@1RBFjr
That’s a terrible idea. What time?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2018
- Messages
- 4,056
- Likes
- 14,562
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:
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:
