You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Colleges

  • Eagles run over, shock No. 9 USC
    Boston College quarterback Tyler Murphy rushed for 191 yards, breaking free for a 66-yard touchdown with 3:30 to play Saturday night as Boston College beat No.
  • South Carolina upsets Georgia
    Dylan Thompson threw for three touchdowns and No. 24 South Carolina’s maligned defense stood strong on a fourth-quarter goal line stand to topple No. 6 Georgia 38-35 on Saturday night.
  • Standings, summaries and scores
Advertisement

NCAA asks judge to clarify issues

The NCAA is going back to court in Oakland, California – to clarify two points in U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s ruling.

Attorneys for the governing body filed a three-page legal brief Monday in California, asking for clarification of which players will be eligible.

Wilken wrote Friday, in the landmark Ed O’Bannon case, that the decision would apply to athletes who enroll in school after July 1, 2016, or the next recruiting cycle.

The NCAA claims the term “next recruiting cycle” could be ambiguous and would like the court to establish a clearer date. NCAA attorneys also wrote that its member schools want clearer language about whom the ruling y applies to.

“Under existing NCAA rules, student-athletes in the next recruiting cycle (i.e., student-athletes who would first enroll in college in Fall 2016) may receive offer letters from colleges starting on August 1, 2015. Bylaw 13.9.2.2. NCAA seeks to confirm that the existing NCAA rules can remain in force until August 1, 2015, although we understand the injunction would not permit the NCAA to adopt or enforce rules inconsistent with the injunction on or after that date,” attorneys wrote in the filing, pointing out that is the first day schools can offer scholarships to players in the 2016-17 recruiting class.

On the second point, the NCAA contends, is Wilken’s language regarding the “licensing or use of prospective, current, or former student-athletes” could be interpreted to apply to current players.

“This has prompted concerns among colleges and universities that the injunction might, contrary to the Court’s opinion, apply immediately to current student-athletes,” the attorneys wrote. “Based on the Court’s opinion, the NCAA believes the language of Paragraph 1 refers to compensation only for student-athletes first enrolling after July 1, 2016. Otherwise the injunction would permit colleges and conferences to compensate current student-athletes before the NCAA’s member colleges have an opportunity to consider new rules consistent with the injunction.”

Attorneys wrote that they want the clarifications to ensure that there are no violations of the permanent injunction Wilken imposed, which allows players at big schools to have money generated by television contracts put into a trust fund to pay them when they leave. Wilken said there could be a cap on the money paid, as long as it allows at least $5,000 per athlete per year of competition. Individual schools could offer less money but only if they don’t unlawfully conspire among themselves to set those amounts.

Advertisement