OT: Class Action Lawsuit filed against NCAA Alleging Unfair Business Practices wrt Scholarships
A couple of qualifications; This is my first post and I am not a lawyer.
Devin Pugh, a former Weber State cornerback is filing a class action lawsuit against the NCAA challenging the NCAA's scholarship and transfer rules. He was recruited by Weber State in the 2009 2010 recruiting class, redshirted in 2010, played in 2011 and 2012 and alleges his scholarship and grant in aid were not renewed when the coach that recruited him retired. He further states that Colorado and Colorado State were interested in receiving him, but backed out because his hardship waiver was rejected and the resulting one year residency requirement would only leave him with one year of eligibility.
I do no know what the laws in Indiana are, nor what precidence is out there, but it always seemed ridiculous to me that the NCAA essentially holds the player to a four year commitment while the school is only held to a one year commitment. Further, it can cause the player hardship by making him sit out a year if he chooses to transfer after his scholarship has already been revoked.
Further, the complaint alleges that the “artificial” cap on the number of scholarships that can be offered leaves student-athletes and the NCAA’s prior rule to prohibit multiyear scholarships leaves injured and other ineligible players without scholarships or the ability to obtain scholarships from other schools that would be otherwise willing to take the student-athlete in a competitive market.
November 7th, 2015 at 6:52 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 7:12 AM ^
Ah, so he got 4 years of free college 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and because he wasn't talented enough for the new coach or the other college coaches nobody wanted to give him a 5th year free?
Sounds like no basis since ther was no damage done to the individual or class. He got 4 years of college free - where is the damage done? He should probably get a job and move on obviously no one thinks his football career is going anywhere.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:15 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 7:20 AM ^
He was in high school in 2009. He was at Weber State from 2010 through 2012.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:23 AM ^
Sorry, 3 years of free college.
The poor thing.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:38 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 7th, 2015 at 8:46 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 8:55 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 8:54 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^
Let's make this an anology that you can understand. If you were promised that you would receive something for free, but you ended up having to pay at least $20,000 to receive that free thing, you would be pretty pissed off as well.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:20 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 7:37 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 7:56 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 8:39 AM ^
They vary place to place, but having to sit out after transferring is very common.
"So NCAA member institutions are getting together to set the terms of the market? That makes the NCAA a cartel which is illegal in this country."
This first part isn't news to anyone and it has already been litigated. You're just being silly.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:56 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 9:03 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 9:21 AM ^
The reason for the 85 player limit on FB is directly related to Title IX. Smaller schools, who could barely afford football scholarships found themselves having to have a like number of female athletes under scholarship.
November 7th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^
The 85 player limit was and is imposed by the NCAA and has little or nothing to do with Title IX. The reduction from 105 to 85 scholarships was far more related to the goal of parity than Title IX--which, to some extent, was in fact accompished.
One source: http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-…
November 7th, 2015 at 9:08 AM ^
how people speak of the NCAA as some independent institution that was created for the benefit of managing collegiate sports.
No, it was created to watchdog the members of the institution so that certain members wouldn't take advantage of certain issues to gain unfair competitive control. The insitution is set up like quasi government with college presidents have titular authority in deciding rules and direction of the organization. It operates at the behest of the schools and universities it allegedly oversees and regulates.
But the rules were created by the schools themselves. They were never designed to benefit student athletes because students were never represented when they were drafted in the first place.
There is legal authority associated with the NCAA and so whenever it investigates anything and seeks information, the requested documentation is sought based on member particpation in the process. The NCAA can't legally compel testimony or information from anyone.
The only reason the institution has gained longterm reputation as some quasi-governmental institution is because the schools and membership allowed it. And just like any institution with alleged oversight responsibility, it's power rises and falls based on the management of the institution and what college presidents authorize. They are in charge, not some nameless, faceless organization. They wrote the rules that govern their members programs and scholarshp guidelines. Why would they benefit students, that's not the constituency being served by the organization.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:56 AM ^
The sit-out-a-year transfer rule only exists for football, basketball, and (IIRC) hockey (or maybe the thirs sport isn't hockey; can't recall and it doesn't matter). The stated reason for the rule is the low graduation rate for athletes in those sports, and thus the need to take a year to get one's academic bearings in the new school.
If the rule were purely for the benefit of the school, it would apply to all sports. That doesn't make it a good rule, but it sheds some light on its purpose.
November 7th, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^
part of his case. His argument would apply equally to every scholarship sport. It would cause massive changes throughout college sports. It's also asking for Title IX to be ignored. Rules made in the interest of cost apply everywhere. They are not indicative of a business.
The best thing that will come of this is a requirement that everyone adopts the Big Ten model of four year scholarships. As far as the detals of his case, we are only hearing his side of the story. I'm a little skeptical that Colorado and Colorado State wanted a player that Weber State had no use for.
The NCAA has already changed their rules on transfer hardships. They now allow athletes to get a sixth year to complete their four years of eligibility if they transfer after redshirting.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/ncaa-drops-immediate-el…
November 7th, 2015 at 9:07 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^
That doesn't make a lot of sense, since other schools apparently wanted him. He claims that he was cut because a new coach came in. Was he the only one? I don't know, but we're only hearing one side. Maybe they had a very good reason for cutting him, maybe not. I think that's more on Weber State than the NCAA.
In any case, the NCAA has already made a major change in handling transfers. They still have to sit out, but can stay a sixth year to get their four years of competition. That sounds to me like a reasonable solution. I'm not sure what would be better.
November 7th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
The schools that make the most money would love to see them raised.
November 7th, 2015 at 7:53 AM ^
Aren't scholarship limits tied closely with Title IX? Good luck traversing that PC minefield.
November 7th, 2015 at 8:50 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 9:00 AM ^
fun to watch.
November 7th, 2015 at 9:09 AM ^
not the NCAA, he'd have a much better chance of showing "injury"
November 7th, 2015 at 9:11 AM ^
You can pretty much close your eyes and pick out any random NCAA rule out of a hat and stand a good chance that you have grounds for a lawsuit.
November 7th, 2015 at 9:16 AM ^
Seriously, how often are scholarship players in good standing academically and per program rules and expectations, summarily dismissed even with a coaching staff change? On the contrary, it is my impression that new coaching staffs work hard to keep players from leaving during the change of staff.
I'll reserve judgement as I'm sure there is more to this than first meets the eye.
November 7th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
If you are Michigan you want to hold on to your 5 star recruits, but if you are Weber St your new coach wants to change schemes and needs scholarships to get the Juco to make it happen some are out the door.
The truth is like any buisness they should be able to eliminate athletes that don't fit what they are trying to do. The athletes are student and pulling their compensation, as everyone here likes to point out, when they no longer require their service is OK. When they limit the ability to make a "living" going forward then issues arise. They are basically saying not only aren't we going to "pay" you we aren't going to allow you to make a living by rule.
November 7th, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 7th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
But you expect to be compensated.
November 7th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 7th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
November 7th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^
Just a heads up to the OP, looks like this was filed in federal court (US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana), so federal law would be the issue, not Indiana state law.
November 7th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
Pugh did play one season for the new coach, although he only played in eight games.
Here's a more detailed article
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3143185-155/college-football-former-weber-st…