We knew the appeal was coming, and so it is. But even in its inevitability, there’s something so… so NCAA about this:
… But antitrust and labor attorneys believe the NCAA’s strongest argument might be against the financial cap, a part of the decision the NCAA initially lauded.
“If she’s right that these restrictions are an unreasonable restraint of trade then the cap doesn’t make any sense,” said Robert McTamaney, an antitrust lawyer with the firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn. “Then student-athletes should be able to negotiate for whatever they can get.”
My guess is that’s where Kessler’s suit is going to wind up, but wouldn’t it be typical if that ruling came down on the NCAA’s appeal? Maybe somebody should ask Stacey Osburn if she has a comment about that.
Some tasty tidbits for your sampling pleasure:
- Here’s a look at some of the possible ramifications of O’Bannon, from a Duke perspective.
- “The Internet may be losing the war against trolls. At the very least, it isn’t winning.” No shit.
- Notre Dame’s academic scandal and the recruiting trail.
- For those of you who can’t get enough Todd Grantham, here’s the man live and hands on. (h/t CardDawg, who’s on the mother)
- Nick James, you bad, mane.
- Maybe we should refer to Georgia’s class of 2010 as Survivor: 2010.
- Hawaii’s AD says the school may not be able to afford to continue its football program.
- Oklahoma suspends an incoming freshman after he’s charged with misdemeanor assault, but is making the effort to have Dorial Green-Beckham declared eligible for this season. AD says, “As the university has demonstrated in the past, we are committed to winning the right way…”. Color me confused.
- The Nuttster and Gus, together again.
So how dire are things with collegiate athletics? So dire somebody actually said this with a straight face:
The NCAA has reached the point on unfavorable legal rulings that retiring University System of Maryland chancellor William Kirwan, co-chair of the reform-minded Knight Commission, said he now views Congress as “our last, best hope for getting anything right with intercollegiate athletics.”
Tom McMillan, former member of Congress and now a board member at the University of Maryland, isn’t willing to see his former mates go that far, but does think a joint Congressional-Presidential Commission wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Eh. In any event, he’s spot on with this observation:
McMillen said the O’Bannon ruling shows public sentiment will continue to move against the NCAA regarding the rights of players.
“You can only put so many fingers in the dikes,” McMillen said. “I think it’s clear that the old model is unraveling, it’s just a matter of time. It reminds me of the Soviet Union trying to keep the old USSR together, and all of a sudden it just broke apart one day. The model is built out of a very flimsy facade that’s falling down.
“The whole idea that players have no rights and they’re student-athletes and they’re not supposed to get anything is just so antiquated. When you go down the commercial road so far, you better be prepared for the commercial consequences. We have swung so far down the commercial road that it may be difficult to turn it back.”
So, is Mark Emmert more like Brezhnev or Gorbachev?
As a general rule of thumb, when highly ranked quarterback recruits and their families say things like “It’s a business. That’s the bottom line.”, we’re probably about to hear a lot from coaches about how a rule needs to be changed.
For the good of the kids, of course.
You’ll be shocked, shocked to learn that the NCAA and its co-defendants are asking for an extension to respond to the Shawne Alston and Martin Jenkins antitrust scholarship lawsuits. Why? Well,
In a filing late Wednesday night, the NCAA and the five major conferences cited the recent Ed O’Bannon ruling before the same judge as the reason they need at least 30 days to respond. The NCAA and the conferences “have been reviewing the Court’s ruling in that (O’Bannon) action to assess its possible impact on the allegations and claims — as well as the Defendants’ anticipated joint motion to dismiss such claims — in this action,” according to the filing by a Pac-12 attorney.
Yeah, who could have foreseen the court would rule as it did in O’Bannon?
Then, again, considering how feebly the defense witnesses came off in that trial, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to get back in a courtroom, either.
Money is the language of concern.
Over the first half of 2014, the NCAA already broke its record of yearly lobbying expenditures. During 2013, the NCAA spent $160,000 on lobbying. This year, as of June 30, it has already spent $240,000. That includes $180,000 just in the second quarter, which covers April to June.
Gee, I wonder what’s been going on lately. Maybe this is an indication.
A new topic appears on every lobbying disclosure filed after March 2014: the “welfare” or “well-being” of student athletes.
Isn’t that just the sweetest? Why, I bet those folks in Congress are ever so impressed.