Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

An LA County judge just struck down a show-cause enforcement for cheating coaches

SuperD

SuperD

Club Member
Club Member
Umm...if I'm interpreting this correctly it looks like there is a tentative ruling that show-cause penalties are now unenforceable for college coaches in California. Ruled that the show-cause penalty Todd McNair received for USC's penalty is an illegal constraint on his ability to pursue his lawful profession. So no more restraints on coaches that are the bad actors...just the school and the kids get punished? Its only a tentative ruling but I think that would be the outcome if its upheld.

Interesting that the judge is a USC alum...

https://t.co/gDpiNb3rZv
 
I need help. from a legal POV, how is this different than the bar punishing a bad lawyer, or the medical board taking away a doctors license, or the CPA board suspending an accountant? do none of those bodies have power in California?
 
hokiehead said:
I need help. from a legal POV, how is this different than the bar punishing a bad lawyer, or the medical board taking away a doctors license, or the CPA board suspending an accountant? do none of those bodies have power in California?
Click to expand...

Just a guess, but the NCAA does actually license coaches? There isn't a professional exam from the NCAA to become a coach as far as I know. Still a very interesting question.
 
I thought a show cause is a restraint against all ncaa schools from hiring the individual unless they show good cause as to why he should be hired and how they intend to maintain compliance. He can be hired but no ncaa school will because of the hassle involved.
It doesn't apply to the nfl non-ncaa colleges and high school. I can't see how this decision doesn't get overturned on appeal.
 
torerobuff said:
Just a guess, but the NCAA does actually license coaches? There isn't a professional exam from the NCAA to become a coach as far as I know. Still a very interesting question.
Click to expand...
There is an NCAA exam to coach. I remember that has resulted in delays on CU coaches being able to recruit until they passed that exam. Embree was a case of that. Coming from the pro ranks he had to get re-certified with the current rules.

Maybe where the NCAA limit ends is that it could say that someone has been banned from recruiting for a period of time. Anyone can still hire the guy for any position, but whoever did would have a coach who couldn't do any recruiting.
 
Buffnik said:
There is an NCAA exam to coach. I remember that has resulted in delays on CU coaches being able to recruit until they passed that exam. Embree was a case of that. Coming from the pro ranks he had to get re-certified with the current rules.

Maybe where the NCAA limit ends is that it could say that someone has been banned from recruiting for a period of time. Anyone can still hire the guy for any position, but whoever did would have a coach who couldn't do any recruiting.
Click to expand...
Only way that would work is id the position still counted against the school for on road recruiting, i.e. can't hire him to coach and some other guy takes his place on the road.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
Only way that would work is id the position still counted against the school for on road recruiting, i.e. can't hire him to coach and some other guy takes his place on the road.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even on the HC. You hire someone under a recruiting suspension, you lose all of the recruiting that position would do without being able to have fill-in from a non-coaching staff position. The NCAA could definitely do that as a punishment for a coach being guilty of infractions.
 
In response to some other posts, here are my (lawyerly) thoughts:

(1) If the NCAA claimed to be a national non-governmental licensing body, I think that the result would be the same--it would be a restraint of trade in this judge's eyes. Licensing is done by governmental agencies, mostly state, but some federal (like pilots).

(2) To me the real question is what happens when a coach hired under this ruling by a California school does to play an interstate game. If, say, USC hired a coach subject to the show cause without the NCAA's approval, and the coach came to Colorado for a game, could the NCAA then take action against the school because the coach worked for them in a location not subject to the protection of the California law which is the basis of the decision. I have no idea.
 
Buffnik said:
There is an NCAA exam to coach. I remember that has resulted in delays on CU coaches being able to recruit until they passed that exam. Embree was a case of that. Coming from the pro ranks he had to get re-certified with the current rules.

Maybe where the NCAA limit ends is that it could say that someone has been banned from recruiting for a period of time. Anyone can still hire the guy for any position, but whoever did would have a coach who couldn't do any recruiting.
Click to expand...
There is a test that a coach must pass before he can travel to visit recruits. It's on recruiting rules only.
I don't believe there's a test that certifies a coach in general, as a coach. At least that's the way I remember things.
 
There are some professions with licensing exams that are encoded into state laws: lawyers, real estate agents, building tradesmen, even barbers. There are some that encoded into federal laws: pilots, stock brokers, etc.

Then there are some that are 100% private: home inspectors (in many states, including Colorado), marine surveyors, and NCAA coaches.

In California, so called "no compete" employment contracts are generally illegal (side note: many economists believe this aspect of California employment law is one of the big reasons California is a hub of innovation).

The foundation of this is twofold:

First, there is a longstanding fundamental premise in US common law that people can neither have their basic human rights taken away by any actor other than the government (and even then only within limited legal due-process constraints) nor can they enter into any agreement (formal contract or otherwise) that gives away one of their basic rights (this is why endentured servanthood is illegal).

Second, California has established that outside of governmental licensing requirements, the right to sell your labor to whomever you want is a basic human right.

If given those two premises, the only possible logical /legal conclusion for a California court is that an NCAA show cause enforcement action is legally void.

I'm frankly surprised it has taken until now for coaches, agents and lawyers to figure this out. Under California law, the NCAA "show cause" hiring prohibition is nothing more than a extra-legal conspiracy by non-governmental actors to withhold a basic human right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top