IBC And The Pandemic: Is There A Way Out For Resolution Applicants?

first_imgColumnsIBC And The Pandemic: Is There A Way Out For Resolution Applicants? Amrita Thakore23 May 2020 12:30 AMShare This – xPrior to the onset of Covid19 and the lockdown, several resolution plans would have been at the stage of: (1) Having been submitted under Section 30(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cleared under Section 30(2) thereof by the resolution professional and pending approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), or, (2) Having been approved by the CoC under Section…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginPrior to the onset of Covid19 and the lockdown, several resolution plans would have been at the stage of: (1) Having been submitted under Section 30(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cleared under Section 30(2) thereof by the resolution professional and pending approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), or, (2) Having been approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the IBC and pending approval by the Adjudicating Authority, or, (3) Having been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of IBC. The question that may arise, in light of the immensely transformed scenario after Covid19, is whether a resolution applicant, finding his circumstances greatly altered, can legitimately walk out of the resolution plan. This piece provide a possible view on this issue. A few important provisions of the IBC, are reproduced below: Section 5. Definitions (25) “resolution applicant” means a person, who individually or jointly with any other person, submits a resolution plan to the resolution professional pursuant to the invitation made under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 25; (26) “resolution plan” means a plan proposed by resolution applicant for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern in accordance with Part II; Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that a resolution plan may include provisions for the restructuring of the corporate debtor, including by way of merger, amalgamation and demerger; 12-A. Withdrawal of application admitted under Section 7, 9 or 10.- The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent. voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be specified. 30. Submission of resolution plan.- (1) A resolution applicant may submit a resolution plan along with an affidavit stating that he is eligible under Section 29-A to the resolution professional prepared on the basis of the information memorandum. (2) The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan- (a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the payment of other debts of the corporate debtor; (b) provides for the payment of debts of operational creditors in such manner as may be specified by the Board which shall not be less than- (i) the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53; or (ii) the amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been distributed in accordance with the order of priority in sub-section (1) of Section 53, whichever is higher, and provides for the payment of debts of financial creditors, who do not vote in favour of the resolution plan, in such manner as may be specified by the Board, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 53 in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor. Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that a distribution in accordance with the provisions of this clause shall be fair and equitable to such creditors. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this clause, it is hereby declared that on and from the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019, the provisions of this clause shall also apply to the corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor- (i) where a resolution plan has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority; (ii) where an appeal has been preferred under Section 61 or Section 62 or such an appeal is not time barred under any provision of law for the time being in force; or (iii) where a legal proceeding has been initiated in any court against the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of a resolution plan; (c) provides for the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan; (d) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan; (e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force; (f) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (e), if any approval of shareholders is required under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other law for the time being in force for the implementation of actions under the resolution plan, such approval shall be deemed to have been given and it shall not be a contravention of that Act or law. (3) The resolution professional shall present to the committee of creditors for its approval such resolution plans which confirm the conditions referred to in sub-section (2). (4) The committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than sixty-six per cent. of voting share of the financial creditors, after considering its feasibility and viability, the manner of distribution proposed, which may take into account the order of priority amongst creditors as laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 53, including the priority and value of the security interest of a secured creditor] and such other requirements as may be specified by the Board: Provided that the committee of creditors shall not approve a resolution plan, submitted before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, where the resolution applicant is ineligible under Section 29-A and may require the resolution professional to invite a fresh resolution plan where no other resolution plan is available with it: Provided further that where the resolution applicant referred to in the first proviso is ineligible under clause (c) of Section 29-A, the resolution applicant shall be allowed by the committee of creditors such period, not exceeding thirty days, to make payment of overdue amounts in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of Section 29-A: Provided also that nothing in the second proviso shall be construed as extension of period for the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 12, and the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be completed within the period specified in that sub-section. Provided also that the eligibility criteria in Section 29-A as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (Ord. 6 of 2018) shall apply to the resolution applicant who has not submitted resolution plan as on the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (Ord. 6 of 2018). (5) The resolution applicant may attend the meeting of the committee of creditors in which the resolution plan of the applicant is considered: Provided that the resolution applicant shall not have a right to vote at the meeting of the committee of creditors unless such resolution applicant is also a financial creditor. (6) The resolution professional shall submit the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors to the Adjudicating Authority. 31. Approval of resolution plan.- (1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of Section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan: Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before passing an order for approval of resolution plan under this sub-section, satisfy that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation. (2) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan does not confirm to the requirements referred to in sub-section (1), it may, by an order, reject the resolution plan. (3) After the order of approval under sub-section (1),- (a) the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 shall cease to have effect; and (b) the resolution professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to the Board to be recorded on its database. (4) The resolution applicant shall, pursuant to the resolution plan approved under sub-section (1), obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) or within such period as provided for in such law, whichever is later: Provided that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the committee of creditors. 32. Appeal.- Any appeal from an order approving the resolution plan shall be in the manner and on the grounds laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 61. Section 60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons (1) … (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of- (a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person; (b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code. 61. Appeals and Appellate Authority (1) … (2) … (3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under Section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely- (i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force; (ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period; (iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board; (iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or (v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board. 