President Obama and Oregon State Recuriting

Scott Soshnick of Bloomberg has an interesting column on how Oregon State men's basketball head coach Craig Robinson might benefit by the fact that his brother-in-law is President-Elect Barack Obama. The column is excerpted below.

* * *

You will end up at Oregon State, even though the Beavers finished 0-18 in the conference last season and even though only one OSU player -- Brent Barry -- is in the NBA.

You will go because Craig Robinson can promise something no other coach can deliver: a pipeline to the president.

You see Robinson's brother-in-law is Barack Obama.

``Being related to Barack and Michelle, I'm not complaining,'' Robinson told me the other day.

In case you're wondering about a night in the Lincoln bedroom, the answer is no. That would violate National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.

``But,'' says NCAA spokesman Wally Renfro, chuckling, ``it never hurts to drop a name.''

Perhaps you saw Robinson's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Would-be college basketball stars did. The coach made sure of it, sending a mass e-mail to recruits alerting them to his primetime speaking engagement. Robinson used a sliver of his time to boast about Oregon State basketball. "Go Beavers,'' he said in a speech that was part stump, part recruiting tool.

* * *

The Obama connection is enough to get OSU an audience with the best, which is all Robinson can hope for. "We just want the chance to be in the living room,'' he said.

Once inside, those who know Robinson best say he will impress.

Robinson, 46, is a Chicago kid. He was a two-time Ivy League Player of the Year at Princeton. He was drafted by the 76ers. He played basketball in the U.K. He has a Master of Business Administration in finance from the University of Chicago. He was a vice president at Morgan Stanley.

To read the rest of the column, click here.

Lawyers as Athletic Directors

Last week, Indiana University hired Fred Glass, an IU alum and Indianapolis attorney, as its Athletic Director. According to the Associated Press, Glass has "no experience in athletic department administration, but does have a long track record of bringing major sporting events to Indianapolis, developing budgets and fundraising." Glass earned his law degree at IU and had been a partner at the Indianapolis office of Baker and Daniels.

Glass is by no means the first lawyer to take on the job of college AD, although he may represent the first to transition to the position directly from practice. Clemson's AD, Terry Don Phillips, has a law degree from Arkansas, although he acquired that degree after years in athletic administration. USC's longtime AD, Mike Garrett, has a law degree from Western State University.

Glass's hiring may be a sign of things to come, though. The job of college AD has changed over the years. In the past, ADs were thought of as "coaches in chief". But these days, the AD's job is more about two things which may be consistent with a lawyer's professional comparative advantage.

First, the AD must ensure compliance with ever-more-legalistic NCAA regulations. These days, it is common for university compliance officers to have law degrees and legal training. For instance, Doug Archie, a Toledo law grad, serves as compliance officer at Ohio State (after having served in the same capacity at Utah). These compliance officers can prove themselves within athletic departments, rising to the position of AD -- but lawyers like Glass can also provide a legal mind as ADs to help ensure compliance with NCAA rules.

Second, ADs are, these days, fundraisers first. They must both raise money for their departments and help support university-wide development efforts. For whatever reason, lawyers have proven themselves able university fundraisers. The success of law school deans in acquiring university CEO positions -- at Texas, Utah, Rochester, Columbia, NYU, to name but a few -- is a sign of lawyers' fundraising acumen. ADs with legal backgrounds, like their law dean counterparts, may prove themselves as fundraisers as well

Decision 2008: Should the BCS Stay or Go?

Although there are obviously more important issues at stake in the 2008 Presidential Election, the elimination of the computer-oriented "Bowl Championship Series" system (better known as the BCS) would be preferred by one of the two persons who will become our next President. In last night's Monday Night Football telecast of the Eagles-Cowboys game, Senator Barack Obama said:

"I think it is about time that we had playoffs in college football. I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this and that and the other. Get eight teams — the top eight teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a National Champion."

Supporters of the BCS would probably disagree with Senator Obama, noting that the BCS--which came into existence 10 years ago--uses a complicated math formula for a reason: to ensure fairness when evaluating teams that play opponents of varying quality. The many critics of the BCS, however, would respond that the BCS is much more about making money for schools, conferences, TV networks, merchants, and many others (though not the players on the field) than about determining who should be considered the best teams. I should note that our blog has featured some excellent and critical commentary on the BCS -- see Geoff's "BCmesS: The 2008 Edition", Rick's "The BCS System: Could it be an Illegal Restraint on Trade?" and Greg's "BCS: A Collection of Haves and Have Nots".

