Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Eugene Register-Guard)   Oregon introduces legislation to make college coaches responsible for legal fees incurred because of violations   (registerguard.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, Oregon, Attorney's fee, Chip Kelly, collegiate sports, legal costs, University of Oregon, head coaches, legislation  
•       •       •

991 clicks; posted to Sports » on 03 May 2013 at 12:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 12:16:01 PM  
I'm sort of in favor of this.
 
2013-05-03 12:20:03 PM  
Hmmm, interesting...
 
2013-05-03 12:20:50 PM  
I was going to make a Chip Kelly reference, and then I clicked the article and saw they did it for me.
 
2013-05-03 12:23:08 PM  
The bill, as introduced, would even apply retroactively to past violations

Yeah, good luck with that.  Yet another "lawmaker" that has no idea what ex post facto means.
 
2013-05-03 12:28:18 PM  
Chip got permission from the Office of Compliancy. They approved the checks. Gray area is still gray.
 
2013-05-03 12:35:46 PM  
Let's start with the Board of Governors and the President of the university, first.
 
2013-05-03 12:39:44 PM  
If Oregon completes this legislation, it will be interesting to see how quickly other states follow them.  Equally, if no other state enacts a similar law, I can imagine many coaches will never again choose to come to a school in Oregon.
 
2013-05-03 12:45:11 PM  

Wellon Dowd: et's start with the Board of Governors and the President of the university, first.


That was my first thought. Is there any example of a collegiate coach truly going rogue with any NCAA violations? It seems like every recent example (actual or alleged) indicates a systematic problem within the university itself where the compliance department on up signed off and/or whistled dixie during everything.
 
2013-05-03 12:47:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The bill, as introduced, would even apply retroactively to past violations

Yeah, good luck with that.  Yet another "lawmaker" that has no idea what ex post facto means.


You might want to go look up what ex post facto means yourself. In the U.S., it hasn't applied to civil law since 1798.
 
2013-05-03 12:47:42 PM  

Lucubrationist: If Oregon completes this legislation, it will be interesting to see how quickly other states follow them.  Equally, if no other state enacts a similar law, I can imagine many coaches will never again choose to come to a school in Oregon.


Even if every state did this, all the talent would just migrate to private schools
 
2013-05-03 12:48:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The bill, as introduced, would even apply retroactively to past violations

Yeah, good luck with that.  Yet another "lawmaker" that has no idea what ex post facto means.


Probably something about regulating inter-state trade, too.
 
2013-05-03 12:51:58 PM  
I bet there are provisions in the contract that would allow the Uni could to go after the coach anyway, if it wanted.  Or the Uni could try to use several common law theories to seek indemnification.  But they won't because it's bad business to sue your employees for things like this.
 
2013-05-03 12:54:40 PM  
That's a very good way to ensure no decent coaches ever come to Oregon again.
 
2013-05-03 12:55:22 PM  
Good luck getting good coaches.
 
2013-05-03 12:58:36 PM  
www.theskichannel.com
 
2013-05-03 01:02:29 PM  
This changes EVERYTHING!

seriously, sounds like a good idea
 
2013-05-03 01:06:19 PM  

Crewmannumber6: This changes EVERYTHING!

seriously, sounds like a good idea


Yeah, it might be a good idea if done right...

*then I read the article*

The bill, as introduced, would even apply retroactively to past violations.

Regarding how far those damages might go - could they encompass lost ticket sale revenue from an end-of-season bowl game ban, for example? - Barton said Wednesday he was unsure.


F*ck.
 
2013-05-03 01:07:05 PM  

7th Son of a 7th Son: [www.theskichannel.com image 300x431]


Sorry.  He is a Seahawk now and out of state.  His USC time does not count.

/12 Man/
//Forever//
 
2013-05-03 01:07:53 PM  

basemetal: Good luck getting good coaches.


You mean they'll have to get good coaches who actually follow the rules?  Oh darn, that'll be so tough.

Pockafrusta: Chip got permission from the Office of Compliancy. They approved the checks. Gray area is still gray.


Doesn't mean they were correct in approving them.  They should obviously share in the costs of breaking the rules.
 
