On College Football Live, I heard somebody mention that Tressel's resignation actually creates something of a problem for the NCAA because they don't have the ability/authority to compel his testimony. It made me wonder about a legal question. Could somebody, say an Iowa alumnus for example, sue Tressel for fraudulently depriving the Hawkeyes of the 2009 Big Ten title by knowingly playing players who were ineligible?

That might be a tough sell (factually so far Tressel's knowledge of playing ineligible players only extends to the 2010 season), but what about some other school (Boise State? Michigan State?) suing for depriving them of a 2011 Sugar Bowl bid? Again, a tougher sell because there's no guarantee who the Sugar Bowl might have picked had Ohio State not been there, but I'm curious if a legal case could be made. Truth be told, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of fraud, and such a suit would compel testimony...

USFFan

It's no tougher to sell than the Klien family's lawsuit against SI for breaking the Ohio State story...

(06-02-2011 09:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  On College Football Live, I heard somebody mention that Tressel's resignation actually creates something of a problem for the NCAA because they don't have the ability/authority to compel his testimony. It made me wonder about a legal question. Could somebody, say an Iowa alumnus for example, sue Tressel for fraudulently depriving the Hawkeyes of the 2009 Big Ten title by knowingly playing players who were ineligible?

That might be a tough sell (factually so far Tressel's knowledge of playing ineligible players only extends to the 2010 season), but what about some other school (Boise State? Michigan State?) suing for depriving them of a 2011 Sugar Bowl bid? Again, a tougher sell because there's no guarantee who the Sugar Bowl might have picked had Ohio State not been there, but I'm curious if a legal case could be made. Truth be told, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of fraud, and such a suit would compel testimony...

USFFan

Since the NCAA is a "member owned organization", it can (and probably will) put employment restrictions on Jim Tressel (if he wants to be employed at another NCAA membered organization in the coming years).

Tressel can do anything he wants (i.e. earn high paychecks at ESPN or become a NFL Asst Coach, etc...) but like what the NCAA has done in the past a few times (not many), NCAA could also ban him from coaching in their organization for several years.

USFfan, even in the hypthetical situation you mentioned, it would still be near imposssible to sue Tressell (and win) for playing players, who even if he knew they may have done something to jeaopardize their eligibility ineligble, had not yet had their due process nor actually been ruled ineligible. For that matter, the NCAA didn't even ban them from their bowl game after they knew about said infractions. So whatever slim chances another team had of winning the suit, when taking the lack of bowl ban into account, when rounded, there would be a 0% chance of winning.

Well think of just this last year, the Big 10 ended in a three-way tie so the Rose Bowl bid went to the highest BCS rated team (Wisconsin). Without Ohio State in the picture Michigan State would have won the tie breaker due to a head-to-head victory over Wisconsin.

Rose Bowl would have been Michigan State vs. TCU

I don't think anything legally can be done, but it is interesting to think through these scenarios.

(06-03-2011 08:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  USFfan, even in the hypthetical situation you mentioned, it would still be near imposssible to sue Tressell (and win) for playing players, who even if he knew they may have done something to jeaopardize their eligibility ineligble, had not yet had their due process nor actually been ruled ineligible. For that matter, the NCAA didn't even ban them from their bowl game after they knew about said infractions. So whatever slim chances another team had of winning the suit, when taking the lack of bowl ban into account, when rounded, there would be a 0% chance of winning.

All of the above and then the reality that this type of lawsuit would cost ton$$$ to prosecute as everybody and his brother would be putting up every possible roadblock to avoid any other liability (civil and criminal). Besides, the fan's "losses" are nominal, only the schools that allegely missed out on the bigger payday could claim an economic damage.

(06-03-2011 09:23 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  the schools that allegely missed out on the bigger payday could claim an economic damage.

That lowers the percentages from rounded to 0% to 0%. Michigan State could not even claim any losses, becuse they get the same payday no matter which bowl they go to (bowl money is pooled and eually distrubuted in the Big Ten. So that leaves only Boise St, who coming off a loss would have to prove that in addition to all of the stuff listed above, that The Sugar Bowl would have taken them over a 1 loss Big Ten Co-Champion or a two loss Missouri. Oh, and by the way, this would be all for about a $2 - $3 million difference in the payout of the two bowls to the conference, or about $275,000 for Boise State. It woudl cost themn 10 times that at a minimum to try the case.

(06-03-2011 09:38 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:23 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  the schools that allegely missed out on the bigger payday could claim an economic damage.

That lowers the percentages from rounded to 0% to 0%. Michigan State could not even claim any losses, becuse they get the same payday no matter which bowl they go to (bowl money is pooled and eually distrubuted in the Big Ten. So that leaves only Boise St, who coming off a loss would have to prove that in addition to all of the stuff listed above, that The Sugar Bowl would have taken them over a 1 loss Big Ten Co-Champion or a two loss Missouri. Oh, and by the way, this would be all for about a $2 - $3 million difference in the payout of the two bowls to the conference, or about $275,000 for Boise State. It woudl cost themn 10 times that at a minimum to try the case.

