Bobref

🤪 The last time they hired a head coach without close ties to the program was 1946.

A game-changer, no doubt. Imagine the NCAA having to police whether a benefit is “education-related!”

A game-changer, no doubt. Imagine the NCAA having to police whether a benefit is “education-related!”

Now it makes sense. 🤣😂

Try as I might, I can make no sense of this.

The NCAA strictly regulates what benefits its member schools can provide scholarship athletes. A federal district court judge ruled that this violated antitrust laws, and that each school should be free to decide what benefits it will provide athletes. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed. Should the NCAA lose this one — and they rarely win — it could easily turn college sports into just another labor market, where employers are free to fashion their own compensation packages... so long as they have some connection to education. How’d you like to compete for talent against Alabama, whose cash rich athletic department sends all football players to a 2 week course of study abroad on the Riviera, or Paris? The Justices’ questioning at argument seemed to focus on the illusory nature of the present status of “amateurism “ in big time college sports, a concept the NCAA is having a lot of trouble defending, when you contrast that with the multi-billion dollar industry that is big time college athletics. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31172473/supreme-court-questions-validity-amateurism-ncaa-business-model Supreme Court questions validity of amateurism in NCAA's business model Dan MurphyESPN Staff Writer The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States questioned whether amateurism is an essential part of the NCAA's business model Wednesday during a landmark hearing for the future of college sports while also expressing concerns about starting a slippery slope of judicial rulings that could lead to the destruction of an American tradition. The Supreme Court heard more than 90 minutes of oral arguments Wednesday morning in the NCAA v. Alston case, the first time the nation's highest court has weighed in on the business of college sports in nearly four decades. The question in front of the court is whether the NCAA deserves special relief from normal antitrust rules in order to protect its educational mission and preserve a tradition of amateurism in college sports. The court is expected to make a ruling sometime in late spring or early summer. A federal district court judge decided in her ruling in the Alston case in 2020 that the limits NCAA member schools mutually agree to place on what each school can provide to its athletes in compensation are illegal. The judge's ruling opens the door for athletes to receive unlimited benefits as long as they are related in some way to education. That includes items such as classroom equipment, study abroad travel, funding for post-graduation internships and cash payments for academic achievements. The NCAA appealed the judge's ruling, arguing that the loose guidelines of education-related benefits could be exploited in a way that will blur the lines between college sports and professional leagues. "Whatever their labels, these new allowances are akin to professional salaries," said Seth Waxman, the NCAA's lead attorney, during his opening arguments Wednesday. Waxman and the NCAA claim that the unpaid status of college athletes is a key part of their appeal to consumers. Waxman says that because amateurism is the characteristic that sets the NCAA apart from others in the marketplace of sports entertainment, the organization should get to decide how to define the line between amateurs and professionals. He said that the ruling in district court amounted to a judge micromanaging the NCAA's business. Plaintiff's attorney Jeffrey Kessler and several of the justices pushed back on the idea that providing athletes with money would cause the public to lose interest in college sports. "The courts are appropriately focused on that, but we believe nothing bad will happen," Kessler told ESPN on Wednesday afternoon. "Just like nothing bad happened after the O'Bannon case they lost. Nothing bad happened after the Board of Regents case they lost. Nothing bad happened after the NCAA v. Law case that they lost. They always warn, the NCAA, that this will be the thing that ruins college sports. And what we find instead is that when they're forced to comply with the law it actually helps college sports." Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that athletes already receive some payment in the form of scholarships, stipends and other benefits and that those allowances have not caused a downturn in TV ratings or ticket sales. Waxman said the NCAA defines payment as any compensation that goes beyond "reasonable and necessary expenses to obtain an education." Justice Amy Coney Barrett later questioned why the NCAA should get to decide how to define what it means for an athlete to be paid. Several justices also expressed skepticism about the NCAA's "high-minded" claims about the importance of preserving amateurism. Justice Elena Kagan asked why the court shouldn't see the NCAA as an organization that has undisputed power over its market and uses the idea of amateurism to fix the price of labor. Kagan said that while amateurism may have been created more than a century ago to protect an institution that provides social value, that doesn't mean that is its function today. "You can only ride on the history for so long. A great deal has changed since 100 years ago in the way student-athletes are treated," Kagan said. "A great deal has changed [since 1985], let alone 100 years ago. I guess it doesn't move me all that much that there is a history to this." Later, when questioning the plaintiff's case, Kagan asked whether the incremental increase in what athletes are allowed to make will lead to more litigation in the future. She echoed the concern of several justices that their ruling in the Alston case would be the first step in a series of lawsuits that steadily chip away at the NCAA's rules until college sports are clearly professional by anyone's definition. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wondered what the "end game" would be for the plaintiffs to feel fully satisfied in the future. Kagan referred to it as the "floodgates argument." "What's next?" she asked. "Is it going to go up and up and up and pretty soon it will just be a regular labor market?" Justice Stephen Breyer was the most adamantly opposed of his colleagues to treating college sports like other industries. "I think if we really have a case here, it's a tough case for me," Breyer said. "This is not an ordinary product. This is an effort to bring into the world something that has brought joy and all kinds of things to millions and millions of people, and it's only partly economic. OK, so, I worry a lot about judges getting into the business of deciding how amateur sports should be run." Breyer argued that even if consumer demand wasn't significantly harmed by providing more compensation to athletes, there were other implications to changing the NCAA's rules that were worth considering. He cited the administrative burden on colleges and universities to implement these new rules as one example. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who spoke at the hearing in support of the plaintiff's side, said that the antitrust issue in front of the court was the only argument for it to consider. She said it was up to Congress and state legislators, not the judicial branch, to decide whether other problems that might come from changing the NCAA rules are worth the government's intervention. Prelogar petitioned to speak at the hearing in a somewhat unusual move in order to share the Department of Justice's thoughts on amateurism rules and how they fit into antitrust law. She said that amateurism was relevant in the case only to the extent that it impacts the NCAA's business model. She urged the justices to affirm the lower court's decision, saying that "there is no pro-competitive justification to deprive athletes to get benefits through ordinary competition."

