Any news on usc ?

[boomermagic]

NM

[agoo758]

NM

Al davis took over the program, and fired Lane again....

[SoCal]

From the USC board...http://wearesc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124205

Hey all -

I've been reading a lot on these boards about a potential USC lawsuit against the NCAA if the sanctions come down "too harshly." Unfortunately, while administrative remedies (the appeals process within the NCAA) may exist, no lawsuit is going to be heard. Many of you are familiar with the reasons why, but I thought I'd share some NCAA/con law basics. For those of you so inclined, the basics of these ideas were set forth in the Supreme Court case of Tarkanian v. NCAA, 488 U.S. 179 (1988). The important findings of that case, relevant to any lawsuit we'd bring, are these:

a) USC is a private actor. The NCAA is a private actor. There is no state action.
b) Without state action, there are no fundamental rights to due process existing under the Constitution. As the Court pretty harshly sets forth in the Tarkanian case: "Embedded in our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is a dichotomy between state action, which is subject to scrutiny under the Amendment's Due Process Clause, and private conduct, against which the Amendment affords no shield, no matter how unfair that conduct may be."
c) USC is a member organization of the NCAA and contracts not to sue the NCAA. In fact, the NCAA acts at the behest of USC.
d) As the Court points out, because the NCAA is non-governmental, it does not have the power of subpoena. Given that, it must work under somewhat fundamentally flawed rules of investigation, including reliance on hearsay evidence.
e) Arguments were made in Tarkanian and other cases that the NCAA's power over collegiate athletics is too broad, with no practical alternative for member universities, to which the the Ninth Circuit replied in another case: "It is not judicial business to tell a voluntary athletic association how best to formulate or enforce its rules." (Shelton v. NCAA, 539 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1976). It is probably this quote that best embodies USC's likelihood of suing the NCAA, much less prevailing.
f) The "voluntary athletic association" argument applies even to athletes, whose privacy rights with respect to drug testing have been affected - partially on the grounds that their participation in NCAA sports are voluntary.

So what can USC or its student-athletes do? Very little, and all of them are fairly severe. USC could withdraw from the NCAA, but it would be creating its own damages at that point, and obviously will not occur. Under an extremely novel argument or flaw in the NCAA's reasoning or fundamental fairness, USC could try for an injunction, but they would lose for some of the reasons I've said above. And if some perceived shift in the NCAA's power since Tarkanian was the basis for any appeal, it would take years and years to reach the Supreme Court, if at all.

There are some interesting things happening in NCAA-related law, not the least of which is the case being brought by our good friend Ed O'Bannon and a class of college basketball players. If you aren't familiar with the case, check the web. But the upshot of this case is that NCAA restrictions on student athletes may violate aspects of the Sherman Act. Several lower courts have expressed concern about the inequality of bargaining position between athletes and the NCAA. Some believe this could lead to the unionization of NCAA athletes. At this point, some review of how a lack of due process in the NCAA affects student athletes may well come about. It won't help USC or its students now, but it could in the future.

Many if not most of you may know all of this (I don't want to be a big shot here - there are many better lawyers on this site than me). And I don't want to sound like I agree with the way the NCAA works. I have long wondered why member institutions don't just abolish the NCAA and create a much more lucrative partner. But with all the talk of a lawsuit against the NCAA, I thought maybe this info could shed some light.

[goingoneight]

Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes.

[badger]

Al davis took over the program, and fired Lane again....

Ooo! Ooo! We can all play this game!

USC sanctioned the NCAA for too much investigating of their private (NOT public!) university. The NCAA has self-imposed a five-year ban ban on dealing with SC, meaning they are banned from banning USC from anything, from bowls to accepting AP Poll National Titles.

[fossil]

:texan: HANG'EM HIGH!!!!

[goingoneight]

Coach Daniel Tosh will do the real damage to that program.

[Frozen Sooner]

From the USC board...http://wearesc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124205

Hey all -

I've been reading a lot on these boards about a potential USC lawsuit against the NCAA if the sanctions come down "too harshly." Unfortunately, while administrative remedies (the appeals process within the NCAA) may exist, no lawsuit is going to be heard. Many of you are familiar with the reasons why, but I thought I'd share some NCAA/con law basics. For those of you so inclined, the basics of these ideas were set forth in the Supreme Court case of Tarkanian v. NCAA, 488 U.S. 179 (1988). The important findings of that case, relevant to any lawsuit we'd bring, are these:

a) USC is a private actor. The NCAA is a private actor. There is no state action.
b) Without state action, there are no fundamental rights to due process existing under the Constitution. As the Court pretty harshly sets forth in the Tarkanian case: "Embedded in our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is a dichotomy between state action, which is subject to scrutiny under the Amendment's Due Process Clause, and private conduct, against which the Amendment affords no shield, no matter how unfair that conduct may be."
c) USC is a member organization of the NCAA and contracts not to sue the NCAA. In fact, the NCAA acts at the behest of USC.
d) As the Court points out, because the NCAA is non-governmental, it does not have the power of subpoena. Given that, it must work under somewhat fundamentally flawed rules of investigation, including reliance on hearsay evidence.
e) Arguments were made in Tarkanian and other cases that the NCAA's power over collegiate athletics is too broad, with no practical alternative for member universities, to which the the Ninth Circuit replied in another case: "It is not judicial business to tell a voluntary athletic association how best to formulate or enforce its rules." (Shelton v. NCAA, 539 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1976). It is probably this quote that best embodies USC's likelihood of suing the NCAA, much less prevailing.
f) The "voluntary athletic association" argument applies even to athletes, whose privacy rights with respect to drug testing have been affected - partially on the grounds that their participation in NCAA sports are voluntary.

So what can USC or its student-athletes do? Very little, and all of them are fairly severe. USC could withdraw from the NCAA, but it would be creating its own damages at that point, and obviously will not occur. Under an extremely novel argument or flaw in the NCAA's reasoning or fundamental fairness, USC could try for an injunction, but they would lose for some of the reasons I've said above. And if some perceived shift in the NCAA's power since Tarkanian was the basis for any appeal, it would take years and years to reach the Supreme Court, if at all.

There are some interesting things happening in NCAA-related law, not the least of which is the case being brought by our good friend Ed O'Bannon and a class of college basketball players. If you aren't familiar with the case, check the web. But the upshot of this case is that NCAA restrictions on student athletes may violate aspects of the Sherman Act. Several lower courts have expressed concern about the inequality of bargaining position between athletes and the NCAA. Some believe this could lead to the unionization of NCAA athletes. At this point, some review of how a lack of due process in the NCAA affects student athletes may well come about. It won't help USC or its students now, but it could in the future.

Many if not most of you may know all of this (I don't want to be a big shot here - there are many better lawyers on this site than me). And I don't want to sound like I agree with the way the NCAA works. I have long wondered why member institutions don't just abolish the NCAA and create a much more lucrative partner. But with all the talk of a lawsuit against the NCAA, I thought maybe this info could shed some light.

In light of Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001), I'm not so sure that this guy's analysis is correct. I think Tarkanian likely gets a different result under Brentwood as well. Brentwood's "pervasive entwinement and substantial reason" test articulated by Souter is the prevailing test, not Tarkanian.

[SOONERJOSHUA]

I heard reggie bush is the next black gorgee bush! hurray for USC:)

[PalmBeachSooner]

Thanks SoCal.

[Lasagna]

Still waiting

http://www.silentskulls.com/images/2Skeleton_at_computer.gif