I went to the Albert Osuna hearing today/ Osuna update

#77
#77
CAVPUT said:
So if I understand things....Pavia hadn't reached his 4th season in D1 hence the injuction in his favor but Osuna has used all 4 of his allotted years?
Click to expand...
I think the bigger issue is football generates $$$$$$ and thus pays elite players big money in NIL deals. Baseball is a money loser and generates comparatively little in NIL deals (always outliers but generally speaking true). The restraint of trade argument is harder to make in college baseball than profit generating sports like football and basketball (both of which provide 7-figure NIL deals to elite athletes).

For example, top SEC starting QBs reportedly receive ~$2M annually. When Chase Burns transferred to Wake Forest as one of the top pitchers in college baseball, he reportedly received ~$100K from Wake Forest in NIL $.

During his career, Osuna likely made very little if any NIL $ at UNC. (BedR Mattress supposedly had a small NIL deal lined up for Osuna in Knoxville). The reality is he didn’t have the name and brand recognition to secure any material NIL deals before displaying his prowess on the diamond. I wish the best for Osuna as by all reports he’s a great young man who has been embraced by the players and coaches. I just don’t like the precedence this would have set for college baseball nor bringing ANYONE in just 3 weeks prior to the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolGirl81, Sudden Impact, volsagain and 2 others
#78
#78
Coach V. is obviously very upset about the Osuna situation. I love that we have a coach with a passion and heart for the young men he coaches. I love the way he called out the press for inaccurate reporting in the Maui O. transfer and how that affected the team. Perhaps (doubtful) the press learns a lesson, perhaps (more likely) Tony sets the stage for the next BS story and has laid a foundation to keep his team together.

Regardless, I don't know what Tennessee will do for Osuna, but after reading Coach V's comments about the young man himself, not to mention preparing that young man for his future, regardless of if he ever gets a UT at-bat, I don't see how a parent wouldn't want their kid to be a Vol. Heck, reading his comments made me want to march on the courthouse myself!

Coach V is truly one of a kind and we are so very fortunate to have him.

 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, A.Vol70, NighthawkVol and 8 others
#80
#80
TechnoVol said:
Is there any possibility of appealing this ruling?
Click to expand...
I will defer to the attorneys for that answer. I bet the NCAA lands with allowing 5 years to play 5 seasons. Problem with not counting JUCO seasons is the aging of the athletes.
For example, a kid spend a redshirt year at JUCO followed by 2 years on active roster at JUCO (3 years total at JUCO). Then spend 4 years playing D1 baseball. Let’s assume he was 18 when he graduated HS (many now are 19), so he would be playing as a 25 or 26 year old versus kids that are 18, 19, 20, etc. It would turn college athletics to semi-pro and the average age of a starter would be 23 to 25. Most of the true freshmen and sophomores wouldn’t be able to compete with 24/25 year olds. High school kids would be virtually ignored in HS recruiting (except for the elite of the elites). Horrible precedence IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grnhead13, StarRaider, iVolSoHard and 3 others
#81
#81
taylorvol said:
I will defer to the attorneys for that answer. I bet the NCAA lands with allowing 5 years to play 5 seasons. Problem with not counting JUCO seasons is the aging of the athletes.
For example, a kid spend a redshirt year at JUCO followed by 2 years on active roster at JUCO (3 years total at JUCO). Then spend 4 years playing D1 baseball. Let’s assume he was 18 when he graduated HS (many now are 19), so he would be playing as a 25 or 26 year old versus kids that are 18, 19, 20, etc. It would turn college athletics to semi-pro and the average age of a starter would be 23 to 25. Most of the true freshmen and sophomores wouldn’t be able to compete with 24/25 year olds. High school kids would be virtually ignored in HS recruiting (except for the elite of the elites). Horrible precedence IMHO.
Click to expand...
Whole hearted agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knoxvol52, StarRaider and taylorvol
#82
#82
taylorvol said:
I will defer to the attorneys for that answer. I bet the NCAA lands with allowing 5 years to play 5 seasons. Problem with not counting JUCO seasons is the aging of the athletes.
For example, a kid spend a redshirt year at JUCO followed by 2 years on active roster at JUCO (3 years total at JUCO). Then spend 4 years playing D1 baseball. Let’s assume he was 18 when he graduated HS (many now are 19), so he would be playing as a 25 or 26 year old versus kids that are 18, 19, 20, etc. It would turn college athletics to semi-pro and the average age of a starter would be 23 to 25. Most of the true freshmen and sophomores wouldn’t be able to compete with 24/25 year olds. High school kids would be virtually ignored in HS recruiting (except for the elite of the elites). Horrible precedence IMHO.
Click to expand...