“Archie” as a nickname? I suppose it could be worse. It could have been “Jughead.”

I think that was the whole idea. It’s not like they had a hidden agenda.

American Psycho

It’s Archie Miller. Ryan Miller is a hockey player.

I noticed you didn’t “swear to God” on that one! 😂🤣

I don’t think you necessarily have to go that far. But it should be illegal for a public sector union to strike. Eliminating the tool of a work stoppage, coupled with the Janus decision by SCOTUS in 2018, pulls a lot of the teeth a public sector union might otherwise have.

Apparently the agenda of “divisiveness” is being pushed by both sides, just in different ways.

Heard ex-NFL GM Mike Tannenbaum say on KJZ this morning that the Bears need to go after Sam Darnold, now that it’s pretty clear the Jets are taking Zack Wilson at #2, since Darnold gives them a better chance to win “than an aging Andy Dalton.” Thoughts?

The tally is now up to 19 lawsuits, with the potential of at least 5 more. And Watson’s lawyer said “We categorically deny that he has reached out directly to his accusers in an attempt to settle these cases." (Emphasis supplied). What I get from this is that some initial overtures have been made by Watson’s attorney to the attorney for the accusers. One thing that I find interesting is that you have 20+ events (some of the complaints allege multiple occurrences), but they all took place within a calendar year, from March 20, 2020 to March 5, 2021! I wonder what Watson’s budget for massages is. The claim that Watson is attempting to destroy evidence by deleting social media messages is legally interesting. Destruction of evidence is referred to as “spoliation,” and there’s a huge body of law that describes the various consequences of that, depending on the circumstances. It becomes really interesting in the context of a possible criminal investigation. While spoliation of evidence in a civil case can result in significant civil liability, destroying evidence of criminal actions is called obstruction of justice. And you can be convicted of felony obstruction, even if the crime you’re covering up turns out to be only a misdemeanor... like indecent assault under Texas law. https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/29/deshaun-watson-three-new-cases-allege-harassment-assault New Lawsuit Says Deshaun Watson Is Deleting Messages to Massage Therapists Three more civil lawsuits were filed early Monday morning against Deshaun Watson, alleging sexual harassment and assault, including one that claims the Texans' quarterback is deleting Instagram messages and contacting people who've provided massages to him. Watson, 25, is now facing 19 lawsuits, all filed in the past two weeks, about sexual misconduct. Among the three new lawsuits on the Harris County District Clerk's website is an incident from October 2020. The lawsuit says Watson assaulted and harassed a massage therapist by "exposing himself to her and touching her with his penis." That lawsuit also claims that "as a result of the repeated lawsuits against him, Watson is deleting Instagram messages and contacting those who formally [sic] provided him massages, in an attempt to settle." Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin told ESPN's Sarah Barshop on Monday that Watson has not deleted any Instagram messages over the last two weeks and "categorically" denied that his client contacted any of the women directly. "Like a lot of people, Deshaun regularly deletes past Instagram messages," Hardin said. "That said, he has not deleted any messages since March 15th, the day before the first lawsuit was filed. We categorically deny that he has reached out directly to his accusers in an attempt to settle these cases." Another lawsuit says that in November 2020 Watson exposed himself to a massage therapy student and was "purposely touching her with his penis and ejaculating onto her." The plaintiff of the lawsuit, who is a flight attendant but was in massage therapy school at the time, said that she had known Watson previously through mutual friends and "never could have imaged he would eventually assault her." Before the first of two massage sessions between them, which occurred at the plaintiff's mother's house in Pearland, Texas, on Nov. 6, Watson texted the student saying, "I even have a NDA I have therapist sign too." During that session, he continued directing her to his groin, per the lawsuit, and "repeatedly stated 'get up in there' and 'don't be scared.' " The second session between the two occurred just days later, according to the lawsuit. Among other details, it alleges Watson "kept aggressively moving his penis toward plaintiff's hand" and that Watson later ejaculated "all over" plaintiff's arm and hand. According to the lawsuit, after wiping the semen off of her and finishing the session "as quickly as possible," she told Watson to leave. "After Watson left the house, he sent her a text saying 'Maybe 4:30 pm? At Houstonian. I see you're getting comfortable with certain techniques and areas,' " the lawsuit states. "When Plaintiff declined the massage, Watson texted her incessantly almost every day afterwards asking for a massage. Plaintiff did not respond to his messages. Watson would also call Plaintiff almost three times a day. Plaintiff would not answer his calls. Plaintiff felt violated, disgusted and betrayed." The third lawsuit filed Monday morning details three alleged incidents involving Watson and another massage therapist, in which Watson "assault and harassed Plaintiff by exposing himself to her and purposely touching her with his penis." The nearly two dozen suits against Watson allege misconduct that ranges from refusing to cover his genitals to forcing women to give him oral sex. The news of the first filing broke on the evening of March 16 after Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee, who has filed all lawsuits thus far, disclosed the news on social media. The lawsuits explicitly cite events dating as far back as March 30, 2020, and as recent as March 5, 2021. The sessions reportedly took place in multiple states and venues. Watson denied the accusations in a statement on Twitter on March 16 but has not commented on more recent allegations. Watson's attorney said last week that he believes "any allegation that Deshaun forced a woman to commit a sexual act is completely false." An NFL spokesperson confirmed to Sports Illustrated on March 18 that "the matter is under review of [the league's] personal conduct policy."

