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

[garfield]

7 hours ago, MikeD said:

 

This seems to be the statement in question. It can be read in all sorts of ways, with the commas and semi-colon.

"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."

You could read it like this:

"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."

I tend to look at it that way. the statement in red is the primary statement, with the green showing pom poms as an example of a prop, and yes, Varsity makes them. Does not mean the unit gets points for using Varsity props over other props; it does mean the spirit competition does awards points for props in general.

I guess some here read it this way:

"Page 32: During the “spirit” portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."

In that reading, the red text shows that props made by Varsity will enhance the score of the unit. The green is just one example of a prop. Personally, I find that interpretation to be silly, but that is just MHO.

 

 

I'm no English major, but I was taught that proper comma placement requires that the sentence still makes sense when what's between the commas is removed.

If "...such as pom poms..." and "...sold by Varsity..." were meant to be tied together, there would not be a comma between them.  As in "..., such as pom poms sold by Varsity Brands: the more Varsity props a team uses...

Also, if the judge wanted to tie together the score a team receives and the props used, the sentence after the semi-colon would have read: "...; the more VARSITY props a team uses, the more points..."

As much as it's reasonable to presume that the court's secretary who typed the judge's dictation may, or may not, be an English major, it's also reasonable to presume that the judge reviewed the syntax of his ruling  of her transcription to make this very important point as specific as possible.  

But those presumptions would be potentially changing the judges intent.

Edited September 4, 2020 by garfield

[garfield]

5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Also what do you make of this statement from the closing argument (p. 38) by the attorney for Quinnipiac University?

"You may recall about how the team used some pompoms in the one 45-second portion of one performance during the year in which they were actually required by Jeff Webb's company to use those pompoms, which by the way he also sold to the participants."

Is he saying that there was just one year in which teams were required to use pompoms?

Or is he saying that there was a year in which teams were required to use Varsity's pompoms?

I can only infer by the context of the discussion on pgs 37 & 38 that the one performance of every cheer competition where teams were required by the rules to use pom poms and other gear to incite the crowds excitement.  The more props used, the better the score.  Varsity sells props.

Also, it's clear that court transcripts and chock full of typos and, as such, presumed syntax errors.  The judges summary, retyped and reviewed, presumably by its nature is meant to remove those errors of syntax for clear interpretation and understanding of the testimony. 

I'm not sure where your scoop nose is taking you with Mary Ann's testimony but I'm all a-flutter waiting for your results.  

Edited September 4, 2020 by garfield

[garfield]

5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Well, I hate to say this, but new evidence suggests that garfield and MikeD may be right after all. Not sure yet. Need to read some more. But I'm definitely seeing a future where I write Matt Stoller and ask him to explain himself.

For those who want to solve this mystery on their own, here's a hit: Mary Ann Powers.

You "hate to" say that I might be right (along with MikeD and the rest of the silent masses)?  Really?  Is that Freudian? 

BTW, Matt Stoller's interest is, of course, in promoting his books and notions on monopolies.  Naturally his opinions on Varsity are biased and naturally he'll find "facts" that support his claim.  edited

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by garfield
that pesky semicolon

[garfield]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

just saying this: and yes, Varsity manufacturers props,..........yeah thats all you need right there.

I usually get your more obtuse posts but this one eludes me.  Are you saying simply that the fact that Varsity sells props is all the proof we, et al, need to be convinced that Varsity is guilty of "score-fixing" based on prop requirements?

Honest question and I'm only cautious about not speaking for you.

 

[E3D]

9 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

OK, the first thing I should do is note that I forgot your post when replying to garfield. Apparently you agree with him, and thus he's not alone. Which is fine by me; I agree the judge is not clear. You do a better job of parsing his words than garfield did, in my opinion.

But here you're replying to my request for Webb's words.

Yet what you cite is not Webb's words.

You're quoting the judge's description of what Webb said in trial.

I'm not saying the judge is lying. What I'm saying is that nobody yet seems to be able to find what Webb actually said about this.That's not the actual transcript of Webb's words. And that gap in our knowledge is frustrating attempts to get to the answer.

Because the subsequent press reports on the trial took the opposite position from you and garfield.

- - - - - - - - - -

Wait a minute, I think I realize the problem. Does anyone else realize, looking at the text below, why I haven't been able to find Webb's words?

"Indeed, testimony at trial revealed that the NCA’s scoring system was intertwined with the promotion of Varsity Brands. During the 'spirit' portion of the competition, cheerleading teams are awarded points for using props, such as pom poms, sold by Varsity Brands; the more props a team uses, the more points that team receives."

I'm not sure I'll have time before the weekend to investigate my hunch. Happy hunting to anyone who wants to get there first!

How are you reading these documents? Via a PDF software or ? Try using the search function for the key words? 

[E3D]

8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

just saying this: and yes, Varsity manufacturers props,..........yeah thats all you need right there.

Judge , Jury and executioner. Well played. 

[MikeD]

9 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Also what do you make of this statement from the closing argument (p. 38) by the attorney for Quinnipiac University?

"You may recall about how the team used some pompoms in the one 45-second portion of one performance during the year in which they were actually required by Jeff Webb's company to use those pompoms, which by the way he also sold to the participants."

Is he saying that there was just one year in which teams were required to use pompoms?

Or is he saying that there was a year in which teams were required to use Varsity's pompoms?

Not sure, plus it is just the school attorney's statement. As in the rest, it is unclear to me what the person means by the statement, or if it is true that they had to use Varsity pom poms. It is clear that for that particular competition format props were an advantage by how the performances were judged, but not that they was mandated to be from Varsity. 

[garfield]

9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

you mean like the many stories of judges in many circuits being told what to give groups? that's not in any rulebooks

So, what you're describing is not a Varsity problem, but a systemic judging problem?  "Most judges can be bought", kind of thing?

[garfield]

9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

and the NCAA did that to subtly fight Varsity. hasn't really slowed Varsity down because they'll claim the title NCAA chose is different.

Yes, which, again, proves that DCI is not a monopoly.

I'm no legal authority, but it would seem a very high bar to prove a monopoly in an industry where, apparently, the barrier to entry is only scale.  Scale is not anti-competitive, exactly as the NCAA proved by creating their own.

[Continental]

1 hour ago, E3D said:

Judge , Jury and executioner. Officer Krupke. Well played. 

As per another post (yes I modified your original post).

Some days I think he works at Target along with JimF. 

Other days I think N.E. Brigand is the General Manager at Target.  

Edited September 4, 2020 by Continental