I had definitely been considering how parents of freshman athletes feel about their kids playing versus kids in their mid 20’s…hadn’t really considered HS recruiting, but what you suppose makes sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, chuckiepoo and taylorvol
#83
#83
vol66 said:
I had definitely been considering how parents of freshman athletes feel about their kids playing versus kids in their mid 20’s…hadn’t really considered HS recruiting, but what you suppose makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
From the original post:

The NCAA argued that if a juco player gets all of his D1 eligibility (as in playing juco does not count towards playing in D1) a D1 coach will say I want a juco guy with all that juco experience over a guy who just graduated high school and will have the exact same amount of eligibility as the guy coming out from a juco. The NCAA said that’s basically what the Clemson baseball coach said in a recent article this month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, chuckiepoo, taylorvol and 1 other person
#84
#84
@1RBFjr said:
From the original post:

The NCAA argued that if a juco player gets all of his D1 eligibility (as in playing juco does not count towards playing in D1) a D1 coach will say I want a juco guy with all that juco experience over a guy who just graduated high school and will have the exact same amount of eligibility as the guy coming out from a juco. The NCAA said that’s basically what the Clemson baseball coach said in a recent article this month.
Click to expand...

This makes total sense to me, if you can take a kid that has already been in a strength program, already has collegiate experience…why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, taylorvol and volz2wallz
#87
#87
@1RBFjr said:
I don't know if @Freak may want to merge or not.

I went to the Alberto Osuna hearing today. It lasted two hours. The courthouse is across the street from my office, so it was easy to attend. Other than the attorneys (and Osuna), the spectators were CTV, CFA, Hunter Ensley, Mike Wilson from the paper, and me.

Objectively, I think both sides did a good job presenting their case. I do not claim to have any special knowledge about the case, but as a Tennessee baseball fan who is also a lawyer, I knew I would be interested in listening to the arguments. There are many, many layers to this case; it's complicated.

A huge distinction was made today by the NCAA between D1 football and D1 baseball- money each brings in, popularity, NIL opportunities, and when can the athlete get drafted.

Below are my notes from the arguments. Most of the notes are my words- don't read into something that's probably not there. I'm not a reporter; you get what you paid for. I am an unabashed UT baseball fan, and almost all of you certainly know it by now. The hearing was two hours- I'm sure I missed things. Remember, you get what you paid for.

Rather than burying it in the order that it came up, I will mention that towards the end of the hearing that the NCAA attorney said the NCAA is ready to deny Osuna‘s transfer today. It came up at the * below.

Osuna’s attorney (I'm going to simply say "Osuna" from here all out, but I really mean his attorney): A student athlete attending a junior college is penalized when transferring to a four-year school. It restricts the student from earning NIL deals at a four year school. The athlete can’t sell t-shirts with his name on it or get an NIL marketing deal.

NCAA attorney ("NCAA" from here on out)- wants to “protect compatibility of the product.“ (I think what was being said was they don't want to have a a bunch of 26 year old (or older) players.)

The Pavia matter is still in court, under appeal by the NCAA. There will be a trial at some point. The NCAA thinks the judge in middle Tennessee got it wrong, Osuna loves that decision.

NCAA says the same baseball transfer eligibility rules apply from juco to D1, D3 to D2, and D2 to D1.