Exactly. Not going to happen.

Thanks for the discussion, guys! I agree that it's a longshot, but it would be interesting if a person with deep pockets and an intense hatred of Ohio State (say, a Michigan alum) decided it would be worth it to drag OSU through the mud.

USFFan

(06-03-2011 01:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  Thanks for the discussion, guys! I agree that it's a longshot, but it would be interesting if a person with deep pockets and an intense hatred of Ohio State (say, a Michigan alum) decided it would be worth it to drag OSU through the mud.

USFFan

A Michigan fan might be foolish enough to fund such a case...

The claim of a sports fan for his/her favorite team getting denied a bowl bid has about as much validity as the fan of a TV show suing a TV network for canceling his/her favorite show. THERE'S NO CLAIM.

As pointed out elsewhere, the schools themselves haven't suffered any damages because all of the Big Ten schools (including Michigan and Michigan State) get paid the same whether they go to a particular bowl or not. Heck, one could argue that the best way to make money is to NOT go to a bowl at all and just collect the conference distributions.

(06-03-2011 09:05 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Well think of just this last year, the Big 10 ended in a three-way tie so the Rose Bowl bid went to the highest BCS rated team (Wisconsin). Without Ohio State in the picture Michigan State would have won the tie breaker due to a head-to-head victory over Wisconsin.

Rose Bowl would have been Michigan State vs. TCU

But, "TCU vs. Wisconsin" was the better pairing.

(06-02-2011 09:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  On College Football Live, I heard somebody mention that Tressel's resignation actually creates something of a problem for the NCAA because they don't have the ability/authority to compel his testimony. It made me wonder about a legal question. Could somebody, say an Iowa alumnus for example, sue Tressel for fraudulently depriving the Hawkeyes of the 2009 Big Ten title by knowingly playing players who were ineligible?

That might be a tough sell (factually so far Tressel's knowledge of playing ineligible players only extends to the 2010 season), but what about some other school (Boise State? Michigan State?) suing for depriving them of a 2011 Sugar Bowl bid? Again, a tougher sell because there's no guarantee who the Sugar Bowl might have picked had Ohio State not been there, but I'm curious if a legal case could be made. Truth be told, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of fraud, and such a suit would compel testimony...

USFFan

You can subpoena anyone to testify in any court case as long as they have something relevant to talk about. So in a court case, then yes.

(06-03-2011 04:06 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 09:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  On College Football Live, I heard somebody mention that Tressel's resignation actually creates something of a problem for the NCAA because they don't have the ability/authority to compel his testimony. It made me wonder about a legal question. Could somebody, say an Iowa alumnus for example, sue Tressel for fraudulently depriving the Hawkeyes of the 2009 Big Ten title by knowingly playing players who were ineligible?

That might be a tough sell (factually so far Tressel's knowledge of playing ineligible players only extends to the 2010 season), but what about some other school (Boise State? Michigan State?) suing for depriving them of a 2011 Sugar Bowl bid? Again, a tougher sell because there's no guarantee who the Sugar Bowl might have picked had Ohio State not been there, but I'm curious if a legal case could be made. Truth be told, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of fraud, and such a suit would compel testimony...

USFFan

You can subpoena anyone to testify in any court case as long as they have something relevant to talk about. So in a court case, then yes.

An NCAA investigation isn't a court case, though. Basically, the NCAA is limited to speaking with current assistant coaches, current players and those working in the AD office. They can't compel former coaches or players (or boosters) unless they are working for an NCAA school.

(06-03-2011 04:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 04:06 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 09:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  On College Football Live, I heard somebody mention that Tressel's resignation actually creates something of a problem for the NCAA because they don't have the ability/authority to compel his testimony. It made me wonder about a legal question. Could somebody, say an Iowa alumnus for example, sue Tressel for fraudulently depriving the Hawkeyes of the 2009 Big Ten title by knowingly playing players who were ineligible?

That might be a tough sell (factually so far Tressel's knowledge of playing ineligible players only extends to the 2010 season), but what about some other school (Boise State? Michigan State?) suing for depriving them of a 2011 Sugar Bowl bid? Again, a tougher sell because there's no guarantee who the Sugar Bowl might have picked had Ohio State not been there, but I'm curious if a legal case could be made. Truth be told, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of fraud, and such a suit would compel testimony...

USFFan

You can subpoena anyone to testify in any court case as long as they have something relevant to talk about. So in a court case, then yes.

An NCAA investigation isn't a court case, though. Basically, the NCAA is limited to speaking with current assistant coaches, current players and those working in the AD office. They can't compel former coaches or players (or boosters) unless they are working for an NCAA school.

Yep, that was the reason why I thought a lawsuit brought on behalf of, say, Boise State and funded by, say, a group of Michigan alumni, could compel testimony from Tressel that would dig a bigger hole in Columbus.

USFFan