74. Punishment for contravention of moratorium or the resolution plan.- (1) … (2) … (3) Where the corporate debtor, any of its officers or creditors or any person on whom the approved resolution plan is binding under Section 31, knowingly and wilfully contravenes any of the terms of such resolution plan or abets such contravention, such corporate debtor, officer, creditor or person shall be punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year, but may extend to five years, or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but may extend to one crore rupees, or with both. 238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws.- The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. The first question would be: What is a resolution plan in law? A resolution plan is defined in Section 5(26) to mean a plan proposed by resolution applicant for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern in accordance with Part II. A resolution plan is therefore a “proposal” and it is the CoC, which, by way of a vote of not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors, has the discretion under Section 30 to approve such a proposal [provided ofcourse it meets the conditions prescribed in Section 30(2) and is not hit by Section 29A] or to reject it even if it meets such requirements but the CoC is not satisfied with its terms. The resolution plan and its approval by the CoC have the trappings of a “proposal” and “acceptance” respectively, as they are known in contract law, and the acceptance by the CoC of a resolution plan could be said to result in a contract. However, the resolution plan, even though approved by the CoC, still needs to pass one more barrier to become binding, which is the approval by the Adjudication Authority under Section 31. Could a resolution plan approved by the CoC, therefore, be termed as a “contingent contract”? A contingent contract is defined in the Contract Act, 1872 as follows: 31. “Contingent contract” defined. A “contingent contract” is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen. Section 32 of the Contract Act provides that contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event happens, cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has happened and that, if the event becomes impossible, such contracts become void. A resolution plan approved by the CoC cannot be enforced unless and until the uncertain future event, being the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, happens. Therefore, a resolution plan approved by the CoC could be termed as a contingent contract. If we arrive at the conclusion that it is a contract, the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 would come into play. The stages (2) and (3) mentioned in the opening paragraph of this piece, i.e. resolution plan having been approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the IBC and pending approval by the Adjudicating Authority, or having been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of IBC, pertain to a concluded contract, whereas stage (1) pertains to an offer and not to a concluded contract. Stages (2) and (3): Let us first take the case of stages (2) and (3) to find out whether a resolution applicant at either of these stages can walk out. For the purposes of this piece, we proceed on the assumption that there is no force majeure clause in the resolution plan (because if there is, such clause must be seen and interpreted to decide whether or not a force majeure event as contemplated therein has occurred). Therefore, it is Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 which we need to look at, in cases where the resolution applicant is claiming, on the basis of Covid19 and its aftermath, an impossibility to implement the resolution plan which has no force majeure clause. [1] The main body of Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 reads as under: 56. Agreement to do impossible act.- An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful.- A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or unlawful.-Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise. Illustrations …. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to notice one provision of the IBC, being Section 238, which provides that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. This provision would not come in the way of Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 since the latter provision does not appear to be inconsistent with the IBC. Section 56 applies to otherwise binding contracts (which an approved resolution plan would be) and only inter alia makes them void on account of impossibility and there is no provision in the IBC which expressly or impliedly provides that the doctrine of impossibility would not apply to a resolution plan. It is well settled that there should be a clear inconsistency between the two enactments before giving an overriding effect to the non obstante clause. [2] As stated earlier, a resolution plan is a plan “for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern”. A resolution plan is essentially a plan to pay the debts of the corporate debtor to an extent, and to take over and run the corporate debtor as a going concern. Therefore, resolution plans are offers worked out by the resolution applicant based on his financial position and availability / possibility of finances as well as the resolution applicant’s understanding of the assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor and it future prospects. A resolution applicant’s “impossibility” to implement the resolution plan in the aftermath of Covid19, would ordinarily be based on a financial inability or difficulty. I say, ordinarily, because, it is not possible to visualise every repercussion of Covid19 and we could even come across cases of resolution applicants citing inability to implement resolution plans on other grounds. But taking the ordinary reason of financial inability forward, can Section 56 of the Contract Act be invoked by resolution applicants? It appears not. The Supreme Court[3] has consistently held that it is only when a consideration of the terms of the contract, in the light of the circumstances existing when it was made, showed that they never agreed to be bound in a fundamentally different situation which had unexpectedly emerged, that the contract ceases to bind and that the performance of a contract is never discharged merely because the circumstances in which it was made are altered or because it may have become onerous to one of the parties. Therefore, the financial inability of a resolution applicant to implement the resolution plan, on account of Covid19, therefore, may not absolve the resolution applicant from it. If, however, the resolution applicant is able to demonstrate that Covid19 and it aftermath have resulted in say a literal impossibility to implement the resolution plan or the emergence of a fundamentally different situation which has upset the very foundation upon which the resolution plan was agreed to[4], then he may stand a chance of being released from his obligation. If the resolution applicant fails to establish his case under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, he may be liable to pay damages for breach of contract, since a contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise cannot be specifically enforced.[5] Further, the question of criminal liability under Section 74 of the IBC would not arise if the resolution applicant succeeds in proving his case in regard to impossibility, but the resolution applicant would have to be prepared for criminal proceedings being initiated against him under Section 74 and the uncertainty of its outcome based on whether he is absolved or not. The next issue is: Where and how can a resolution applicant seek such a relief? The only answer to that would be an application under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which confers jurisdiction upon the National Company Law Tribunal to decide any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor. A suit is clearly barred under Section 231 of the IBC. An appeal under Section 32 read with Section 61 of the IBC is only available on the grounds mentioned in the latter provision. An application under Section 12A of the IBC can only be for withdrawal of an application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10.