One quick background point: although it is often linked to the NCAA, the BCS is not formally part of the NCAA. It is a committee of persons associated with the 11 Division 1-A conferences as well as Notre Dame who manage the 5 bowl games and who execute contracts with companies to sponsor and broadcast those games. In theory, the NCAA could promulgate a playoff system like the one mentioned by Senator Obama and it could effectively replace the BCS. But that doesn't appear to be happenning anytime soon, though perhaps today's election could change that.

The Redskins and the ADA

Does the Americans with Disabilities Act require stadium owners to provide hearing-impaired fans equal access to aural content provided in stadiums?

That was the question presented to Judge Alexander Williams of the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland in Shane Feldman (no relation), et al. v. Pro Football, Inc., et al. (also no relation). As you might recall (see post by Geoffrey here), three hearing-impaired Redskins fans filed suit against Pro Football, Inc. (the corporation that owns and operates the Redskins) and WFI Stadium (the corporation that owns and operates FedExField) in August 2006, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III of the ADA states that: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The regulations also state that: “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.03(c).

In October 2006, FedExField voluntarily began captioning certain announcements and pieces of information (in addition to emergency information), including, among other things: an announcement encouraging fans to cheer, a brief description of the previous play, the end of each quarter, penalties, advertisements and public service announcements, scores from other games, and the final score. The defendants continued to maintain, however, that the ADA did not require them to provide such captioning.

Judge Williams held a summary judgment hearing on September 29, 2008. At the hearing, the defendants argued that the ADA does not require them to provide captioning at FedExField because they provide assistive listening systems for hearing-impaired fans and because “all information that is integral to the use of the stadium can be gathered solely from watching the game.” The plaintiffs argued that the defendants did not provide hearing-impaired fans equal access to the information and announcements broadcast over FedExField’s public address system and that the defendants refused to provide captioning and other services to ensure that announcements made over the public address system were effectively communicated to all fans.

Judge Williams sided with the plaintiffs, holding that:

Defendants provide more than a football game; they also provide public address announcements, advertisements, music, and other aural information to hearing fans at FedExField. Presumably Defendants provide this aural information to hearing fans for a reason. This aural information is a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation. Without some form of auxiliary aid or service, Plaintiffs would not have equal access to this information. On the face of the statute, the Court believes and concludes that Title III of the ADA requires Defendants to provide deaf and hard of hearing fans equal access to the aural information broadcast over the stadium bowl public address system at FedExField, which includes music with lyrics, play information, advertisements, referee calls, safety/emergency information, and other announcements.

This broad reading of the ADA has caused a bit of a stir up in DC (though perhaps not as much of a stir as this election I keep reading about) and has resulted in a strange phenomenon—people are actually defending Dan Snyder. Whether other judges follow suit and what impact this has on other stadiums throughout the country remains to be seen.

Any ADA experts (or aspiring experts) out there who want to chime in with thoughts or reactions?

Chase Utley's F Word

Chase Utley, the second baseman for the world champion Philadelphia Phillies could have given some local Philadelphia television stations major administrative and financial headaches when he used the "F word" to describe his elation at his team's accomplishment. As can be seen in this YouTube clip, Utley says: "World Champions . . . World Fuckin' Champions" in front of about 40,000 fans at Citizens Bank Park and many hundreds of thousands watching live on television.

Imagine if the Phillies won two years ago and Utley made the same statement. The use of the "fleeting expletive" would have raised the dander of FCC chair Kevin Martin and his Republican majority, which had reinterpreted its traditional definition of "indecency" to include out of context expletives that bore no relations to sex or excretory activity. [for more background, click here]. However, the regulations were invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, ironically, the oral arguments in the case, will be held tomorrow in the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the stay of the regulation, it is unlikely the commission would issue any notices of apparent liability at this time.

I just completed an article on this very question that advocates the creation of a "safe harbor" to protect broadcasters from precisely this kind of situation. Titled " 'Fleeting Expletives' and Sports Broadcasts: A Legal Nightmare Needs a Safe Harbor," it appears in 18 Journal of Legal Aspects of Sports 175. I think this is the best way to solve this problem, even if the Supreme Court affirms the Second Circuit's invalidation of the rules.

Police Protection from Invasion of Privacy by the Press

In its relentless pursuit to verify whether it was former Knicks coach Isiah Thomas who overdosed on sleeping pills on Oct. 23 in the privacy of his home located in the Town of Harrison, New York, the press finally obtained the police report last Thursday evening. Interestingly, the patient's name was redacted in the police report as well as the name of the person who placed the 911 call. The report states that a police officer said he went to Thomas' home around midnight Oct. 23 in response to a report of "(blank) not breathing." It further states, "Upon my arrival I assisted (another officer) who was administering O2 to (blank) lying on the kitchen floor."