2013-05-03 01:09:43 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Let's start with the Board of Governors and the President of the university, first.


The Coach has more money, but sure might as well add 'em to the list.
 
2013-05-03 01:10:21 PM  

Ponzholio: F*ck.


Even if the suggested punishments go up to "life imprisonment", I just can't fathom any way a bill of this nature could actually work. Like I said above, it should be pretty easy in most cases for the coach's legal team to show proof of consent/knowledge by university officials, and it will become a pretty messy civil case in a hurry.
 
2013-05-03 01:20:24 PM  
This is an interesting idea, but I suspect a bad precedent.   Let's say this passes, and is viewed as successful, somehow.   Someone will want to apply it to other businesses too.    Suddenly waitresses and waiters could be liable for food that is not served while hot or getting orders wrong?    Cooks for burning items?    Truck drivers for accidents?     Customer service and sales people for lost accounts?   Bartenders for spilled drinks?

Is there a slippery slope here?
 
2013-05-03 01:22:59 PM  

Ponzholio: Regarding how far those damages might go - could they encompass lost ticket sale revenue from an end-of-season bowl game ban, for example? - Barton said Wednesday he was unsure.

F*ck.


What if the school was going to go to one of those bowl games where the schools typically lose money because they can't sell their allotment of tickets? Do they have to pay the coach a bonus?
 
2013-05-03 01:29:31 PM  
Wait when did NCAA Rule Violations start involving the US court system?
 
2013-05-03 01:31:55 PM  

Cagey B: That's a very good way to ensure no decent coaches ever come to Oregon again.


You're claiming that there are no decent coaches who can avoid breaking NCAA rules?

// I mean, you may not be wrong...
 
2013-05-03 01:37:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You're claiming that there are no decent coaches who can avoid breaking NCAA rules?

// I mean, you may not be wrong...


There are probably no decent coaches that would want to subject themselves to increased danger of being financially penalized when there's a whole bunch of other states where you can go to your job and not be in jeopardy of a law suit against you personally because the NCAA thinks your role in recruiting may be questionable.
 
2013-05-03 01:43:17 PM  

Mercutio74: There are probably no decent coaches that would want to subject themselves to increased danger of being financially penalized when there's a whole bunch of other states where you can go to your job and not be in jeopardy of a law suit against you personally because the NCAA thinks your role in recruiting may be questionable.


I get that, but I'd assume that most coaches aren't planning on violating NCAA rules when they take a new job. (Presumably, the NCAA would have to prove some kind of involvement from the coach, like Tressel, Saban, Carroll, Paterno, etc.)

If they are planning to violate the rules, the NCAA should adopt this rule across the board, and schools that don't like it can form a new athletic association. The problem this bill attempts to solve is that there are ZERO incentives for a coach to not break the rules - after all, they can jump ship without redshirting, losing a year of eligibility/playing time, losing a scholarship, etc - other than a general sense of honor.
 
2013-05-03 01:46:42 PM  
Mike Riley better watch out there are coming after him.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-03 01:46:50 PM  
The school will buy an insurance policy for the coach, like companies buy directors and officers insurance in case they get caught.
 
2013-05-03 01:47:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Mercutio74: There are probably no decent coaches that would want to subject themselves to increased danger of being financially penalized when there's a whole bunch of other states where you can go to your job and not be in jeopardy of a law suit against you personally because the NCAA thinks your role in recruiting may be questionable.

I get that, but I'd assume that most coaches aren't planning on violating NCAA rules when they take a new job. (Presumably, the NCAA would have to prove some kind of involvement from the coach, like Tressel, Saban, Carroll, Paterno, etc.)

If they are planning to violate the rules, the NCAA should adopt this rule across the board, and schools that don't like it can form a new athletic association. The problem this bill attempts to solve is that there are ZERO incentives for a coach to not break the rules - after all, they can jump ship without redshirting, losing a year of eligibility/playing time, losing a scholarship, etc - other than a general sense of honor.


CEO's cannot be held legally liable for loses that their company incurs. If they did, no one would ever start a business. Why should it magically apply for college football coaches?
 