[6] An issue which might arise pertains to performance security[7] which is sought at the time of approval of the resolution plan. Even if a resolution applicant has a case for being absolved from implementation of the resolution plan, he may still find himself tied to it on account of the performance security which had been provided by him and which may be invoked by the CoC on the ground of non-performance of the resolution plan. Assuming such performance securities to be unconditional bank guarantees (as they are most likely to be), it is almost certain that they would be invoked in such circumstances. The likelihood of an injunction against invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee is remote considering the law on the subject, which makes the judicial interference on the basis of the underlying contract[8] or on the basis of the existence of a dispute between parties[9] impermissible, but the resolution applicant can, in his application under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, seek a suitable relief for refund of that amount. Stage (1): Stage (1) pertains to an offer and not to a concluded contract. Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1872, which deals with revocation of proposals and acceptances, reads as under: 5. Revocation of proposals and acceptances.- A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. Illustrations: … Therefore, it is possible for a resolution application to revoke or withdraw his resolution plan before it is approved by the CoC. However, a complication may arise here too if there is a stipulation that resolution applicants cannot withdraw their resolution plans for a period of x number of days/months from the date of submission or other such similar clauses and requiring resolution applicants to furnish unconditional bank guarantees or make a deposit along with their resolution plans, which can be invoked or forfeited, as the case may be, inter alia in case of withdrawal of the resolution plan before its stipulated validity period.[10] The Supreme Court[11], in the context of withdrawal of a bid before the expiry of its validity period, has held as under: “9. …By invoking the bank guarantee and/or enforcing the bid security, there is no statutory right, exercise of which was being fettered. There is no term in the contract which is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The Indian Contract Act merely provides that a person can withdraw his offer before its acceptance. But withdrawal of an offer, before it is accepted, is a completely different aspect from forfeiture of earnest/security money which has been given for a particular purpose. A person may have a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited for not entering into contract or if some act is not performed, then even though he may have a right to withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/security, in no way, affects any statutory right under the Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own wrong by not allowing forfeiture. It must be remembered that, particularly in government contracts, such a term is always included in order to ensure that only a genuine party makes a bid. If such a term was not there even a person who does not have the capacity or a person who has no intention of entering into the contract will make a bid. The whole purpose of such a clause i.e. to see that only genuine bids are received would be lost if forfeiture was not permitted.” Following the aforesaid decision, in another case[12], the Supreme Court held as under: “11. …Thus, even though under Section 5 of the Act a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, the respondent was bound by the agreement contained in its offer/bid to keep the bid open for acceptance up to 90 days after the last date of receipt of bid and if the respondent withdrew its bid before the expiry of the said period of 90 days the respondent was liable to suffer the consequence (i.e. forfeiture of the full value of bid security) as agreed to by the respondent in Para 10 of the offer/bid. Under the cover of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act, the respondent cannot escape from the obligations and liabilities under the agreements contained in its offer/bid. 12. The right to withdraw an offer before its acceptance cannot nullify the agreement to suffer any penalty for the withdrawal of the offer against the terms of agreement. A person may have a right to withdraw his offer, but if he has made his offer on a condition that the bid security amount can be forfeited in case he withdraws the offer during the period of bid validity, he has no right to claim that the bid security should not be forfeited and it should be returned to him. Forfeiture of such bid security amount does not, in any way, affect any statutory right under Section 5 of the Act. The bid security was given by the respondent and taken by the appellants to ensure that the offer is not withdrawn during the bid validity period of 90 days and a contract comes into existence. Such conditions are included to ensure that only genuine parties make the bids. In the absence of such conditions, persons who do not have the capacity or have no intention of entering into the contract will make bids. The very purpose of such a condition in the offer/bid will be defeated, if forfeiture is not permitted when the offer is withdrawn in violation of the agreement.” The aforesaid two decisions have been affirmed by a larger bench of the Supreme Court[13]. It is therefore difficult to contend that the resolution applicant should not suffer the penalty for the withdrawal of the resolution plan despite the terms of agreement contained in its offer to keep the offer open for x number of days/months and to suffer such penalty for failure to do so. However, here again, what we can perceive is an “agreement” between the resolution applicant and the CoC in respect of the offer (the resolution plan), being that the resolution plan would remain valid for x number of days/months and the resolution applicant would suffer penalty for premature withdrawal. Once again, therefore, we are faced with a contract, a contract to which the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 apply, such as Section 56 thereof. Could it therefore be argued that even this contract of ensuring validity of resolution plan for x number of days/months and suffering penalty for not doing so can be said to have become void on account of impossibility? Again that would depend on whether the resolution applicant is able to demonstrate literal impossibility or the emergence of a fundamentally different situation which has upset the very foundation of this contract. An extremely uphill task. As to the remedy, it is only in an application under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC that these issues can be considered. Conclusion: Thus, while it appears that resolution applicants may contend in numerous cases that Covid19 and its aftermath have resulted in the resolution plans having become impossible of performance, the burden upon them to prove this would be very heavy and a mere financial difficulty is unlikely to liberate them from their obligations without consequence. (The author is an advocate practising in the Gujarat High Court) [1] See the observations of the Supreme Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, AIR 1954 SC 44 and in Energy Watchdog v. CERC, (2017) 14 SCC 80, in regard to applicability of Sections 32 and 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. [2] Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cable Technologies, (2018) 2 SCC 674 [3] Alopi Parshad v. UOI, AIR 1960 SC 588, Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyaliram Jagannath, AIR 1968 SC 522, Energy Watchdog v. CERC, (2017) 14 SCC 80 [4] Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, AIR 1954 SC 44, Alopi Parshad v. UOI, AIR 1960 SC 588, Energy Watchdog v. CERC, (2017) 14 SCC 80 [5] See Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [6] See the judgment dated 22.1.2020 delivered by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Seamless v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh. It may be noted that the Supreme Court has only held that withdrawal of a resolution plan is not permissible under Section 12A but has not dealt with the question whether it is permissible otherwise. [7] See Regulation 36B(4A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, which was inserted w.e.f. 24.1.2019 [8] National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, (2003) 7 SCC 410, Himadri Chemicals v. Coal Tar Refining, (2007) 8 SCC 110 [9] U. P. State Sugar Corp. v. Sumac International, (1997) 1 SCC 568, Himadri Chemicals v. Coal Tar Refining, (2007) 8 SCC 110, Vinitec Electronics v. HCL Infosystems, (2008) 1 SCC 544 [10] See, however, Regulation 36B(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, which was inserted w.e.f. 4.7.2018. This regulation provides that the request for resolution plans shall not require any non-refundable deposit for submission of or along with resolution plan. [11] National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, (2003) 7 SCC 410 [12] State of Haryana v. Malik Traders, (2011) 13 SCC 200 [13] NTPC v. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2015) 4 SCC 252 Next Storylast_img read more

