Thursday, November 18, 2010

Eric Crawford's pro and con arguments regarding the appeal of Enes Kanter

2 comments:

Marc said...

Good article.

WG said...

Beauty. It highlights something that happens during debates, legal and otherwise. An argument might appear impeccably well reasoned, and therefore convincing. But if it flows from a faulty premise - the Turkish club team paid Kanter a salary, wage or similar remuneration to play professional basketball - the argument falls on its face. If, that is, you point out the fault.

This case appears to turn on the conflict between the NCAA's definition of "pay" as any dollar over actual and necessary expenses, and the real-world definition you and I and Anonymous understand.