While the government sometimes withholds the names of individuals and other information for investigatory purposes, in this situation the Town of Harrison cited "unwanted invasion of personal privacy" as the reason for redacting the names from the police report. On the one hand, I applaud the efforts of the township to protect an individual's personal privacy because it knows all too well that the press simply won't. On the other hand, it seems sort of ironic that we have to actually rely on the government to protect citizens from an invasion of privacy by a distrustful press. As the press continues to neglect privacy in the balance against what it deems to be newsworthy, perhaps omitting pertinent information and redacting names from police reports will be a growing trend.

NY Times Examines NBA's Age Limit and Youth Basketball

I'm honored to have my study "NBA Players That Get in Trouble with the Law: Do Age and Education Level Matter?" discussed in today's New York Times in a fascinating story by Tommy Craggs on basketball phenomenon Renardo Sidney and the developing business relationship between the NBA and NCAA. Craggs also speaks at length with Sonny Vacarro and others about the relationship between the NBA's age limit, the NCAA, and how youth basketball is conducted. As a matter of background, and per the NBA and NBPA's current collective bargaining agreement, a U.S. amateur player must be at least 19-years-old on December 31 of the year of the NBA Draft and at least one NBA season must have passed from when he graduated from high school and the NBA Draft. The conventional wisdom behind this rule is that a star high school basketball player will go to college for at least one year, but there is evidence that such a player will soon be more and more incentivized to go to Europe for a year instead, as in Europe he can earn a six-or-seven figure salary playing the same sport for which he would earn no money playing in college.

Here are several excerpts from NY Times story (which exceeds 6,000 words -- it makes for great Sunday reading):

* * *

The N.C.A.A. has worked assiduously to curb the influence of these [AAU] tournaments. For years, this meant primarily a flurry of rules and recommendations, many designed to limit contact between college and summer coaches and to return the locus of the recruitment process to the high schools, where establishment coaches with better credentials could act as the key brokers between college and player. This spring, however, the N.C.A.A. and the N.B.A., with token participation from the A.A.U. and the shoe companies, upped the ante, announcing a five-year, $50 million effort to reform what the N.C.A.A.’s president, Myles Brand, called the “dysfunctional” world of youth basketball.

Fundamentally, the idea is to seize control of the mechanism by which players like Renardo Sidney launch their careers. What reform actually entails is unclear, but the deal calls for the N.B.A. and the N.C.A.A. to each chip in $15 million, with another $20 million coming through joint-marketing ventures. The contributions will fund an as-yet-unnamed program that will offer an alternative structure for youth basketball. The N.C.A.A. News wrote, “The new structure is designed to negate the effects of third-party influences currently working the youth basketball environment,” by which it meant “people who may not have the player’s best interests at heart.”

* * *

This summer, Vaccaro was instrumental in the decision by the prized point-guard recruit Brandon Jennings to spurn Arizona — he had not yet qualified academically — and instead play professionally overseas, sidestepping the N.B.A. entirely and making Jennings a wealthy man. (He was reportedly inspired after he and his mother heard Vaccaro on the radio discussing Europe as a viable option for newly minted high-school grads.) Playing in Italy for Lottomatica Virtus Roma, Jennings will earn $1.2 million this season in salary and endorsements. If all goes well, he will be a top-10 pick in next year’s N.B.A. draft.

To see Mayo work the phones, or Jennings draw a paycheck in euros at an age when he’d normally be running suicides for Lute Olson, is to see the players gaining the leverage that probably should have been theirs in the first place. For Mayo and Jennings, the supposedly dysfunctional summer game was in fact perfectly functional.

* * *

And here is Renardo Sidney, the sum of basketball’s newest fears.

“Renardo Sidney,” Reebok’s Christopher Rivers says. “Fantastic basketball player. Good kid, never been arrested, not on drugs, never kicked out of school, not failing classes. He’s a normal kid. Probably comes home late and spends too much time on his computer. But because he’s 6-foot-10 and he’s special and has the ability to make a lot of money if he continues his craft, and he’s treated like there’s something wrong with him? What’s wrong with him?”

* * *

To read the rest of the story, which is titled "The Next Big Thing," click here. For related coverage, check out Marc Isenberg of Money Players for his post on one and done.