that's not a complaint.

It says right there on the first page: "Memorandum of Decision".

Yes, absolutely.  I did see that.  My terminology is wrong.  Thank you.

[N.E. Brigand]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

Anyone read the whole complaint?  I have.  Here's the link:  http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/KX330R32.pdf

Before we get further into this, I do want to thank you for providing that link.

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, garfield said:

Yes, absolutely.  I did see that.  My terminology is wrong.  Thank you.

No problem. Here's why it matters:

One part of your argument is that because that document was a "complaint" by a party opposed to Varsity, it must therefore paint Varsity in the worst possible light.

But it's nothing of the sort. Even if it were the initial complaint by the plaintiffs in the case, rather than the ruling the judge made in the case, the plaintiffs were not suing Varsity.

This document is not someone laying out the strongest case against Varsity. Far from it.

[garfield]

Just now, N.E. Brigand said:

Before we get further into this, I do want to thank you for providing that link.

You're welcome, and I'm glad to have your eyes reading it - it's fascinating and boring at the same time.  I suggest using their index and paragraph markers.

I would also suggest reading the class action currently on file.  It's contentions are spelled out pretty clearly.  Thankfully, class actions aren't protected by a presumption of confidentiality so the claims, defenses, and counter-claims will be easier to get.  Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer; I'm barely a decent human being if you ask some here but that just keeps me in the same class.  Oh WAIT, did I just insult some thin-skinned lawyer out there?  Awww...  

[N.E. Brigand]

20 hours ago, garfield said:

Anyone read the whole complaint?  I have.  Here's the link:  http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/KX330R32.pdf

For those of you who are curious about this notion that Varsity awarded points for teams using Varsity gear, it's not quite that way.  A couple of paragraphs out of 93 pages of the actual legal complaint addresses this contention with this language:

Page 31 shows that teams were allowed to use any suppliers "props" (pom-poms, etc) but non-Varsity suppliers were not allowed to sell their wares at Varsity events.

Page 32 shows, and I quote: "During the 'spirit' portion of the competition [evidenced elsewhere in the claim as the one minute period at the beginning of competitions where teams were rewarded for inciting excitement in the crowd] cheerleading teams were awarded for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; [elsewhere in the claim is evidence that other suppliers sold props and teams were allowed to use those props]; the more props the team uses, the more points that team receives."

There was never any restriction to use only Varsity gear and nothing in the judging rubric (found on the Varsity website itself) that states using Varsity gear awards additional points.

I'd also like to note one notable point in the judge's decision: while he ruled that cheerleading is not a sport (for purposes of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act), he totally agrees that cheerleaders are competitive athletes (p. 67).

If Spirit of Atlanta had remained Spirit of Jacksonville State University, I wonder if a decision like this would have led to some interesting consequences for drum corps.

[garfield]

7 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

No problem. Here's why it matters:

One part of your argument is that because that document was a "complaint" by a party opposed to Varsity, it must therefore paint Varsity in the worst possible light.

But it's nothing of the sort. Even if it were the initial complaint by the plaintiffs in the case, rather than the ruling the judge made in the case, the plaintiffs were not suing Varsity.

This document is not someone laying out the strongest case against Varsity. Far from it.

Hmmm...  (pulling my chin...)

Firstly, my use of the word "complaint" in this doc must be filtered as you stated as a memorandum of the facts that went into the decision.  You are correct that this is the judge's interpretation of the facts that formed the opinion to make the order at the end.  The facts, as he sees, do show two components: one is that non-Varsity props were allowed at Varsity events and the other is that teams received more points for using more props.

 

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, garfield said:

Hmmm...  (pulling my chin...)

Firstly, my use of the word "complaint" in this doc must be filtered as you stated as a memorandum of the facts that went into the decision.  You are correct that this is the judge's interpretation of the facts that formed the opinion to make the order at the end.  The facts, as he sees, do show two components: one is that non-Varsity props were allowed at Varsity events and the other is that teams received more points for using more props.

Yes, we'll get to that part. (It's problematic, in my opinion.)

I just wanted to make it clear, particularly for those who don't want to read the decision, that nobody in this case was trying to make an argument against what Varsity had done (or not done). That was a secondary matter.

[E3D]

I'm going to go back and read the DCI announcement for Varsity sound-sport and reevaluate my position. I currently and previously held or hold the opinion that its a good thing. Still don't see the problem.