2013-05-03 01:49:38 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The problem this bill attempts to solve is that there are ZERO incentives for a coach to not break the rules


And they don't get cookies for being decent human beings, either. The horror.
 
2013-05-03 01:55:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I get that, but I'd assume that most coaches aren't planning on violating NCAA rules when they take a new job. (Presumably, the NCAA would have to prove some kind of involvement from the coach, like Tressel, Saban, Carroll, Paterno, etc.)

If they are planning to violate the rules, the NCAA should adopt this rule across the board, and schools that don't like it can form a new athletic association. The problem this bill attempts to solve is that there are ZERO incentives for a coach to not break the rules - after all, they can jump ship without redshirting, losing a year of eligibility/playing time, losing a scholarship, etc - other than a general sense of honor.


Absolutely, but the problem with the law, especially civil law, is not whether you actually did something or not... it's whether someone wants to take you to court over it.  Look at it this way.  If you're a coach and the NCAA is breathing down your school's neck...  who hires the lawyer?  And if it's the school, is it not a conflict of interest that the lawyer could conceivably get the coach off the hook, which then leaves the university open to footing the the entire tab if some wrongdoing is uncovered?

What really should be happening is this....  PAY THE farkING PLAYERS.  Then recruiting is just like any other economic activity.  You find someone you want to hire... and you hire them.  End of story.  Hell, have a draft.  It's not like every other national sport hasn't figured out the value of this process.
 
2013-05-03 02:14:43 PM  
Yeah... Not going to happen.
 
2013-05-03 02:14:55 PM  
I'm sure Nike's lawyers and lobbyists will kill this.
 
2013-05-03 02:16:46 PM  
Paging Phil Knight...Phil Knight to the Oregon state house STAT!!!
 
2013-05-03 02:21:13 PM  

flynn80: Wait when did NCAA Rule Violations start involving the US court system?


Jerry Tarkanian and the NCAA
 
2013-05-03 02:28:29 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Why should it magically apply for college football coaches?


Because if a CEO breaks the law, he's held liable.

It's not a perfect analogy (NCAA doesn't make laws), but if a coach can fark up and feel none of the consequences (even using his performance while rule-breaking to land a better job) while the school and (mostly) its players have their student-athlete careers ruined, there is a problem with the system.

How about coaches have 4-year eligibility periods (same as players), only coaches get them auto-renewed every 4 years? That way, if you've been a bad monkey, you lose your next re-up (and however many more after that, depending on how bad the NCAA wants to fark you), and no NCAA school can hire you. Doesn't solve the NCAA-to-NFL problem, but if a coach has sat out 2-3 years, will an NFL team really want to hire them?

// or we could pay them
// because everyone knows that handing thousands of dollars to twenty year olds never ends poorly
 
2013-05-03 02:28:47 PM  
Given the unevenness of NCAA enforcement and the variability of university response, I'm only kinda for this.  Some institutions just stonewall as long as they can, running up the legal bills.  Even if the coach has confessed every violation, he would still be liable for unlimited billable hours.  So, the next coaches hired in Oregon are gonna be named BearBryant, Inc., TomLandry, LLC., and KnuteRockneytm; a subsidiary of F*ckU Sports Management Services, a corporation registered in the Cayman Islands.
 
2013-05-03 02:35:19 PM  
I didn't realize that the Oregon Legislature had solved pension funding reform and school funding issues already.


/Kitzhaber needs to DIAFF
 
2013-05-03 02:36:08 PM  
This...this is kind of genius. The only issue being that, unless the SEC states and California do the same, it solves nothing. But its a great idea.
 
2013-05-03 02:37:37 PM  

Rhypskallion: This is an interesting idea, but I suspect a bad precedent.   Let's say this passes, and is viewed as successful, somehow.   Someone will want to apply it to other businesses too.    Suddenly waitresses and waiters could be liable for food that is not served while hot or getting orders wrong?    Cooks for burning items?    Truck drivers for accidents?     Customer service and sales people for lost accounts?   Bartenders for spilled drinks?

Is there a slippery slope here?


Therefore guns must not be banned
 
2013-05-03 03:02:05 PM  
Finally.

Now about those boosters giving money to players. Garnish all income till treble the payments are paid into a fund for buxom cheerleade...er, I mean, needy students.
 
