CA State Court Judge Voids NCAA Show Cause Penalty
This goes back to USC assistant McNair and Reggie Bush recruiting. McNair lost the rest of the suit.
But as to the show cause penalty, which effectively keeps member institutions from hiring coaches hit with it, the state court trial judge ruled:
The show-cause provisions, Shaller wrote, "are void in California as they constitute an unlawful restraint on engaging in a lawful profession."
The PAC 12 and Big West, though not parties, argued against this ruling, as they claimed it might impact their ability to stay in the NCAA. Like that would be a bad thing.
October 10th, 2018 at 6:35 AM ^
then how would that court uphold any type of discipline for other professions that includes a suspension? case in point, every month i get a newsletter/email from the california bar that, among other things, lists all the lawyers that have gotten suspended for various misdeeds.
October 10th, 2018 at 6:52 AM ^
It's a good question. Courts are giving a hard look at certain actions of professional boards, particularly where members are solely professionals, as being a restraint of trade.
October 10th, 2018 at 8:10 AM ^
Does anyone have the actual ruling? I found several news articles discuuong it but nothing linked to the ruling or even summarized the rationale.
I can see the basic logic though. If you don't have a statute or anything that gives the NCAA legal authority to regulate the profession, then it's really nothing but a cartel.
October 10th, 2018 at 6:56 AM ^
The US Supreme Court has allowed state bars to regulate the legal profession for a while (it’s been challenged on many fronts, as you can imagine). Unfortunately there is no similar regulatory mechanism for being a football coach.
October 10th, 2018 at 7:09 AM ^
I was thinking about this - not a lawyer here, mind you - and I wondered if perhaps part of it is that, being a state employee, the ruling is saying that they are answerable to the state first and foremost, and in that case, being let go from one school doesn't (and in their view, shouldn't) necessarily ban you from working elsewhere, even though reputation might prevent it naturally.
Again, just guessing.
October 10th, 2018 at 8:01 AM ^
Also not a lawyer and haven’t read the ruling, but I don’t get what angle you’re coming in here from — isn’t USC a private institution, so he wouldn’t have been a state employee? Did he have a job offer at another UC institution that was pulled because of the show cause, or had he moved to one after USC but before the penalty was placed on him?
October 10th, 2018 at 8:01 AM ^
Reputation would probably *enhance* with a show-cause.
Not a lawyer, but I did take math in Ohio. Remember the inequality: Wins > morals .
October 10th, 2018 at 1:02 PM ^
It makes sense to me under California law.
From how I best understand it, the law is trying to prevent non-compete clauses in contracts if it is a legal profession.
for example, if a physician in a partnership leaves a medical practice, there will be a clause In The contract that says something like “you cannot practice medicine in a 25 mile radius” from the original site where services were rendered. This is a non-compete clause, essentially saying that you are supposed to leave your patients with the medical practice, not set up a new independent practice across the street and take the patients away.
Essentially, that clause in the contract can not be enforced in California (even though it seems to be in very contract).
On on the other hand, if that physician loses his medical board license, causing him to leave the medical practice, he can not practice medicine because it would beillegal for that physician to practice medicine in the state.
October 10th, 2018 at 6:45 AM ^
No surprise. The NCAA gets more useless.
October 10th, 2018 at 7:10 AM ^
LOL, can't the NCAA just disqualify any team from playing with a coach under show-cause? Pay that guy all you want, but every game you show up for with him on payroll is an L.
let the feds regulate that
October 10th, 2018 at 8:03 AM ^
1.) Lawyers could argue it creates the same restriction
2.) Feds didn't regulate this. A STATE judge did. Ya dummy!
October 10th, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^
States’ rights.
October 10th, 2018 at 1:05 PM ^
(Deleted, not a useful post)
October 10th, 2018 at 9:17 AM ^
That's pretty close to what a show cause penalty is, although it's not that severe.
The NCAA doesn't prevent schools from hiring coaches under a show cause order, because they can't. What they do is threaten any school that hires such a coach with the penalties his former school received. Show cause literally means the coach and new school can petition the NCAA and make a case for why those penalties should not apply to them.
If it's close to the end of the show cause period, the NCAA would probably give a waiver. If not, it might just mean probation for the time. Look out though, if that coach gets your school into trouble then. That's a risk most won't take.
October 10th, 2018 at 8:49 AM ^
So...Urban to USC?