Osuna says the restrictions limit the athlete's commercial value. If Osuna can't play, he's not going to be on a t-shirt; if no t-shirt, no money for Osuna. There is no reason Pavia’s extra eligibility decision should not also apply to Osuna.

In 2023, approximately 20% of the D1 baseball players came from juco.

Playing one year at a juco costs one year at a D1 school. The judge asked "isn’t that decision of being made by the athlete if they go to juco?“

The NCAA argued that if a juco player gets all of his D1 eligibility (as in playing juco does not count towards playing in D1) a D1 coach will say I want a juco guy with all that juco experience over a guy who just graduated high school and will have the exact same amount of eligibility as the guy coming out from a juco. The NCAA said that’s basically what the Clemson baseball coach said in a recent article this month.

NCAA argued that the Pavia decision was wrong and used a wrong analysis (and that it was for football and not baseball). The Pavlia case (in Nashville) is not binding on the Knoxville court. NIL is big in D1 football and D1 men's basketball- it's impact is presently unknown in D1 baseball.

NCAA attorney candidly admitted that he didn't like saying Osuna's eligibility is over, but it’s the same rule across the different levels of baseball. At some time everyone's playing time is over.

NCAA: a juco baseball player can get drafted multiple times (high school, one year juco, age 21, after junior year at D1, after senior year at D1).

Osuna: if I don’t win in court now, it won’t matter to me because the trial won’t be until some point next year.

(Apparently there are other similar court cases going on in Georgia and Kansas, but no other details (or names of cases) were given.)

Osuna: the NCAA isn’t being fair and inclusive. The NCAA is taking away the ability to play D1 and earn NIL because I went to a juco.

NCAA says they are trying to prevent crowding out of younger players by older players.

NCAA argued that the Alston case and O'Bannon case decided that athletes get paid, but that they got paid when they are eligible to play.

* It was this late in the hearing that Osuna's transfer status came up. Importantly, the NCAA is ready to deny Osuna‘s transfer today.

(Osuna has a higher bar to meet because he is asking for special relief before there is a trial, but Osuna says his time as a player in 2025 is running out.)

NCAA argued Osuna has played four years already, just like thousands of other athletes, so there is no difference and he doesn’t deserve extra playing time that other athletes did not get.


Mike Wilson's article:
Click to expand...


This accurate RBF?

1741543061161.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnm53108, StarRaider and chuckiepoo
#93
#93
www.rockytopinsider.com

Tennessee Baseball's Alberto Osuna Pens Open Letter To NCAA Asking For Eligibility | Rocky Top Insider

Tennessee baseball transfer Alberto Osuna pens open letter to the NCAA pleading for extra year of eligibility while criticizing the NCAA.
www.rockytopinsider.com www.rockytopinsider.com

“This is your opportunity to prioritize the well-being of student-athletes,” Osuna wrote. “Grant me my immediate eligibility because it is the right thing to do. Because doing so would align with the principles student-athlete welfare that you say your organization prioritizes more than anything else.”

“If you were going to oppose my waiver all along, why did you tell me to file one?” Osuna asked. “Why did you allow me to enter the transfer portal? Why did you let all of the student-athletes in their last season of competition at a Division II institution enter the portal? Why would you not provide clarity when I asked for it? … How is the NCAA harmed by letting me play? It is not. But I am irreparably harmed by not getting to play in my final season.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritzwatch and VolGirl81
#95
#95
Aerie Vol said:
That diagram may be the most true thing I’ve seen in a long time.
Click to expand...
Except for the management part, at least in state government work. Then the diagram would be labeled “spend your entire annual budget” and “value procedure > results.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#99
#99
Do you think if they approve it all guys should get 5/6years including guys that played D1 all the time? They could not have NIL their first 2 years either?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#100
#100
taylorvol said:
Unneeded Distraction. Osuna will get the best coaching internship on the planet. That needs to be the focus now. His eligibility isn’t happening in 25.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but if CTV wants him cleared and participating this season, I’m good with it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top