Where’s a blue dress when you need one?

The NCAA filed its response to the O’Bannon plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment, and as you might expect, it’s a hoot-and-a-half.

Thursday night, the NCAA argued there are five justifications for the compensation limits — and it unloaded 87 exhibits to back those justifications. Among the exhibits are new statements from nine college presidents or chancellors, six conference commissioners and six athletics directors…

A good chunk of what’s mentioned in the article is a repeat of stale arguments that the judge has already rejected, but I do love me some Ken Starr:

“[P]aying student-athletes in men’s basketball and football would have a corrosive effect on University culture at Baylor and elsewhere, would be demoralizing to numerous other students, and would create an elitist group of paid athletes whose separateness from other students could interfere with their relationships with other students and faculty.”

“Could interfere with their relationships with other students and faculty”?  Where has this guy been for the last two decades?  Oh wait… never mind.


Filed under The NCAA

9 responses to “Where’s a blue dress when you need one?

  1. The question is; Will Claudia reconsider her refusal to certify a class that would allow the Plantiff’s to seek 3.2 BILLION in damages for past use of Atheletes’ names, etc. This is some heavy BS.


  2. Dog in Fla

    Dim Sum Starr: “It would have the separate but unequal corrosive effect of an elite blowjob at Baylor and elsewhere.”


  3. cube

    Is that different from an elitist group of highly compensated coaches, whose separateness from the university interferes with their relationships with the students, faculty, and university itself?