* From the department of idle thought …
The Ed O’Bannon lawsuit hasn’t been in the news since March, when the NCAA delivered oral arguments in its appeal of the landmark antitrust case.
Three months later: Squat.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a ruling …. it has not upheld Judge Claudia Wilken’s decision … hasn’t reversed it … hasn’t asked Wilken to modify it … nothing.
Forgive me for wondering, but:
If the Aug. ’14 ruling was all fine and dandy, then why hasn’t the 9th Circuit signed off?
To refresh: Wilken’s injunction created a means for football and men’s basketball players to benefit from the use of their name image and likeness by allowing (forcing) schools to establish trust funds.
A maximum of $5,000 for every season of competition could (will) be placed into the fund, with the players redeeming the money — that’s $20,000 for a standard playing career — upon the expiration of their eligibility.
But the practical impact of Wilken’s ruling pales in comparison to its potential impact.
Her finding that the NCAA’s longstanding model of amateurism is flawed, and that players deserved compensation, created a legal precedent for other lawsuits in the pipeline …
Lawsuits that could have greater consequences for the longstanding economic model of college sports …
Lawsuits that could detonate the system altogether and create an open market for athletes.
(Jeffrey Kessler, COME ON DOWN!)
So why the three-month wait for a decision on the NCAA’s appeal?
* Maybe the three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit thinks Wilken was spot on with her injunction but is simply busy with other matters.
Implementation of the Wilken ruling, after all, doesn’t begin until Aug. 1, and that’s still a whopping seven weeks away.
(9th Circuit decisions typically take three months to a year from the time of oral arguments, according to a FAQ page on the court’s website.)
* Or maybe … just maybe … the judges have a problem with all, or part of, Wilken’s ruling.
At the time of the original decision, a successful appeal by the NCAA to the 9th Circuit seemed unlikely — the Association would surely need to take the case to the Supreme Court for a shot at victory.
Now, for no reason other than the passage of time and continuation of silence, it feels like maybe … just maybe … the NCAA has a shot.
If the 9th Circuit were to deem Wilken’s injunction flawed, if it were to rule the trust fund arbitrary and improper, then it would do much more than overturn a landmark decision.
It would potentially plug up the pipeline of lawsuits that threaten real damage to the NCAA.
* That’s all, for now, from the department of idle thought. Back to our regular programming (i.e., revised top-25 basketball projections coming Wednesday )…
xxxxxxxxxxxx
* Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
* My e-book, “Andrew Luck: Inside the Making of a No. 1 Pick,” is available for $2.99 on Amazon for Kindles and for other devices (PCs, iPads and iPhones) with the free Kindle app.
* Download the Bay Area News Group’s new iPad app for more college sports and other news, or check out college sports coverage on MercuryNews.com.
