Text Size   Decrease Font SizeIncrease Font Size
int_slide_copy

College Sports Law Blog



Bledsoe v. NCAA: OU Student-Athlete Challenges NCAA Drug Testing Policies

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Monday, 09 October 2017 22:05

Amani Bledsoe (“Bledsoe”) is a football student-athlete at the University of Oklahoma (“OU”).  He was highly recruited as a high football athlete and chose to attend OU over numerous other institutions.  Bledsoe enrolled at OU in August 2016 and participated as a member of the OU football team.  In September 2016, Bledsoe ran out of whey protein powder, so he borrowed an unopened container of Inner Armour Sports Nutrition: Anabolic Peak (“Supplement”) from a teammate.  Bledsoe ingested the Supplement on only one occasion.  Subsequently, he purchased his own whey protein supplement.

Read more... [Bledsoe v. NCAA: OU Student-Athlete Challenges NCAA Drug Testing Policies]
 

The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Tuesday, 03 October 2017 18:59

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (“Institution” or “Rutgers”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  This case involves the football program at Rutgers. It centers on seven violation areas: (1) impermissible recruiting activities by a student host group; (2) failure to follow the institution's drug-testing policy; (3) an impermissible academic benefit; (4) an impermissible recruiting contact; (5) unethical conduct by the former assistant football coach; (6) a violation of head coach responsibility legislation by the former head football coach; and (7) the Institution's failure to monitor aspects of its football program.  The seven violation areas, which occurred over an approximate five-year period, share the common thread of Rutgers and individuals failing to comply with institutional policies and compounding problems by further noncompliance with NCAA legislation.

Read more... [The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey]
 

The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: University of the Pacific

Print
Tuesday, 03 October 2017 17:58

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of the Pacific (“UP” or “Institution” or “Pacific”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  This case involved the men's basketball and baseball programs at UP. The basketball violations centered on academic misconduct and impermissible recruiting inducements. They involved three members of the men's basketball staff, including the former head men's basketball coach (head basketball coach). The sole baseball violation concerned the former head baseball coach's provision of impermissible athletically related financial aid to a student trainer.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 18:59
Read more... [The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: University of the Pacific]
 

Head Coach Responsibility under NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Friday, 29 September 2017 21:32

NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 states a head coach is “presumed to be responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach” and it is the head coach’s responsibility to “monitor the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.”  The risk of failing to properly monitor staff members reporting to a head coach is substantial.  In recent cases, high profile coaches have been suspended for three (3) conference games (University of Connecticut), nine (9) conference games (Syracuse University), and thirty percent (30%) of the team’s competitions (Southern Methodist University). On October 17, 2016, the NCAA sent the University of Louisville (“Louisville”) Notice of Allegations (“NOA”).  As part of the NOA, Louisville’s head men’s basketball coach was cited with violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1.  In pertinent part the NOA states:

Read more... [Head Coach Responsibility under NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1]
 

The FBI Is Knocking: What’s Next for College Basketball Coaches?

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Thursday, 28 September 2017 22:01

Earlier this week, the college basketball community was rocked by allegations of payments exchanging hands relating to the recruitment of prospective student-athletes and the federal government's  investigation thereof.  I have a firm rule in life and in practice to steer clear of the scrutiny of the federal government.  However, it is not always that simple. Coaches around the country are likely shaking at the idea of facing federal prosecution.  Federal prosecution, however, is not the only regulation coaches should fear.

Read more... [The FBI Is Knocking: What’s Next for College Basketball Coaches?]
 

The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: University of South Florida

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:47

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of South Florida (“USF” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  This case involved impermissible recruiting inducements in the men's basketball program at USF and unethical conduct by a former assistant men's basketball coach.  COI considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties (the institution, the named individual coaches and the NCAA enforcement staff) agreed to the primary facts and violations, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (“SDR”).