Read More →

Light Fly Miiro maintain’s Uganda’s fine boxing tradition

first_img1966 Kingston001119  GoldMoses Ndiema Kipsiro2010 DelhiAthletics10,000 metres 2006 Melbourne201315  GoldMohamed Muruli1974 ChristchurchBoxingWelterweight Total1315214918 1954 Vancouver010114 Miiro after his fight early today. PHOTO VIA @teddyeugene ?? Juma Miiro to face Indian opponent in Friday final.Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | Light-Flyweight Juma Miiro entered the 2018 Commonwealth Games medal bracket on Tuesday as Ugandan boxing continued a glorious tradition that started in 1958.By defeating Kenya’s Shaffi Hassan on split points, with three of the five judges giving the quarterfinal fight to the Ugandan, the 22-year-old Miiro stormed Friday’s semifinal where he will face Indian age-mate Amit for a place in the gold/silver final. The semifinal loser will get bronze.Since Thomas Kawere’s silver in 1958, Ugandan boxers have returned home with a medal in each of the Commonwealth Games they have participated in.At the last games in 2014, Lightfly Fazil Juma Kaggwa and Super heavy Mike Sekabembe brought bronze.The last gold for Uganda is however way back at the 1990 Auckland games where Light Flyweight Justin Juuko Boxing and Lightweight Godfrey Nyakana won their final fights.Later today, welterweight Musa Bwogi faces Englishman Pat McCormack for a semifinal and medal place.  GoldDorcus Inzikuru2006 MelbourneAthletics3000m Steeplechase  SilverThomas Kawere1958 CardiffBoxingWelterweight  GoldJames Odwori1970 EdinburghBoxingLight Flyweight 1998 Kuala Lumpur001132  GoldBenson Masanda1970 EdinburghBoxingHeavyweight  SilverVictor Byarugaba1982 BrisbaneBoxingLight Middleweight  GoldMoses Ndiema Kipsiro2010 DelhiAthletics5,000 metres  SilverJoseph Lubega2002 ManchesterBoxingLight Heavyweight 1982 Brisbane030318  GoldJustin Juuko1990 AucklandBoxingLight Flyweight (– 48 kg) Uganda’s history at Commonwealth games  SilverKesi Odongo1962 PerthBoxingLightweight Tweets about #GC2018 uganda  SilverSilver Ayoo1974 ChristchurchAthletics400 metres  SilverRuth Kyalisima1982 BrisbaneAthletics400m Hurdles  SilverPatrick Etolu1954 VancouverAthleticsHigh Jump  SilverJames Odwori1974 ChristchurchBoxingLight Flyweight MedalNameGamesSportEvent  SilverWilliam Koskei1970 EdinburghAthletics400 metres hurdlescenter_img  SilverShadrack Odhiambo1974 ChristchurchBoxingFeatherweight  SilverPeter Rwamuhanda1982 BrisbaneAthletics400m Hurdles GamesGoldSilverBronzeTotalRank  GoldMohamed Muruli1970 EdinburghBoxingLight Welterweight  SilverMohamed Kayongo2002 ManchesterBoxingLight Welterweight 2010 Delhi200218  GoldBoniface Kiprop2006 MelbourneAthletics10,000 metres  SilverLeo Rwabwogo1970 EdinburghBoxingFlyweight 1958 Cardiff010117 1962 Perth114611  GoldGeorge Oywello1962 PerthBoxingHeavyweight 2014 Glasgow104518 2002 Manchester020230  GoldGodfrey Nyakana1990 AucklandBoxingLightweight (– 60 kg) 1990 Auckland202411 Uganda medals Commonwealth games  SilverDeogratias Musoke1970 EdinburghBoxingFeatherweight  GoldAyub Kalule1974 ChristchurchBoxingLightweight 1974 Christchurch243910  SilverAli Rojo1974 ChristchurchBoxingBantamweight 1994 Victoria002224 1970 Edinburgh33179  GoldMoses Ndiema Kipsiro2014 GlasgowAthletics10,000 metres Share on: WhatsApplast_img read more