Just for comparison purposes, Juwan Howard makes just under $2 mil a year at Michigan ... although I expect there will be an extension and a nice bump in that in the near future. Their paths to a B1G head coaching job were somewhat similar, although Woodson has much the better coaching resume.

From the outside looking in, and from someone who doesn’t really follow the program — or any basketball — very closely, that seems smart. I am interested to hear the details of their two contracts.

😅😂🤣

Or ... perhaps the thought process goes something like this: In order to return IU to the top tier of NCAA teams, you’ve got to recruit players who are potential NBA players. Woodson’s entire 25 yrs. of coaching experience is in the NBA. He knows how to prepare kids for the next level. That could be an attractive selling point to recruits. His past glory at IU will earn him the necessary grace period with the alums and boosters so that he can rebuild the program. That’s one way to explain it.

There will always be a shortage of good coaches, just like there will always be a shortage of good officials.

That was the rap on him coming out of UCLA. He apparently comes from a very well-to-do background, and some said that caused him to develop poor work habits.

I believe at some point Josh Rosen will emerge as an effective QB in the NFL. A first round draft choice who never really got a chance anywhere he’s been. The one real chance he got was with the Cardinals, who were horrible, and then they decided to go the Kyler Murray - Cliff Kingsbury route. He could flourish under Kyle Shanahan’s system ... if he got a chance.

Hopefully, they wouldn’t place it with one end zone so close to the building next door that the officials under the crossbar on a field goal or try have to worry about taking a ricochet in the back of the head.

They’ll keep him for this season, probably. They have Super Bowl aspirations, so I don’t see them starting a rookie right off the bat. Isn’t Josh Rosen also on their roster?

The National Federation has changed the rule on low blocking in the free blocking zone. So, it may be useful to review that rule, just to get everyone current. The free blocking zone (FBZ) is an area that extends laterally 4 yds. to either side of the snap, and 3 yds behind both the offensive and defensive lines of scrimmage. A player is considered to be in the FBZ if any part of his body is in the FBZ at the snap. Blocking in the back is permitted in the FBZ when the following conditions are met: The block is by an offensive player The blocker is on the offensive line of scrimmage at the snap and within the FBZ The defender being blocked is in the FBZ at the snap The ball has not left the FBZ Blocking below the waist is permitted in the FBZ when the following conditions are met: Both the players are in the FBZ at the snap Both the players are on their respective lines of scrimmage at the snap The block occurs in the FBZ immediately at the snap. Important points: Only offensive players can block in the back. Either offensive or defensive players can block low. Although offensive players can block in the back, and either side can block below the waist, no one can clip.