2013-05-03 03:04:37 PM  

epyonyx: I'm sort of in favor of this.


Absolutely in favor of this - this asshole breaks the rules, then skips out to an even more lucrative job while his former employer is left holding the bag for this asshole's behavior.

Rhypskallion: This is an interesting idea, but I suspect a bad precedent.   Let's say this passes, and is viewed as successful, somehow.   Someone will want to apply it to other businesses too.    Suddenly waitresses and waiters could be liable for food that is not served while hot or getting orders wrong?    Cooks for burning items?    Truck drivers for accidents?     Customer service and sales people for lost accounts?   Bartenders for spilled drinks?

Is there a slippery slope here?


No, and you should feel a bit badly about posting such silly strawmen.

Here's a similar analogy - the officer of a corporation can be held personally liable for actions taken on behalf of the corporation.  That's the thing. The coach is acting on behalf of the school, and typically does so in a fairly independent manner - in essence, acting as an officer of that school - yet can easily skip out on the hundreds of thousands for which the school is liable as a direct result of the coach's actions, even if the coach's actions were deliberate or malicious.

My only concern is that this looks like a political bandage rather than smart law, but the sentiment is right on.
 
2013-05-03 03:14:55 PM  
Will they do some kind of math that gives the coach the credit for all the extra money brought in under his watch?  Oregon raked in all kinds of dough under Kelly.  Did they save any for a rainy day or violations?  His "liability" was already paid in the extra revenue generated in his time there.  Just because they didn't save it, really isn't his fault.
 
2013-05-03 03:18:52 PM  
So who would be liable in a case like Penn St?  Sandusky or all the people that covered up for him?
 
2013-05-03 03:19:48 PM  

Mercutio74: What really should be happening is this....  PAY THE farkING PLAYERS.  Then recruiting is just like any other economic activity.  You find someone you want to hire... and you hire them.  End of story.  Hell, have a draft.  It's not like every other national sport hasn't figured out the value of this process.


Title IX makes it almost impossible to pay players in revenue generating sports.  That is unless you want to shut down all mens athletic programs that aren't football or basketball
 
2013-05-03 03:27:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Lost Thought 00: Why should it magically apply for college football coaches?

Because if a CEO breaks the law, he's held liable.

It's not a perfect analogy (NCAA doesn't make laws), but if a coach can fark up and feel none of the consequences (even using his performance while rule-breaking to land a better job) while the school and (mostly) its players have their student-athlete careers ruined, there is a problem with the system.

How about coaches have 4-year eligibility periods (same as players), only coaches get them auto-renewed every 4 years? That way, if you've been a bad monkey, you lose your next re-up (and however many more after that, depending on how bad the NCAA wants to fark you), and no NCAA school can hire you. Doesn't solve the NCAA-to-NFL problem, but if a coach has sat out 2-3 years, will an NFL team really want to hire them?

// or we could pay them
// because everyone knows that handing thousands of dollars to twenty year olds never ends poorly


I've always wondered why the NCAA doesn't ban coaches.  John Calipari has left two universities with NCAA issues and surely Kentucky will be joining.  He gets no punishment?  That's BS.
 
2013-05-03 03:40:24 PM  
This would give birth to "coaching malpractice insurance."   In the long run, the insurance companies would be the only winners, and the losers, as usual, will be the tuition payers.
 
2013-05-03 04:45:19 PM  
Meanwhile, Phil Knight just buys everyone off.

Yeah, it's only the coaches...
 
2013-05-03 05:07:12 PM  

srhp29: I've always wondered why the NCAA doesn't ban coaches. John Calipari has left two universities with NCAA issues and surely Kentucky will be joining. He gets no punishment? That's BS


Sanctions should follow coaches - if the school is banned from bowl games, so is the coach. If the school loses a scholarship, anywhere the coach is loses one too. They'd maybe have to use a multiplier for cash sanctions (less than 1; most coaches couldn't take a $500k fine) and stuff, and pro-rate it if multiple coaches oversaw the violations.

// all depending on who knew what and when
// and Jim Tressel gets banned for life because a) fark that guy, and b) GO BLUE
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report