Read more... [The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: University of South Florida]
 

Randolph v. Notre Dame

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Friday, 08 September 2017 17:07

Douglas Randolph, a former Notre Dame football student-athlete, filed suit against Notre Dame claiming Notre Dame concealed the results of a spinal scan.  According to the suit, Randolph played the entire 2015 football season with damage to his spine.  Randolph alleges that he received a hit in practice that caused numbness in his upper extremities.  He indicated that he informed a Notre Dame trainer of the injury and his concerns were disregarded by the trainer.  The symptoms continued.  Subsequently, Randolph had an MRI where the results were not revealed to him and he was told he could continue to play. At the conclusion of the 2015 season, Randolph met with doctors who instructed him to no longer play football due to spinal stenosis.  Randolph claims that Notre Dame is negligent for failing to inform him of the severity of his injury and allowing him to compete while knowing he was injured.

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

Houston Nutt v. Ole Miss: Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Thursday, 10 August 2017 14:33

On July 12, 2017, Houston Nutt (“Nutt”) filed a lawsuit against Ole Miss Athletics Foundation, the University of Mississippi, and the Board of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning (collectively “Ole Miss”) alleging Ole Miss breached his separation agreement and breached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing.  The focus of Nutt’s claims pertains to various statements purportedly made by former Ole Miss head football coach Hugh Freeze that indicated various NCAA violations were attributable to Nutt, which Nutt claims are false and in violation of the nondisparagement provision of his separation agreement.

Read more... [Houston Nutt v. Ole Miss: Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction]
 

The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: Grambling State University

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Tuesday, 08 August 2017 20:50

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that Grambling State University (“GSU” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  This case involved five Level II violations at GSU.  Generally, those violations fell into two categories: (1) improper certifications and (2) well-intentioned but incautious recruiting violations in the women's track program. COI considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties (the institution, the named individual coaches and the NCAA enforcement staff) agreed to the primary facts and violations, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (“SDR”). Based on the current penalty guidelines to prescribe appropriate penalties, the Panel proposed additional penalties to the Institution and the assistant and head track coaches. The coaches accepted the additional penalties related to their conduct, therefore they do not have an opportunity to appeal. The Institution, via written submission to the Panel, challenged its additional penalties. After considering the Institution's submission, the Panel determined the penalties are appropriate and consistent with the penalty guidelines and past cases. The Institution has the opportunity to appeal the penalties.

Read more... [The NCAA Committee on Infractions Has Spoken: Grambling State University]
 

NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee: University of Mississippi, Former Head Women’s Basketball Coach

Print
Written by Christian Dennie   
Tuesday, 25 July 2017 21:37

On October 7, 2016, the Committee on Infractions (“COI”) issued its report in which COI found violations of NCAA legislation in the women’s basketball program. On the basis of those findings, COI determined this was a major infractions case and imposed penalties accordingly. The case related to the women's basketball program centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing academic fraud, unethical conduct, impermissible contact and head coach's responsibility.

Read more... [NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee: University of Mississippi, Former Head Women’s Basketball Coach]
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 42

Recent News

Ten BGS Lawyers Listed as Top Attorneys by 360 West Magazine

In 360 West Magazine's annual list of "Top Attorneys", ten (10) Barlow, Garsek & Simon attorneys were recognized by their peers as being among the best ...

[Read More]

Three BGS Lawyers Named in The Best Lawyers in America 2017

Elliott Garsek (Banking and Finance Law, Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law, and Litigation - Banking and Finance),  Zach Garsek (Real Estate), and Ben Barlow ...

[Read More]
 

Contact Us

Barlow Garsek & Simon, LLP
920 Foch Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Phone: 817.731.4500
Fax: 817.731.6200

Southlake Location
1207 S. White Chapel Blvd., Ste. 150B
Southlake, TX 76092

©2015 Barlow Garsek & Simon, LLP
Disclaimer
Law Firm Web Design by The Modern Firm