Read More →

China to stay on path of ‘peaceful development’ & continue to be ‘positive force’: Premier Li

first_imgBeijing: China will stay on the path of “peaceful development” and continue to be a “positive force” and contribute for regional and global peace, Premier Li Keqiang said here on Friday, amidst global concern over Beijing flexing its muscles in the region. Li, who addressed over two-and-a-half-hour press conference at the end of the Chinese legislature the National People’s Congress, mostly answered selected questions on China’s economy and internal social issues as well as ties with the US, Russia and the EU. Also Read – US blacklists 28 Chinese entities over abuses in Xinjiang However in his closing remarks, he said that China will continue to follow the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness in developing relations with its neighbours. “China will stay on the path of peaceful development and continue to be a positive force and contributor for regional and global peace,” he said. China asserts nearly all of the resource-rich South China Sea as its territory, while Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam have counter claims over the area. Also Read – Want to bring back US forces engaged in endless wars: Trump The US has been conducting regular patrols in the South China Sea to assert the freedom of navigation in the area where Beijing has built up and militarised many of the islands and reefs it controls in the region. When asked about China’s priority regarding the conclusion of the China-Japan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Li said it will depend on the efforts made by parties concerned. “Whichever will be concluded first, China will take a welcome attitude to the development,” Li added. Though he did not comment on the current situation in South Asia, Foreign Minister Wang Yi in his annual press conference last week said that India and Pakistan should quickly turn the page after the Pulwama terror attack, meet each other halfway and transform the present crisis into an opportunity for a long term and fundamental improvement in their bilateral relations.last_img read more

Read More →

LeBrons Greatest Challenge The NBA Finals Arent Kind To Underdogs

Let’s play FiveThirtyEight Family Feud. Twenty seconds on the clock.Name an animal that begins with the letter ‘F’.Fox!Name a famous Super Bowl upset.J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets.Name a famous NBA Finals upset.I mean… umm, uh.Uhhhhhhrrrrrrrmm.That isn’t an easy question. Didn’t Bill Russell’s Celtics once lose in the finals? (They did, exactly once, in 1958 to the St. Louis Hawks.) Wasn’t it kind of an upset when Dwyane Wade and Shaq led the 52-30 Miami Heat to a title in 2006? (It was, though not by much.) The NBA doesn’t lend itself to upsets. When each team has around 100 possessions per game, small differences tend to add up. And the differences really compound over a seven-game series. This has been particularly true in the NBA Finals. Whether by chance or because of the conditions under which finals games are played, underdogs have had an especially low success rate.The 2015 NBA Finals, which begin Thursday night in Oakland, look like a compelling matchup. Our Elo ratings provisionally rate the Golden State Warriors as the third-best NBA team of all time based on their performance to date. (There’s no big secret here. A 79-18 record — that counts the playoffs — is pretty amazing against this season’s Western Conference competition.) But the Cleveland Cavaliers’ Elo rating has been rising and is at its high point for the season, 1712. Only three finals matchups started with a higher combined Elo rating, and all three involved Michael Jordan’s Bulls.Maybe LeBron James really is good enough to overcome a middling supporting cast. But his odds aren’t great. The Cavaliers would be only about a 3-point underdog on a neutral court, according to Elo. Over a seven-game series, however — and with the Warriors having home-court advantage in a potential Game 7 — that adds up to just a 25 percent chance of the Cavs winning the series.1I get to that 25 percent figure — meaning the Warriors have a 75 percent chance of becoming NBA champs — by solving for all possible permutations in the seven-game series. Based on Elo ratings, the Warriors have about a 3-in-4 chance of winning each game played at home in Oakland, while the teams are about even-money in games played in Cleveland. I also account for the fact that the teams’ Elo ratings will change over the course of the series, which improves the underdog’s (Cleveland’s) chances slightly. Without recalculating Elo ratings at the end of each game, Golden State’s chances would be 79 percent instead of 75 percent. (That matches the odds according to another statistical system we’ve been using to handicap the NBA.) And that may be optimistic if history is any guide.Elo’s a really simple formula, so there’s a lot it doesn’t account for. You can make a case — we could argue about this for a long time — that past NBA Finals experience matters and could help James. Any lingering effects from the injuries sustained by Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson could matter a great deal to the Warriors, of course. Then again, Cleveland’s also pretty beat up,2Is Kevin Love’s injury the ultimate case of the Ewing Theory? and James’s superpowers were nowhere near enough against the San Antonio Spurs last year.The other thing is that underdogs have historically been bad bets in the NBA Finals. Here’s every NBA Finals matchup in history, with each team’s Elo rating going into the series and the probability Elo would have assigned to each team winning the series beforehand.It’s not just your lack of imagination: It really is hard to find monumental upsets in the NBA Finals. By Elo’s reckoning, the biggest one came in 1974, when the Boston Celtics beat the Milwaukee Bucks in seven games. That’s mostly because the Celtics looked worn down during the stretch run, finishing the regular season 27-20 in their final 47 games and deflating their Elo rating. (Plus, the Bucks were no fluke, with both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson on the roster.)Overall, however, of the 39 series in which Elo would have given one team at least a 2-in-3 chance of winning, the favorite in fact won 35 times, or almost 90 percent of the time.Why such a high success rate? It could be a statistical fluke; we aren’t looking at all that large a sample. But this phenomenon isn’t unique to the NBA: It also holds for the NFL playoffs, we’ve found. Elo ratings treat regular-season games and playoff games the same. But in both the NBA and NFL, favorites tend to be more dominant in the playoffs, especially late in the playoffs, than they are in the regular season.The reason may be that some of the “noise” that affects teams in the regular season is absent in the playoffs. No team is coming off a back-to-back, for instance. Teams are going all-out to win, instead of potentially testing out new strategies or resting starters. And at least in theory — although there a lot of NBA fans who would dispute this when refs like Joey Crawford are often involved — the games are adjudicated by the best officials. When you remove some of the quirky circumstances that can cost teams games — bad refs, funky schedules — the best teams tend to prevail more often.That’s bad news for James, but it will add all the more to his legacy if the Cavs pull the upset off. read more

Read More →

Did Your Team Blow It At The Trade Deadline

The Blue Jays bought, the Tigers sold and the Mets couldn’t make up their mind. Baseball’s trade deadline, which passed last Friday afternoon, is all about balancing the present against the future. Whether they’re buyers or sellers (or just renters), all deadline-dealers have to evaluate both their World Series chances for the current season and where they will be in the “success cycle” going forward. Blunders in either type of assessment can haunt a franchise for years.It’s a lot to deal with, and not every team manages the process perfectly. To help model these deadline decisions, we developed a metric we’ve nicknamed the “Doyle Number.” It’s named after the infamous 1987 trade in which the Detroit Tigers sent future Hall of Famer John Smoltz, then a 20-year-old prospect, to the Atlanta Braves for 36-year-old Doyle Alexander.In principle, the definition of the Doyle Number is simple. It represents the rate at which, at the trade deadline, teams should be willing to trade talent in the future for talent in the current season in order to maximize the total number of World Series that it wins. For instance, if a team has a Doyle Number of 2, that means buying a win’s worth of talent in the current season1Note our phrasing here: By a “win’s worth of talent,” we mean a win per 162 games. This won’t be worth a full win in the standings as of the trade deadline because there are only 60 or so games left to play. As we’ll describe later, however, much of the benefit of acquiring players at the trade deadline comes from improving the roster for the postseason rather than during the balance of the regular season. at the trade deadline is worth giving up two wins in the future. By contrast, a team with a Doyle Number of 0.25 should only be willing to give up one-quarter of a future win for a win now. Not only should such a team not buy wins at that price — it should probably sell veteran talent at the deadline instead, in exchange for prospects.The Doyle Number is calculated based on a team’s estimated “true talent,” a concept that’s equivalent to its projected winning percentage for the rest of the year, as of the trade deadline.2This can be measured by any number of gauges; in this case, we used the most predictive cocktail of preseason statistical forecasts and betting over/unders, updated in-season with pythagorean records. The Doyle also includes the team’s odds of making the divisional playoff round.3In other words, we’re essentially ignoring the wild card “play-in” game. In practice, the calculation gets slightly involved, so we’ve reserved most of the methodological discussion for the footnotes.4First, our model projects a team’s odds of reaching the divisional playoffs in the current season as a function of its estimated true talent and its “coin flip mode” playoff odds (its odds of making the playoffs if every remaining game were 50/50) as of July 31. This allows us to estimate how a team’s playoff odds change if it adds or subtracts talent at the deadline.To calculate a team’s chance of winning the World Series, conditional upon reaching the playoffs, we use a binomial distribution to estimate its chance of winning a five-game divisional series, a seven-game league championship series, and a seven-game World Series against opponents with 90-win true talent, which is the historical average for teams that reached the divisional playoffs.Through a similar process, our model also calculates a team’s chances of winning the World Series in each of the six subsequent seasons. The model accounts for the fact that a team’s true talent level regresses fairly heavily toward the mean of an 81-81 record, but that the margin of error increases the more years you project a team’s record into the future.The model assumes that for each win a team adds at the trade deadline, it subtracts one-sixth of a win in each of the next six seasons. For example, a team that adds six wins of true talent at the 2015 trade deadline will have one win of true talent subtracted from its projection in each year from 2016 through 2021.The Doyle Number acts as a multiplier on a team’s future win projection. For instance, at a Doyle Number of 2, the aforementioned team would lose two wins of talent from its projection in future seasons instead of one. The Doyle Number is set such that by adding an epsilon of talent, the net change in the number of World Series a team projects to win over current and future seasons is zero — in other words, the point at which the near-term benefit from making the trade exactly offsets the long-term cost.But it’s important to pay attention to that two-word phrase we used above: “World Series.” In Doyle, it’s all about the rings! A lot of previous analyses, including some that we’ve published ourselves, have focused on a team’s chance of making the playoffs. If that’s your main goal, you’ll eventually encounter diminishing returns: A team with 100-win talent as of the trade deadline is all but certain to make the playoffs, for instance, so adding more talent won’t accomplish very much.Winning a championship is another matter, however. It’s hard for any team to win the World Series, but it’s much harder for a team, like the 2005 San Diego Padres, that sneaks into the playoffs with a league-average roster. Just as in the NCAA basketball tournament, relatively modest talent differentials can compound over several playoff rounds. A team with 80-win talent has only about a 5 percent chance of winning the World Series, conditional on making the divisional playoffs; a team with 90-win talent has a 12 percent chance. A team with 100-win talent has a 24 percent chance.One of the biggest lessons of Doyle, in fact, is that adding the talent to win once you’re in the playoffs is probably more important than picking up enough talent to merely get there. The point at which adding an extra win of talent stops accelerating a playoff team’s World Series odds upward is about 118 wins — a level of true talent reserved for the best All-Star teams ever. Realistically, you can never add too much talent if you’re gearing up to win a World Series.But let’s see how this plays out in practice. Below, we’ve listed the Doyle Number for the 30 major league teams as of the trade deadline last week.The highest Doyle Number (2.07) belongs to the St. Louis Cardinals, who are probably the best team in baseball, with more than 96 wins of talent and a 21 percent likelihood of winning the World Series. Even though St. Louis already had a completely stacked roster and a very high likelihood of making the division series without any trades, the increase in championship probability upon entering the MLB postseason would have made even a lopsided long-term trade worth it. The Cardinals should have been prepared to give away as many as two wins of future talent to get one win at the trade deadline.5In reality, St. Louis made a series of small moves, acquiring Brandon Moss, Steve Cishek and Jonathan Broxton.That the Cardinals (and the Los Angeles Dodgers and Washington Nationals) top the Doyle rankings runs a bit counter to the conventional wisdom, which says that less-talented teams have the most to gain from a big splash at the trade deadline. However, as long as a team’s Doyle Number is above 1, they’d be better off buying than selling. That’s why Doyle also would have recommended a classic buyer’s mentality for the Kansas City Royals, New York Yankees and Houston Astros — three teams that have found themselves in the midst of far better seasons than would be expected from their talent. This suggests the Royals were right to go for broke in the short term; for them, each marginal win of talent added in 2015 is worth forsaking about 1.5 wins of future talent.Of course, while we’ve focused exclusively on trade-deadline buyers thus far, other teams had to decide whether they’d be better off selling current assets for future wins. The Philadelphia Phillies, to take an extreme example, have literally no use for extra talent in 2015 because they’re all but eliminated from the playoffs. Therefore, their Doyle Number was 0.00.The Detroit Tigers had a Doyle Number of just 0.14, which would heavily recommend selling. In fact, the Tigers dealt stars David Price and Yoenis Cespedes at the deadline; it didn’t make manager Brad Ausmus happy, but Doyle was pleased.Indeed, selling is almost always right for teams on the outer fringes of playoff contention (before the deadline, the Tigers had only about a 7 percent chance of reaching the divisional playoffs). The average team begins the regular season with a 27 percent chance of making the divisional playoffs. If a team’s playoff odds are lower than that as of the trade deadline, it should usually sell.The in-between cases can be tricky, however. Despite having a talented roster, the Toronto Blue Jays entered the trade deadline with only about a 26 percent chance of making the playoffs. But they probably added the most talent at the deadline of any team in baseball in the form of Price and Troy Tulowitzki, sending numerous prospects packing.Their Doyle Number of 0.77 is slightly below 1, which might initially suggest that they made the wrong move. In fact, however — and we’ve avoided introducing this complication until now — a team’s Doyle Number varies based on how many wins of talent it might add or subtract. Teams like the Blue Jays actually enter the trade deadline with a ‘U’-shaped curve like the one you see below.We know this is getting abstract, but it has a really important baseball implication. It means that for a team like Toronto, the worst strategy is standing pat. In terms of maximizing its total number of World Series championships, it should either add talent at the deadline or punt on the season and play for future years. By Doyle’s logic, in fact, teams should be going “all-in,” moving as aggressively as possible in one or the other direction at the deadline. Adding two stars, like the Jays did with Tulo and Price, is better than one.6This is a consequence of the finding we described above: The marginal gain in World Series probability tends to increase, not diminish, with additional talent added. This also applies to the Mets, who, after getting cold feet on Carlos Gomez, eventually did deal for Cespedes. Doyle’s complaint might be that the Mets weren’t aggressive enough: They could have added a Cespedes for the rest of us and a star second baseman too!The Doyle system admittedly represents a vast simplification compared with all the considerations that could be included in such a model. Future iterations might take into account factors like a team’s financial situation and the quality of its minor-league system, among other things.7In addition, it can be hard in practice to add talent to an already stacked roster. But it at least offers a broad set of guidelines upon which to judge a front office’s decision-making process.While Doyle doesn’t vindicate every dubious decision — the Tigers had a 34 percent chance of making the playoffs on the date they traded for Alexander in 1987, which would have made for a close call — it suggests that teams should often be quite aggressive at the deadline. A team needs to be honest with itself about whether its World Series chances are legitimate, but if they are, it might never get a better chance at a championship. read more

Read More →

At ease in Iowa City Coach Kirk Ferentz remains intent on keeping

Few coaches in college football have done more with less than Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz. Since becoming coach in 1999, Ferentz has won 88 games, five bowl games and two Big Ten championships with the Hawkeyes. A three-time winner of the Big Ten Coach of the Year award, Ferentz has made Iowa a perennial conference title contender despite lagging behind other major programs in recruiting and other resources. But with Iowa at 7-3, 2010 has been a disappointing season for the defending Orange Bowl champions, who many expected to contend for the National Championship. Coming off a 21-17 defeat against Northwestern, Ferentz isn’t concerned about others’ expectations as he prepares his team for Ohio State on Saturday. “We’ve never worried too much about people’s expectations,” Ferentz said. “We just try to maximize every opportunity that we have and then we go from there.” After his tenure at Iowa began with a 4-19 record, Ferentz rebounded by guiding the Hawkeyes to six consecutive bowl games and winning two conference championships during that period. That success, along with prior experience as an assistant coach for the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens, made him a hot commodity in coaching circles, and many assumed he would leave Iowa for a job in the NFL. “Early they were linking me to the unemployment line, and then some NFL stuff later,” Ferentz said during a telephone conference this week. “That’s part of college football.” Although Ferentz often hears his name linked to possible coaching jobs in the NFL, he said he is bewildered by the speculation about his future. “I think the only logical reason for that is: I’ve got experience coaching in the NFL, and some of the people that I’ve worked with have done very well,” Ferentz said. “I’ve never given any indication that I had any intentions of leaving Iowa.” Iowa has made it difficult for Ferentz to consider leaving by giving him an annual salary of more than $3.6 million. His contract doesn’t expire until 2020. At Iowa, Ferentz has built much of his reputation on developing his players for the NFL. Dallas Clark, Aaron Kampman and Bob Sanders are among the many NFL standouts to have played for Ferentz at Iowa. “We’ve got a great group of guys that work with our players,” Ferentz said. “We do all we can to try and support them from the day they walk in until the day they leave and give them a chance to maximize all their capabilities.” What makes the success of his players even more remarkable is that Ferentz has rarely been able to bring blue chip prospects to Iowa. According to Rivals.com, Ferentz has never had a recruiting class ranked better than 11th in the nation. His second-highest ranked class was No. 28. “Our biggest challenge is our state population,” Ferentz said. “The high school football here is tremendous, but we only have 3 million people in our entire state.” “Between 80 and 90 percent of the time we’re recruiting in someone else’s state, which makes it a challenge,” he said. A win against the Buckeyes and coach Jim Tressel, who has a 4-1 record against Ferentz, would atone for many of Iowa’s shortcomings in the 2010 season. Tressel expects a stiff challenge from Ferentz’s team, which lost by a field goal in overtime last November in Columbus. “All summer long and all fall long, people have circled this game,” Tressel said. “We know what this game is all about.” read more

Read More →

Womens tennis falls to Northwestern in seasons 1st conference loss

The OSU women’s tennis team lost its first conference match of the season to perennial powerhouse No. 18 Northwestern, 5-2, on Friday. Temperatures during the match fell below 50 degrees, and wind gusts reached 33 mph. The loss drops the Buckeyes (10-8) to third place behind Michigan and Northwestern in the Big Ten with a 3-1 conference record. The Buckeyes, playing without injured senior Paloma Escobedo, were losing, 4-0, and facing a shutout when senior Cami Hubbs and sophomore Fidan Manashirova dug in. Manashirova ground out a hard-earned win against Northwestern’s Linda Abu Mushrefova in straight sets, 6-4, 7-6. Hubbs followed up her teammate’s win by defeating Northwestern’s Stacey Lee, 6-4, 7-6. “It was a really good win, and I felt really good out there,” Hubbs said. “I think we really showed (Northwestern) today … it doesn’t matter where, we’re going to be a contender.” Manashirova agreed. “This was a really good match for me,” she said. “I feel like the higher I play, the more competition I get, and I get to test myself.” Despite the setback, coach Chuck Merzbacher and his players are optimistic their tenacity will benefit them for the remainder of the season. “They never stopped fighting,” Merzbacher said. “We’re going to keep battling, and when you do that, you get in a position to win.” Fortunately for the Buckeyes, the loss Friday hasn’t curbed their focus. “I think the sky’s the limit for us,” Manashirova said. “We have to bring our best tennis every match.” Manashirova and the Buckeyes will need to bring their best tennis Saturday when they travel to Ann Arbor, Mich., to take on Big Ten leader Michigan before traveling to Michigan State on Sunday. Merzbacher is confident his team will respond. “I think we’re going to build on it,” he said. “Spirits are high. We’re strong, and I feel like we’re ready for that trip.” read more

Read More →

Urban Meyers recruiting knows no bounds

For Ohio State coach Urban Meyer, going out of state to recruit the top players in the country isn’t foreign territory. Meyer already has seven out-of-state high school players who have verbally committed to OSU for the 2013 season. Recruits from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri, Florida, Texas and California will represent the Buckeyes in the 2013 football season. Marc Givler, recruiting analyst at BuckeyeGrove.com, said there are several reasons for Meyer’s success when it comes to out-of-state recruiting, including his coaching experiences in different regions of the country. “He’s coached in Ohio so he’s got the Midwest ties, he’s coached in Utah so he has the West Coast ties and he’s coached in Florida so he’s got the Southeast ties,” Givler said. “He’s built all these relationships with high school coaches across the country, so it’s pretty easy for him to get in the door.” Meyer can’t take all the credit for out-of-state recruiting because his assistants within his staff have played a major role in getting these players as well. When Meyer assembled his coaching staff, he did so with recruiting in mind. “This staff was put together with a purpose,” Meyer said on National Signing Day Feb. 1. “And recruiting was without question a purpose in putting together this staff.” Kevin Noon, managing editor for BuckeyeGrove.com, said assembling a national staff of assistant coaches has been pivotal in Meyer’s success. “He’s able to go into Texas because of (offensive coordinator) Tom Herman and he’s able to go into North Carolina because of (co-defensive coordinator) Everett Withers, so he has some reach thanks to the guys working for him,” Noon said. In addition to recruiting players from around the country, Meyer has also maintained OSU’s appeal to in-state athletes. Givler said it is equally important for Meyer to win Ohio and keep in-state high schools happy. “You have to keep healthy relationships with high school coaches and players within Ohio also, because you don’t want to alienate yourself from your own state,” Givler said. “Meyer’s done a good job of keeping the balance.” Meyer’s theory is simple, which is to get the most talented players regardless of what state they are from. Noon said Meyer, along with all coaches, will always go national with recruiting because it’s all about getting the best available talent to help win games. “It all comes down to winning games, competing for the Big Ten and competing for a national championship in a couple of years,” Noon said. “If you can’t find certain talent in your own state, then it’s natural to go looking for it on the national level.” Steve Helwagen, managing editor for Bucknuts.com, said quarterback prospect J.T. Barrett, out of Rider High School in Wichita Falls, Texas, is one of Meyer’s most impressive out-of-state recruits. “The scouts have him listed as the No. 1 run-pass quarterback because he can drop back and throw from the pro style, or he can take off and be effective running the ball,” Helwagen said. Joey Bosa, a 6-foot-4, 225-pound defensive end from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Lewis Neal, a 6-foot-1, 232-pound defensive end from Wilson, N.C., are Meyer’s most recent committed recruits. Helwagen said OSU will always be a popular destination for national recruits with Meyer as coach. “He’s won two national championships,” Helwagen said. “He’s produced a bunch of NFL guys, his reputation along with Ohio State’s tradition is what kids want to be a part of.” read more

Read More →